Read the given scenario and legal Authority, and answer the following questions and explain why.

QUESTIONS:

1.Was there any probable cause for Detective Stone's arrest of Ms. Mary Robbins based solely on the photo array identification? Why?

2.Were there the sufficient facts which establish probable cause to such an extent that Detective Stone had no constitutional duty to conduct further investigation or to find exculpatory evidence? Why?

FACTS:

Jack Davidson was robbed by a woman he identified as "Sally Robbins or Robinson" on June 1, 2020. For several days he remained at home, afraid to leave the house, before finally contacting his mental health worker and explaining what happened. The police were notified, and on June 5, 2020 Detective Rachel Stone interviewed and took Mr. Davidson's statement.

Mr. Davidson claimed that he recognized the woman who robbed him because they attended the same mental health facility, Saints Medical Center, and that he knew her name because "...they would call it out. It's "Sally Robbins or Robinson." Along with that name, he also provided Detective Stone the alleged robber's height, weight, age, treating doctor, and eye color.

Later that month, Mr. Davidson was admitted to a psychiatric unit where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated until his release on July 16, 2020. While hospitalized, he met his current girlfriend, Kim Wilson, a fellow patient with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. On August 17, 2020, Mr. Davidson, and Kim Wilson got into a fist fight with "Sally Robbins or Robinson" at a local bar. The police were called but were unable to apprehend Robbins/Robinson; however, Mr. Davidson claimed to have secured the plate number from Robbins/Robinson's vehicle, which Det. Stone then ran with negative results.

On September 15, 2020, Mr. Davidson and his girlfriend made it to the Detective Unit to view photos to look for the assailant. Detective Stone showed them a computer photo array of all Robbins and Robinsons in the police database, eight pictures total. Mr. Davidson pointed to a picture and said, "that's her." Detective Stone printed the photos without asking, "Are you positive?" Ms. Wilson then viewed the same photos and said, "That resembles her smug smile." Both Davidson and Wilson signed the photo without being told that the woman in the photo would be arrested.

On September 18, 2020, the positive photo ID by the victim and his girlfriend was the basis for Detective Stone's probable cause to have an arrest warrant lodged against Mary Robbins, the individual in the photo. The Affidavit of Probable Cause contains a "positive" identification by Davidson but not a "positive" identification by Kim Wilson.

Mary Robbins was arrested and charged with robbery on September 30, 2020. That afternoon, members of City Police Department converged on her in public, exhibited guns, forced her to the ground, handcuffed her behind her back, and advised her that she was under arrest. Robbins was embarrassed because she was arrested in front of several neighbors and was transported to the City Police Department where she was processed.

After arraignment, Ms. Robbins was imprisoned for 30 days in the City's holding facility awaiting trial as no one in her wealthy family would bail her out. During this time, she was incarcerated in a section designated for the most violent offenders where she was continually terrorized, ridiculed, and tormented by other inmates.

Suspecting a potential problem with Mr. Davidson's testimony, Assistant District Attorney Canton wanted a line-up conducted because during a subsequent phone interview, Mr. Davidson denied making a "positive identification" and told Detective Stone, "That looks like her." When the line-up was held two days later, Mr. Davidson failed to identify Ms. Robbins as his assailant and screamed, "She is still out there walking the streets!"

Consequently, the City District Attorney's Office withdrew the charges against Mary Robbins.

LEGAL AUTHORITY:

To recover under State Ordinance 21 S.O. 4578, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the arrest/prosecution were illegal and that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him/her at the time of the arrest.

According to Jones v. State, 192 State Rptr. 534 (1993), the arrest of a person mistakenly believed to be another is valid under the Constitution if the arresting officer (1) had probable cause to arrest the person sought and (2) reasonably believed that the person arrested was the person sought. Once a police officer discovers sufficient facts to establish probable cause, the officer has no constitutional duty to further investigate or find exculpatory evidence.

In Com. v Hanson, 241 St. Misc. 503 (1995), in February of 1991, an art gallery owner, Mr. Cann, was assaulted and robbed while he was attempting to deposit approximately $12,000.00 in cash and checks at The Bank on Cherry Street in City. That evening, Mr. Cann examined police "mug books," but could not positively identify the perpetrator. In March of 1991, Cann was shown an additional array of photographs and positively identified defendant Hanson at that time. Based on this identification an arrest warrant was obtained for Hanson who was then charged with the crime. The court denied a motion to suppress the photo identification, finding that the pretrial photo identification was not suggestive, and none of defendant's "constitutional rights were abridged incident to that identification which provided probable cause for his arrest."