Washington v. Durand

Plaintiff was arrested on a warrant based on tip from a CI and photographic identification by co-perpetrator who had already confessed; when co-perpetrator saw plaintiff in person he said she was not the perpetrator; failure to release plaintiff promptly or to return to magistrate to inform him of non-identification did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights; probable cause persisted throughout detention, officer was entitled to rely on facially valid and lawfully obtained warrant, and officer did not take affirmative action to continue the prosecution; in revisionist opinion by Judge William Pryor, probable cause defined, paraphrasing District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 586 (2018) as “whether a reasonable officer could conclude … that there was a substantial chance of criminal activity,” and rejecting what court characterizes as the “older standard”: “facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information … [that] would cause a prudent person to believe … that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.