NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 20-1769
_______
MELISSA LEE ROTHERMEL;
C. R., a minor;
CHAD ROTHERMEL, parent and natural guardian
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA,
a Political Subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
several unknown employees of Dauphin County;
COLONEL TYREE BLOCKER,
Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, in his official capacity;
DAVID GRBICH, individually and in his official capacity
as an officer of Pennsylvania State Police;
several unknown officers of Pennsylvania State Police;
DALE KLEIN, in her official capacity as Dauphin County Clerk of Courts;
NICOLAS CHIMIENTI, JR., in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Dauphin County;
MATTHEW MILLER; RANDY ORLIC; GUS BROWN
Melissa Lee Rothermel,
Appellant
_______________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No.: 1-16-cv-01669)
District Court Judge: Christopher C. Conner
Argued on April 22, 2021
(Filed June 24, 2021)
Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
Robert J. Daniels, Esq.
Scott P. Stedjan, Esq. [argued]
Killian & Gephart
218 Pine Street
P.O. Box 886
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Counsel for Appellant
Howard G. Hopkirk, Esq. [argued]
Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Counsel for Appellees
O P I N I O N*
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Pennsylvania State troopers mistakenly arrested Melissa Lee Rothermel under a
bench warrant issued for the arrest of a person named Melissa Ann Rothermel.1 The
troopers mistakenly arrested Melissa Lee, whom they believed to be Melissa Ann,
because, due to a clerical error, the warrant incorporated Melissa Lee’s identifying
information rather than Melissa Ann’s. Melissa Lee sued, among others, the individual
troopers involved and the Pennsylvania State Police, for, among other things, false arrest.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
Melissa Ann’s name has been spelled with slight variation in different contexts. For
purposes of this appeal, we use this spelling unless otherwise noted.
2
The District Court granted summary judgment to Appellees and Melissa Lee appealed.
We will affirm.
I.
As we write for the parties who are acquainted with the facts of this case, we
provide the following background only as necessary to resolve this appeal.
On February 16, 2015, Melissa Lee and her daughter were driving home from a
shopping trip. Trooper David Grbich, who was driving along the same route, noticed
Melissa Lee’s car had a 2014 inspection sticker. Grbich ran Melissa Lee’s license plate
through the state law enforcement records system. While the search showed that the car
inspection was current, the search also showed that there was a potential match between
the registrant of the car—Melissa Lee Rothermel—and the target of an outstanding bench
warrant, a person named “Mellissa Ann Rothermel . . . a/k/a Melissa Ann Rothermel.”
App. 194.
Unbeknownst to Trooper Grbich and Melissa Lee, this match was made possible
only by clerical errors committed six years earlier in connection with the prosecution of
another woman with a similar name, Melissa Ann. In 2009, a police officer prepared a
criminal complaint against Melissa Ann. In preparing the complaint, however, the officer
misspelled Melissa Ann’s name and, crucially, mistakenly incorporated Melissa Lee’s
identifying information. Though the complaint properly charged Melissa Ann, it
erroneously described Melissa Ann as having Melissa Lee’s identifying information.
This error went undetected by Melissa Ann, law enforcement, the courts, and
various county government agencies for years. Indeed, Melissa Ann, despite the errors in
3
the complaint, pled guilty and was sentenced to probation. And, curiously, at various
points, Melissa Ann confirmed that Melissa Lee’s information was her own, thus
preventing law enforcement from detecting the error.
Later, in 2011, Melissa Ann violated her probation and then failed to appear for
her probation revocation hearing. Accordingly, the Dauphin County Court of Common
Pleas ordered a bench warrant be issued for her arrest. In preparing the warrant,
however, the clerk’s office referred to the erroneous identification information first
introduced by the police officer who prepared the criminal complaint in 2009. Thus, the
warrant, like the initial criminal complaint, properly identified Melissa Ann, but
improperly described Melissa Ann as having Melissa Lee’s information.
Having no knowledge of these events, an unwitting Trooper Grbich stopped an
unwitting Melissa Lee to investigate the possibility that she was wanted under a bench
warrant. Melissa Lee gave Grbich her license and registration. He then radioed his
dispatcher who confirmed with the Dauphin County Sherriff’s Office that the bench
warrant, which was issued about four years earlier, remained active. While Grbich noted
that the warrant’s target had a different middle name from Melissa Lee, nearly all other
identifying information appearing in the records system matched. Melissa Lee’s date of
birth matched the date of birth listed. Melissa Lee’s Social Security number, driver’s
license number, height, eye color, and sex all matched that of the warrant’s target. While
Melissa Lee’s weight did not match, Grbich did not consider the mismatch a notable
discrepancy because of the number of years that had elapsed since the issuance of the
4
warrant. Trooper Matthew Miller would later similarly discount the mismatch in weight
because “people can gain weight.” App. 221.
Having confirmed the bench warrant was active and having matched all
identifying information but the middle name and weight of the warrant’s target to Melissa
Lee, Grbich arrested Melissa Lee over her claims of innocence. Grbich then radioed
Trooper Matthew Miller to transport Melissa Lee to the Dauphin County Prison while
Grbich transported Melissa Lee’s daughter to a nearby friend’s or relative’s house.
Melissa Lee remained in custody at the Dauphin County Prison for almost two days
before authorities discovered that she had incorrectly been identified as Melissa Ann.
After a hearing, the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas acknowledged that the
warrant it issued four years earlier erroneously incorporated Melissa Lee’s identifying
information instead of Melissa Ann’s. Thus, the state court directed the warrant be “re-
issued with the corrected information.” App. 288.
Later, Melissa Lee initiated this civil rights suit against a host of governmental
actors for their roles in her mistaken identification and arrest. The District Court granted
summary judgment to the defendants and Melissa Lee filed this timely appeal.
Ultimately, Melissa Lee voluntarily dismissed or settled all claims except those against
individual Troopers Grbich and Miller and the Pennsylvania State Police.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo.
Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortg. Servs., L.P., 785
5
F.3d 96, 100 (3d Cir. 2015). Summary judgment is appropriate where, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent, “no genuine dispute exists as to
any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Montone v. Jersey City, 709 F.3d 181, 189 (3d Cir. 2013).
III.
At base, Melissa Lee urges this Court to reverse the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment to Appellees because she was arrested under a bench warrant that
“was clearly not valid.” Appellant’s Br. 14. We disagree.
While the bench warrant admittedly contained errors, principally the erroneous
incorporation of some of Melissa Lee’s identifying information rather than the named
target’s, the warrant was not invalid. Despite these errors, we conclude that the bench
warrant was validly issued and supplied probable cause to arrest Melissa Ann. Troopers
Grbich and Miller’s arrest of Melissa Lee, though unfortunate, was, nevertheless, valid
because their mistaken arrest was reasonable under the circumstances. Although we are
sympathetic to the psychic and emotional injury endured by Melissa Lee, she was not
arrested without probable cause in violation of the Constitution and, thus, she suffered no
constitutional injury. As she suffered no constitutional injury, her claims, as the District
Court rightly concluded, fail as a matter of law.
“[M]ere technical error[s] do[] not automatically invalidate [a] warrant.” United
States v. Carter, 756 F.2d 310, 313 (3d Cir. 1985). The question of whether any errors in
a warrant render the warrant invalid turns on “whether there has been such a variance as
to affect the substantial rights of the accused.” Id. (quoting Cromer v. United States, 142
6
F.2d 697, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1944)) (internal quotation marks omitted). An accused’s
substantial rights are affected when the errors in a warrant affect “the elements of the
charged offense.” Id.
Here, the errors in the bench warrant under which Melissa Lee was arrested did
not affect the validity of the warrant because the errors did not affect Melissa Ann’s—the
accused’s—substantial rights. The warrant correctly identified Melissa Ann as the target
of arrest for her failure to appear at her 2011 probation revocation hearing. That clerical
error resulted in a misspelling of Melissa Ann’s name and the mistaken incorporation of
Melissa Lee’s identifying information into the warrant did nothing to undermine the
probable cause that existed to arrest Melissa Ann for her violation. Thus, we agree with
the District Court’s conclusion that “there can be no genuine dispute as to the validity of
the bench warrant issued for Melissa Ann.” App. 65.
Although Melissa Lee relies heavily upon our decision in Berg to support her
argument that the bench warrant was invalid, her reliance is misplaced. Berg v. Cnty. of
Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2000). In Berg, we held that “an erroneously issued
warrant cannot provide probable cause for an arrest.” Id. at 270. There, we concluded
that where a warrant was erroneously issued for the arrest of the plaintiff who was
innocent of any crime, the warrant could not supply a constable with probable cause to
arrest him especially because the plaintiff presented dispositive, exculpatory evidence to
the constable at the time of arrest. Id. at 267–68. This case is distinct from Berg because
the bench warrant here was properly issued, though it contained clerical errors, for the
7
arrest of Melissa Ann who failed to appear for her 2011 court hearing. Unlike the
plaintiff in Berg, who was innocent of any crime, Melissa Ann was not.
As the warrant supplied probable cause to arrest Melissa Ann, Troopers Grbich
and Miller’s arrest of Melissa Lee, while later proven to be mistaken, was valid. It is
well-established that “when the police have probable cause to arrest one party, and [] they
reasonably mistake a second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is
a valid arrest.” Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 802 (1971) (quoting People v. Hill, 446
P.2d 521, 523 (Cal. 1968)).
In this case, Troopers Grbich and Miller, confronted with a warrant confirmed by
the Dauphin County Sheriff’s Office to be active and containing a description matching
Melissa Lee in all respects but her middle name and weight, reasonably mistook Melissa
Lee as the person sought by the warrant. The discrepancy in the middle name was easily
discounted because the warrant provided one alias for the target by identifying “Mellisa
Ann . . . a/k/a Melissa Ann.” See Hill, 401 U.S. at 803 (recognizing that in law
enforcement “aliases and false identifications are not uncommon”). Trooper Grbich
himself also explained that the discrepancy in weight was of little relevance because of
the “length of time that had passed since the warrant was issued—almost four years . . . .”
App. 34. As the District Court noted, under these circumstances, “no rational juror could
find that Troopers Grbich and Miller acted unreasonably.” App. 68. Thus, their arrest of
Melissa Lee was valid and did not violate the Constitution, and her claims against the
troopers fail. And just as her claims against the troopers fail for this reason, so too does
her claim against the Pennsylvania State Police fail. See Mullholland v. Gov’t Cnty. of
8
Berks, 706 F.3d 227, 238 n.15 (3d Cir. 2013) (“It is well-settled that, if there is no
[constitutional] violation in the first place, there can be no derivative municipal claim.”).
Finally, even if we were to conclude that Melissa Lee’s mistaken arrest was not
justified by probable cause, we agree with the District Court that her claims against
Troopers Grbich and Miller would also be barred by qualified immunity. “[Q]ualified
immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.” Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan,
555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Whether qualified immunity applies depends on “(1) whether the plaintiff
sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was
‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct.” L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.,
836 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232). “A Government
official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged
conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official
would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).
“Ordinarily, it is reasonable for an officer to assume that a warrant has been issued for
probable cause . . . [and], [t]herefore, we have generally extended immunity to an officer
who makes an arrest based on an objectively reasonable belief that there is a valid
warrant.” Berg, 219 F.3d at 272–73. Of course, “an apparently valid warrant does not
9
render an officer immune from suit if his reliance on it is unreasonable in light of the
relevant circumstances.” Id.
Here, not only do we conclude that Melissa Lee suffered no constitutional injury
and, therefore, Troopers Grbich and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity for their
conduct, but we also agree with the District Court’s conclusion that they are further
entitled to qualified immunity because “no rational juror could find that Trooper Grbich
or Trooper Miller acted unreasonably.” App. 68. As the District Court explained, the
troopers “had probable cause to arrest based on a facially valid warrant and reasonably
concluded—as any objectively reasonable officer could have based on a near-perfect
match of identifiers—that Melissa Lee was the individual sought by that warrant.” App.
69.
IV.
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
10