Merkle filed an application for habeas corpus with the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County, and on January 16, 1998, his application was accepted and the charges against her were dismissed. Merkle pursued administrative appeals concerning her employment status, and after 91 days of suspension and conciliation under the collective agreement, she again earned with the salary refund. Meanwhile, Merkle left his post in the district. This appeal raises a number of interesting questions arising from an alleged constitutional act committed by a local school district and its superintendent during the arrest and persecution of one of their teachers for the illegitimate removal of school materials. The applicant, Lou Ann Merkle, a former teacher with the Upper Dublin School District (“the District”), filed this complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at 42 U.C 1983. She alleged violations of their rights in connection with the first, fourth, sixth and fourteenth Amendments, as well as strict government prosecutions for defamation, breach of privacy, false arrests and malicious prosecutions. The accused are the District Chief, District Chief Dr. Clair Brown, Jr., and Sandy Run Middle School Principal Margaret Thomas (together “the advocates of the school”); and the Upper Dublin Police Department and the Upper Dublin Police Inspector Jack Hahn (together “police accused”). We therefore examine Merkle`s evidence to determine whether it raised a real material issue, whether Detective Hahn probably had reason to arrest her. Moreover, the common law presumption, raised by a judge`s prior finding of probable cause, does not apply to appeals under Section 1983. If “at the time of arrest . the facts and circumstances, informed [of the defendant] and whose reasonably trustworthy information was sufficient to believe a prudent man,” that he had broken the law, there is probable cause.
Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228, 112 P.C. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (citation Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 P.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)). Merkle has the burden of showing, through an overload of evidence, that (1) Hahn knowingly and deliberately made false statements or omissions in his insurance under oath for probable reasons that justify a lie when applying for an arrest warrant; and (2) these statements or omissions are essential in determining a probable cause.
See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 P.C. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Sherwood, 113 F.3d to 399. When questioned by Thomas, she told him immediately and dishonestly that the provisions in her head were useless and that she thought she had the implicit power to dispose of them. When Thomas questioned Merkle`s authority, Merkle immediately returned the supplies to the school building. Thomas did not consider distance to be a flight. Merkle comes closest to proving that she was persecuted for participating in the 1st Amendment: “The participating teacher, Nancy Markowich (who originally proposed the donation of chalk) was neither disciplined nor prosecuted, which supported the assertion of inappropriate motivation.” Br. at 31. But their argument here clearly fails because Markowich was not involved in the actual removal of the land and was not even at school when Merkle abducted him. Merkle cannot, therefore, establish the link between the school district that is detrimental to him and its activity in the First Amendment by showing that Markowich received different and more favourable treatment.
Whether Detective Hahn probably had reasons for arrest rests almost exclusively on his knowledge of what Merkle Thomas said when he interrupted the removal of the stockpiles.