Fil-Am lawyer loses in ‘fake’ $100 bill case

CHICAGO – Prominent Filipino-American lawyer Rodel E. Rodis lost in his appeal before United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, California on March 9 when the court ruled that the two San Francisco police officers who arrested him for possession of an alleged phony $100 bill enjoyed “qualified immunity" because his arrest “was not clearly established as unlawful."
 Reacting to the adverse ruling, Rodis, a San Francisco-based lawyer and a locally elected official, said in his column, “I'm extremely disappointed. This ruling gives the police the unfettered license to arrest anyone for the flimsiest of reasons without having to use common sense."
 He added, “I will appeal the Ninth Circuit’s new decision all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary."
 Rodis believes one of the arresting officers, who had a heated argument with him five years before his arrest, “must have viewed" the opportunity to arrest him as “payback" time. “He would show me who’s the boss." 
 Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the US District Court for the Northern District of California initially rejected the claim of “qualified immunity" by the police officers. But the officers filed an “interlocutory appeal" and in 2007, this was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.
The officers, then, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the US Supreme Court, which granted the officers’ petition and vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further consideration in light of a new case, Pearson v. Callahan (Jan. 21, 2009). The Ninth Circuit reversed itself.
 Rodis was arrested for possession of an alleged fake $100 bill that turned out to be genuine in a drugstore near his office in San Francisco on Feb. 17, 2003.
 He tendered to a Walgreens store a 1985 series $100 bill, which lacked the security thread, watermarks, microprinting, and other anti-counterfeiting features of current $100 bills.
 The cashier examined the bill for authenticity, asked the store manager, Dennis Snopikov, for assistance. Because he suspected that the bill was counterfeit, Snopikov took it to the store office to compare it to other $100 bills in the store’s safe.
 While Snopikov was in the office, Rodis pulled another $100 bill from his wallet and paid the cashier, who determined it to be genuine.
Snopikov returned to the front of the store and tested the bill with a counterfeit detector pen, which indicated it was authentic. 
 Snopikov remained suspicious, however, because of the bill’s appearance and texture and told Rodis he was going to call the police so that they could settle the issue. 
 Frustrated with the delay, Rodis remained in the store willingly until police arrived.
Sergeant Barry and Officer Liddicoet and two other police officers arrived on the scene. The officers examined the bill and tried the counterfeit detector pen on a folder – the marking, however, indicated that the folder was also genuine US currency. Still concluding that the bill was probably counterfeit, they called a US Secret Service to get an expert opinion. Because they believed it would be easiest to continue the investigation in the police station, they arrested Rodis on suspicion of violation of 18 USC. Section 472, which criminalizes the possession and use of counterfeit currency.
 Liddicoet and another officer handcuffed Rodis and brought him to the police station. Rodis was restrained while the officers called the Secret Service hotline and left a message. After 30 minutes, a Secret Service agent returned the call. 
After 10 minutes of discussion with the officers, the Secret Service agent determined the bill was genuine. The officers removed his handcuffs, released Rodis from custody and drove him back to the drug store. The entire episode lasted for an hour.
 On Oct. 1, 2003, Rodis filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department, the police chief, and Sergeant Barry and Officer Liddicoet for false arrest and use of excessive force in violation of Rodis’ Fourth Amendment rights, conspiracy to violate Rodis’ rights, as well as several state law claims, including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
 On Feb. 11, 2005, the District Court granted Rodis’ motion for conspiracy, municipal liability and injunctive relief claims and denied all other motions.
The court held that because Barry and Liddicoet “lacked evidence of Rodis’ intent to defraud, there was no probable cause and arrest was unlawful."
 The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit and affirmed the District Court’s order. They petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration in light of Pearson v. Callahan.
 In upholding the ruling in Pearson v. Callahan, Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, held that, “the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their official conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Concurring with Nelson’s ruling were Judges Consuelo M. Callahan and Cormac J. Carney.
 Judge Nelson also observed that “although, the arrest was unfortunate, we cannot say that the officers belief that it was fake was plainly incompetent. The arrest, therefore, was not clearly established as unlawful."
 The panel, however, did not rule on the claim of the Officers that they had probable cause as to Rodis’ intent based solely on the evidence suggesting that the bill might have been fake. Nor, did it rule on Rodis’ contention that without specific evidence of his intent to defraud, above and beyond the tender of a potentially counterfeit bill, the arrest was unlawful. - GMANews.TV