In
Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 749 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir.1984),
cert. granted and vacated on other grounds sub nom. City of Lawton, Okla. v. Lusby, 474 U.S. 805, 106 S.Ct. 40, 88 L.Ed.2d 33 (1985),
aff'd after reconsideration, 796 F.2d 1307 (10th Cir.1986), the Tenth Circuit considered whether an officer may rely solely on the statements of a witness, without conducting an independent investigation, to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest. In
Lusby, one of the plaintiffs purchased a pair of sunglasses at a T.G. & Y. Store.
See id. at 1427. That plaintiff then decided to return to buy hair spray.
See id. While still carrying the sunglasses, the plaintiff entered the checkout line a second time and paid for the hair spray.
See id. An assistant store manager, who observed the plaintiff go through the checkout line this second time, noted that the plaintiff did not pay for the sunglasses. He therefore contacted an off-duty police officer, employed by the store as a security guard, to investigate.
See id. at 1427–28. When the plaintiff was unable to produce a receipt for the sunglasses, the off-duty police officer, acting as a security guard, placed him under arrest.
See id. at 1428. The guard did not question the cashier, despite the plaintiff's claim that he had purchased the sunglasses moments before.
See id. at 1428, 1432. Two Lawton police officers subsequently arrived at the store and took the plaintiff into custody without investigating the alleged shoplifting.
See id. at 1428, 1430, 1432. The officers did not interview any witnesses, nor did they inquire into whether there was probable cause to arrest.
See id. at 1430, 1432. The jury found the off-duty police officer/security guard and the City of Lawton liable for violating the plaintiff's rights under
§ 1983.
See id. at 1427.