As shown
supra a showing of good faith and reasonableness establishes both a qualified immunity defense
and a direct defense to the intentional torts of false arrest and false imprisonment. Plaintiff acknowledges that he must prove the underlying tort before the United States can be found liable under the FTCA. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum at 20. Since a showing of good faith and reasonableness not only triggers qualified immunity
but also defeats the tort claims the inquiry in this case need not go beyond good faith and reasonableness to determine the liability of the United States. In each of the cases cited by plaintiff in support of his theory that the United States can be found liable even if the federal officers are not found liable, the torts alleged against the United States did not have good faith and reasonableness as a defense.
See Picariello v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 1026 (M.D.Pa.1980) (plaintiff subject to battery when he was confined in restraints in his jail cell);
Crain v. Krehbiel, 443 F.Supp. 202 (N.D.Cal.1977) (claim under California law for intentional infliction of emotional distress);
Norton v. Turner, 427 F.Supp. 138 (E.D.Va.1977),
rev'd, 581 F.2d 390 (4th Cir.1978),
cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1003, 99 S.Ct. 613, 58 L.Ed.2d 678 (1979) (illegal search and seizure which is violation of FTCA). In those cases the courts concluded that “[t]he immunity of individual officers does not serve to defeat the existence of a tort—it merely provides a defense to monetary liability”
Norton, 427 F.Supp. at 146. As discussed above, a showing of good faith and reasonableness would defeat not only the officers' liability here but also “the existence of a tort.”