Rather, the instant case is more like
Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2001). In
Dubner, one of the officers on the scene signed the plaintiff's arrest form and admitted making arrests during a mass protest, but could not remember whether she had arrested the plaintiff.
Id. at 964. At the end of trial, the court dismissed plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim because she had no evidence that the officer who signed the arrest form had actually made the arrest.
Id. at 964–65. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that while plaintiff bore the burden of proving the unlawful arrest, the burden of production then shifted to the defendant to provide evidence that the arresting officers had probable cause.
Id. at 965 “This minimal burden shifting forces the police department, which is in the better position to gather information about the arrest, to come forward with some evidence of probable cause.”
Id. The Court reasoned that shifting the burden of production to the defendants, prevented “this exact scenario where police officers can hide behind a shield of anonymity and force plaintiffs to produce evidence that they cannot possibly acquire.”
Id. The Ninth Circuit's application of this burden shifting approach in
Section 1983 false arrest cases is consistent with the law of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 175 (D.C.Cir.1977) (explaining that once a plaintiff establishes that she was arrested “without process,” the “burden then shifts to the defendant to justify the arrest.”)