When a third-party complaint provides probable cause, can Officer Smith be sued for arresting Johnson?

Let’s unpack a scene that shows up more often in street reports than you’d think: Sue calls in that she was attacked. Officer Smith responds, hears Sue’s account, and decides to arrest Johnson. The question is simple on the surface: can Officer Smith be sued for that arrest? The answer given is a clear no—if the information from Sue gives probable cause at the moment of arrest, the officer is typically protected from liability. Let’s walk through what that means and why it matters in real life policing and in the kinds of scenarios you study.

Probable cause: what it actually means

First, think of probable cause as a threshold, not a guarantee. It’s the reasonable ground to believe a person has committed a crime, based on the facts available at the time. It doesn’t require certainty or a slam-dunk confession. It’s a practical, objective standard: would a reasonable person, given the same information, believe a crime occurred and that the suspect likely did it?

In everyday terms, probable cause is a working belief, not a verdict. It’s the difference between “I think something happened” and “I have enough to justify taking someone into custody now.” The law honors that balance because security and liberty are at stake. Officers have to act with urgency in many situations, but they still must ground their actions in what would be reasonable to believe given the information they have.

Sue’s complaint as a probable-cause source

Now, let’s bring Sue into the picture. Sue’s complaint contains details about the alleged attack. If those details are specific enough—timing, location, a description of what happened, the identity of the attacker (Johnson, in this case), and perhaps corroborating elements like witnesses or injuries—it can provide reasonable grounds to believe that a crime occurred and that Johnson is involved.

The key point is not perfection but plausibility. The officer isn’t required to have a perfectly corroborated story at the instant of arrest; rather, they must have a reasonable belief based on credible information. A victim’s account can absolutely qualify as credible, especially in violent-incident scenarios where immediate action helps prevent further harm or preserve evidence. That’s why the correct choice in the scenario you presented is that the information provided by Sue was probable cause to arrest Johnson.

Important nuance: lack of conviction does not defeat the arrest

One of the most common stumbling blocks in discussions like this is the idea that someone must be convicted for an arrest to be legitimate. Not so. An arrest hinges on probable cause at the moment of action, not on the outcome of a later trial or the conviction (or lack thereof). Courts routinely recognize that many arrested people aren’t convicted for a host of reasons—evidence may be insufficient, witnesses may recant, or the state might drop charges.None of that retroactively undoes the initial probable cause. In this example, Johnson’s lack of conviction doesn’t undermine Officer Smith’s original assessment that there were reasonable grounds to arrest.

That’s a subtle but important distinction. It helps explain why the law affords officers room to act when the facts online show a credible risk or a plausible crime, even if the legal process doesn’t end with a conviction.

What about immunity? This is where people often get tangled

The statement that officers are “absolutely immune” from being sued for any arrest is a tempting simplification, but it isn’t right. Law enforcement officers generally don’t enjoy absolute immunity for arrests. They can be sued in civil cases under certain circumstances, especially if an arrest was made without probable cause or if the officer acted with malice or a reckless disregard for the facts.

That said, officers do have protections, most commonly in the form of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person would have known about. The line isn’t a blank check; it’s a nuanced shield that applies when the facts don’t expose a clearly established violation or when the officer acted within the boundaries of what a reasonable officer would do given the information available.

In the Johnson scenario, the question isn’t whether the officer had a magical license to arrest anyone who breathes. It’s whether, at the moment of arrest, there was probable cause based on Sue’s account. If that is true, the officer’s actions fall within the ordinary protections of policing. If, on the other hand, the information was reckless, misleading, or patently false, the case for liability becomes stronger.

A few practical consequences and guardrails

• Time matters. Probable cause is judged by the information available at the moment of arrest. Later developments don’t erase that basis, even if new evidence changes the story.

• The source matters, but not in isolation. A single tip can establish probable cause if it’s credible and specific enough. Corroboration—additional witnesses, physical evidence, or a description that matches the scene—strengthens the case.

• Bad faith is a different story. If an officer knowingly fabricates facts or relies on a blatantly false report, that can undermine the probable-cause basis and open the door to liability.

• The legal balance isn’t about cutting corners. It’s about letting officers act when there’s a reasonable belief a crime occurred, while still protecting the public from arbitrary seizures.

A quick tie-in to court concepts

Think of this as part of a larger framework you’ll see in FLETC materials and in field decisions:

• The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Probable cause is one of the main tools courts use to measure reasonableness.

• The distinction between probable cause (a standard for arrest) and probable cause plus evidence (a path to conviction) is deliberate. You can have a lawful arrest without a subsequent conviction if the evidence doesn’t hold up in court.

• Immunity concepts matter for civil liability. Qualified immunity often figures into lawsuits against officers, but it’s not a blanket shield. The presence or absence of a clearly established right that the officer violated is what typically decides those cases.

How this kind of scenario helps you think like a future practitioner

If you’re studying these topics, a few guiding questions can help you parse similar problems quickly:

• At the moment of arrest, what did the officer know? Does that information create a plausible belief in crime?

• Is the information reliable? Is there a credible source—like a victim or a witness—and does it describe the offense with enough detail?

• Could the facts later be shown to be wrong, or could they have been misinterpreted? How would that affect liability?

• If a civil claim arises, what’s the strongest defense? Is there a shield of qualified immunity, or does the case hinge on a clearly established right that was violated?

A gentle digression that might help connect ideas

You might be tempted to think of arrests in black-and-white terms, like a simple yes-or-no moment. Real life doesn’t work that way. Think of an arrest as a snapshot taken under pressure: lighting, angle, weather, the observer’s line of sight, and what everyone knows or suspects in that split second. Police work is a human enterprise, with all its imperfections. The law doesn’t erase those flaws, but it does provide guardrails—the probable-cause standard, the possibility of defense and appeal, the difference between a bad outcome and a bad action. Keeping that nuance in mind helps you see why a complaint from a victim can be a legitimate basis for arrest, even if the entire episode later unfolds in complex ways.

Putting it back into the big picture

To recap, in the scenario where Sue reports an attack and Officer Smith arrests Johnson, the arrest can be lawful if Sue’s account provided probable cause at the time. The lack of a conviction in the end does not negate that initial justification. Officers aren’t absolutely immune from civil liability for every arrest, but they often enjoy qualified immunity unless the facts show a clear violation of established rights.

If you’re exploring these topics, you’ll notice a recurring thread: the legal system values timely, reasonable action when a credible threat exists, balanced by accountability and process. That balance is what protects the public, supports responsible policing, and keeps the door open for justice to unfold through the proper channels.

Final thought

Probable cause is more than a line in a textbook. It’s a practical yardstick that helps officers decide when to act and provides a framework for judging those actions later on. When a trusted witness or victim speaks with enough detail, it often meets that yardstick. And that, in turn, explains why Officer Smith’s arrest of Johnson, based on Sue’s complaint, aligns with the legal standard—and why a civil suit isn’t automatically on the table in this particular snapshot of events.