WPC ut`2()uC!-|p~ 픿< _3nShyĈc1-6ɥp߿57Y`(frrx++M*vmk#1AVcdzF*_:tx_``rdY9!ˬqs+Dȱo0[q"W!%ѭ_S{z.-ŝg#n$i۩T ̥&ގa$p3+\Fɧ ~]1 űv{nȘΝgN`X#p;28๠n*ڝ~/<)2a~ }OtX`䌵8 7d~٧R:}XAG9 Coe Ҡm.` TYDB,P/tX.j8孍l O*7# % 0D 0G U:T 0U 8snTN UN UbFO ^ w 4   E f a m  N ^ UBa b U`6 U.  (((((((((( BHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XGTXXX    =GTXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular{.s Y.y File3|x TABLE AU L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -<6X9`(Courier New\  `Tms Rmn  $XKpXXX  =KpXdd=    2    _XKpXXXKpTheconflictingSupremeCourtcaselawonbothpointsis  chronicledindetailin_LaFave_,supraat3.2(e).Onthelatter  issue,theCourtinGateshassuggestedthatthequestionmaynot \ beallthatuseful,presumablybecausetheoddscanrarelybe 2 determinedwithsuchprecision.#XKpXXXKp#XKpXXXKpGates,462U.S.at235.#XKpXXXKp#  0- ' Turner0Turner .    d  $XKpXXX  =KpXdd=    1    _StatelawclaimsagainstthepolicewerealsoassertedandHP  and_ADECCO_Ԁwerenamedasdefendantsonacivilconspiracytheory  butnoneoftheseclaimsispursuedinthiscourt. !XKpXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X/XXXKp X X/     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals K   FortheFirstCircuit  O K XKpX O  A') ` dE<` A   No.022549   @ BARBARA_VALENTE_ԀandA.RICHARD_VALENTE_, K  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,  G  @tt)v.   @ WILLIAMJ.WALLACE,JOHNDOE, O  @<< andTOWNOFANDOVER, %u  @*@Defendants,Appellees. ! @%__________  @HH'_ADECCO_, S @%Defendant. O A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS f @ [Hon.WilliamG.Young,U.S.DistrictJudge] b A') ` dE<` A  @'Before     @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, O " TorruellaandLipez,CircuitJudges. !K$ A') ` dE<#` A #&       ThomasF.HealywithwhomThomasE._Sartini_,IIIandHealy& $( Healy,P.C.wereonbriefforappellants. b% )   ReginaM.RyanwithwhomDouglasI._Louison_andMerrick, 8&!* _Louison_Ԁ&CostellowereonbriefforappelleesWilliamJ.Wallace '^"+ andTownofAndover. '4#, *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  )$.)$  SI)D%/ `s@37787`s@SJune16,2003 *&1  RHC+&2" `s@37787 `s@ R()D%3  (   * ! ,'3? _    8KpXXdd8*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. Theissueonthisappealiswhether  inJanuary2000,thepoliceinAndover,Massachusetts,hadprobable x causetoarrestBarbaraValenteforplantinganonymousbombthreats $t inherplaceofwork.   XKpXX XKp ` InAugust1997,Valentebeganworkasanonsitemanager |  forADECCOEmploymentServices("ADECCO"),thenknownasTAD,ata ( x  HewlettPackard("HP")plantinAndover,Massachusetts.TheHP $  plantwasalargeone,comprisingsevenbuildingsandemploying   over2,500people.BetweenAugust1997andJanuary1999,seven ,|  anonymousbombthreatsandfourteenanonymousnotesexpressing ( spiteorworkplacedissatisfactionappearedattheplant.Byway  ofexample,onebombthreatread:lXXKp# ll#  l 0 #X/X ## XKpXXX/#XKpXX XKp8 ` Thereisabombplantedinbuilding2.Toget , youandtogetSheilaandtogetanyonewho  keepsushereonadangerousday.Itwillgo  offwhenIleaveattwo!Goodbyetoyou.^` x` x a ` SeveralofthenoteswerefoundbyValenteone  Z purportedlysignedwithherfirstnameandtwentyoneofthe  twentyfournoteswereinthebuildinginwhichsheworked.After b ! thefirstbombthreatinNovember1997,theAndoverpolicebeganan "^# investigation.Thedetectivethenheadingthecaseidentifieda # % suspect(notValente)byhandwriting,andHPretainedahandwriting f% ' analysisfirmwithadequatecredentials:McCannandAssociates. 'b") McCanndeemedthesamplesinconclusiveandtheinvestigation ($+  lapsed. j*%- # XKpXXXKpB#XKpXX XKp ` InSeptember1998,Valentebeganthreemonthsof   maternityleavetocareforhernewlyadoptedchild.Duringthis \ time,twomorenoteswerediscoveredandinJanuary1999,the X investigationresumedunderthechargeofDetectiveWilliam   Wallace.Morehandwritingsampleswereobtained,thistimefrom `  nineemployeesincludingValente.McCanndeterminedthatforthe  \  fourteennotesastowhichitcoulddrawconclusions,onlyValente   couldnotberuledoutasasuspect;butMcCannalsosaidthatshe d  couldnotbe"conclusively"identifiedbasedonthesamples `  available.   # XKpXXXKp#XKpXX XKp ` MoresamplesofValente'shandwritingweresecuredandin h November1999,McCannconcludedthatitwas"moreprobablethan d not"thatValentewastheauthorofthreebombnotes,includingtwo  foundwhenshewasonleave,andelevenoftheothernotes. l WallacemetwithMcCannrepresentativeswho,withslidesorsimilar h means,displayedthesimilaritiesonwhichtheyreliedandrepeated  theirconclusion.WallacealsodeterminedthatValentecouldhave p  visitedtheHPbuildinginquestionduringherleave,althoughhe !l" hadnoproofthatshehaddoneso. "$ # XKpXXXKp#XKpXX XKp ` OnJanuary5,2000,atWallace'srequestValentecameto t$& thepolicedepartment.Inthediscussionthatfollowed,Wallace  &p!( deemedValente'srathertersedisclaimersnotwhatheexpectedfrom '#* aninnocentpersonshesimplysaidsheknewnothingaboutthe x)$, notes;healsofoundhertobeverynervous,herskinreddeningand $+t&. breakingoutinhives.Atthecloseoftheinterview,Wallaceand  hissupervisoragreedthatValenteshouldbearrestedanda \ warrantlessarrestwaseffectedonthreecountsofcreatingabomb X scare,eachofwhichcarriedamaximumpunishmentof20years'   imprisonmentunderMassachusettslaw.Mass.Gen.Laws.ch.269, `  14(b)(1),(c)(2002).  \  # XKpXXXKp#XKpXX XKp ` Valentewasneverprosecuted.Acriminalcomplaintwas   dismissedwhentheprosecutorfailedtomeetadiscoverydeadline. d  DuringtheperiodafterherarrestandwhenValentewasnotworking `  attheplant,yetanothernotewasfoundandsuspicionfellon   anotheremployee.InJuly2001,Valentebroughtthepresentcivil h rightsactionagainstWallace,hissupervisorandthetown,42 d U.S.C.1983(2000),chargingthatshehadbeenarrestedwithout  probablecauseinviolationoftheFourthAmendment.6 #  1      ׀ l # XKpXXXKp #XKpXX XKp ` Afterdiscovery,thedistrictcourtgrantedsummary h judgmentonthemeritsinfavorofthepolice,rulingfromthe  benchthattheyhadprobablecauseforthearrest,agroundthat p  alsodisposedofanyderivativeclaimagainstthetown.Inthe !l" alternative,thedistrictcourtfoundthatthetwoindividual "$ officerswereentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Valentenowappeals. t$& Ourreviewonsummaryjudgmentis# XKpXXXKp!$#XKpXX XKpdenovo# XKpXXXKp&#XKpXX XKp.# XKpXXXKp&#XKpXX XKpSee# XKpXXXKp'#XKpXX XKpԀ# XKpXXXKp_'#XKpXX XKpRoche# XKpXXXKp'#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKp'#XKpXX XKpJohn  &p!( HancockMut.LifeIns.Co.# XKpXXXKp8(#XKpXX XKp,81F.3d249,253(1stCir.1996). '#* # XKpXXXKp(#XKpXX XKp ` Forawarrantlessarrest,theFourthAmendmentistaken  torequire"probablecause,"# XKpXXXKp,)#XKpXX XKpWongSun# XKpXXXKp)#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKp3*#XKpXX XKpUnitedStates# XKpXXXKp|*#XKpXX XKp,371U.S. \ 471,479(1963),andthebroadoutlinesoftheconceptare X familiar.# XKpXXXKp*#XKpXX XKpSeegenerally# XKpXXXKp+#XKpXX XKp,2LaFave,# XKpXXXKp+#XKpXX XKpSearchandSeizure# XKpXXXKp/,#XKpXX XKpԀch.3(3d   ed.1996).Butthecaselawonprobablecauseharborsonecentral `  ambiguityandahostofsmallerissues.Theambiguityexists  \  becausetheSupremeCourthastoldusthatprobablecausemeans   morethan"baresuspicion"butlessthatwhatwouldbeneededto d  "justify...conviction."# XKpXXXKp,#XKpXX XKpBrinegar# XKpXXXKpX.#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKp.#XKpXX XKpUnitedStates# XKpXXXKp.#XKpXX XKp,338U.S. `  160,175(1949).Agooddealofterritoryliesinbetween.   # XKpXXXKp@/#XKpXX XKp ` Withinthisterritory,theSupremeCourthassaidthat h thequestioniswhethertheevidencewould"warrantamanof d reasonablecaution"inbelievingthatacrimehasbeencommitted  andcommittedbythepersontobearrested.# XKpXXXKp/#XKpXX XKpBeck# XKpXXXKp`1#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKp1#XKpXX XKpOhio# XKpXXXKp1#XKpXX XKp,379U.S. l 89,96(1964).# XKpXXXKp;2#XKpXX XKpSeeUnitedStates# XKpXXXKp2#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKp3#XKpXX XKpReyes# XKpXXXKpZ3#XKpXX XKp,225F.3d71,75(1st h Cir.2000).Theemphasisisoncalculatinglikelihoods.# XKpXXXKp3#XKpXX XKpE.g.# XKpXXXKpN4#XKpXX XKp,  # XKpXXXKp4#XKpXX XKpBrinegar# XKpXXXKp4#XKpXX XKp,338U.S.at175.Whetherthisexcludesallotherfactors p  andwhetherthelikelihoodmustbe"morelikelythannot"are !l" questionsarguablyunsettled; #  2      # XKpXXXKp?5#XKpXX XKpԀbut,centrally,themercurialphrase "$ "probablecause"meansareasonablelikelihood.Illinois# XKpXXXKp6#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKpN7#XKpXX XKpGates# XKpXXXKp7#XKpXX XKp, t$& 462U.S.213,235(1983).# XKpXXXKp7#XKpXX XKpԀ  &p!( # XKpXXXKpR8#XKpXX XKp ` Inourcase,thebombthreatsconstitutedacrimesothe  onlyquestioniswhetherthepolicehadprobablecausetobelieve \ thatValentewastheculprit.Thetestisobjectiveandturnson X whatareasonablepoliceofficerwouldconcludebasedonthe   evidenceactuallyavailableatthetime(andnotonunknownfacts `  orsubsequentevents).# XKpXXXKp8#XKpXX XKpRoche# XKpXXXKp:#XKpXX XKp,81F.3dat254.Onthefactsknown  \  toWallaceatthetime,weholdthatareasonablepoliceofficer   wouldbewarrantedinthebeliefthatValentehadsentsomeofthe d  notes. `  # XKpXXXKp:#XKpXX XKp ` Themainreasonforthisconclusionisthataseemingly   qualifiedexperthandwritingexaminerhadsaidthatthenoteswere h morelikelythannotwrittenbyValente.Thisisnotconclusiveas d toprobablecause(forreasonstowhichwewillreturn)butitis  apowerfulstart.# XKpXXXKpA<#XKpXX XKpCf.# XKpXXXKp=#XKpXX XKpԀ# XKpXXXKp>>#XKpXX XKpRoche# XKpXXXKp>#XKpXX XKp,81F.3dat255(voice l identification).AnditisworthnotingthatWallacedidnotjust h taketheexpert'ssummaryconclusion;hemetwiththeMcCann  representativesandwatchedthemexplaingraphicallywhytheywere p  persuaded. !l" # XKpXXXKp>#XKpXX XKp ` IfValente'sfingerprintshadbeenfoundinsideathreat "$ letterfirstopenedbythepolice,itcouldhardlybedoubtedthat t$& probablecausewouldexist.Handwritinganalysisisaless  &p!( rigorousmeansofidentification,# XKpXXXKpZ@#XKpXX XKpe.g.# XKpXXXKpA#XKpXX XKp,Mnookin,# XKpXXXKp B#XKpXX XKpScripting '#* Expertise# XKpXXXKpZB#XKpXX XKp,87Va.L.Rev.1723,172627(2001),dependinginter x)$, aliaonhowdistinctivethehandwritingmightbe,thenumberand $+t&. typeofsamples,andthecompetenceoftheexaminer.# XKpXXXKpB#XKpXX XKpSee# XKpXXXKpC#XKpXX XKpԀ# XKpXXXKp/D#XKpXX XKpUnited  States# XKpXXXKpuD#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKpD#XKpXX XKpMooney# XKpXXXKp$E#XKpXX XKp,315F.3d54,6263(1stCir.2002).Normally, \ theexaminercandonomorethanspeakofprobabilities.Buthere X theexaminerdidsay,"morelikelythannot,"whichisthemost   thattheFourthAmendmentrequires.# XKpXXXKpoE#XKpXX XKpSee# XKpXXXKpF#XKpXX XKpԀnote2above. `  # XKpXXXKpG#XKpXX XKp ` Thisisnottheendofthestory.Plentyofother  \  evidencemightbeavailabletothepolicetoreinforceorto   rebutanexpert'sviewthatthesuspectmorelikelythannotwrote d  athreatnote.Supposethenotecontainedinformationalmost `  certainlyknownonlytothesuspector,conversely,information   thatthesuspectwouldbemostunlikelytoknow.Ortheremightbe h informationaboutmotiveandaccess,twostaplesofcriminal d investigation.Theinitialexpertjudgmentmighthavetobe  adjusted;conceivably,"probablecause"couldvanishbasedonnew l data. h # XKpXXXKpvG#XKpXX XKp ` Here,thenoteshadbegunnotlongafterValentejoined  thecompany,andmostwerefoundinthebuildingwheresheworked. p  # XKpXXXKpJ#XKpXX XKpSee# XKpXXXKpK#XKpXX XKpԀ# XKpXXXKpL#XKpXX XKpUnitedStates# XKpXXXKpHL#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKpL#XKpXX XKpBrown# XKpXXXKpL#XKpXX XKp,457F.2d731,733(1stCir.1972).All !l" ofthisismildlyhelpfultoWallace,althoughhowfardependsin "$ partonthesizeoftheworkforce,turnover,andsimilardata;some t$& ofthefacts,andwhatthepoliceknewonthesepoints,are  &p!( obscure.Thepolicedoappeartohavecheckedtoseewhether '#* Valentecouldhavehadaccessduringherthreemonthleaveand x)$, foundthatthiscouldnotberuledout. $+t&. # XKpXXXKp-M#XKpXX XKp ` ThereisalsoValente'sbehaviorduringtheinterviewat  thepolicestation.AccordingtoWallace,shewasbothunduly \ taciturn(hesaidthattheusualinnocentpersonprotestsmuchmore X stronglywhenwronglyaccused)andextremelynervous.Frankly,to   alayman,neitherofthesesymptomsseemsveryrevealing.However, `  thecaselawdoesgivesomeweightbothtodemeanorevidence,# XKpXXXKpO#XKpXX XKpe.g.# XKpXXXKpQ#XKpXX XKp,  \  # XKpXXXKp R#XKpXX XKpUnitedStates# XKpXXXKphR#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKpR#XKpXX XKpOneLotofU.S.Currency# XKpXXXKpS#XKpXX XKp,103F.3d1048,1055(1st   Cir.1997),andtotheexperienceofthepolice.# XKpXXXKp`S#XKpXX XKpE.g.# XKpXXXKpT#XKpXX XKp,# XKpXXXKpOT#XKpXX XKpUnited d  States# XKpXXXKpT#XKpXX XKpԀv.# XKpXXXKpT#XKpXX XKpOrtiz# XKpXXXKpEU#XKpXX XKp,422U.S.891,897(1975).InfairnesstoWallace, `  hesaidthattheinterviewwasprimarilytoseeifValentecould   countertheinferencehehadalreadydrawn. h # XKpXXXKpU#XKpXX XKp ` Thus,atthetimeofthearrest,thepolicehadexpert d evidencethatValentewasmoreprobablythannotthenotewriter;  shehadapparentaccesstothesitethroughouttheperiodbefore l herarrest;mostofthenoteswerediscoverednearornotfarfrom h wheresheworked;therewasnospecificmotiveattributabletoher  butdisgruntledemployeesarenotunknown;andtherewasapparently p  nootherthencurrentsuspectagainstwhomastrongcaseexisted. !l" This,inourview,isprobablecauseforanarrest.# XKpXXXKpV#XKpXX XKpSee# XKpXXXKpY#XKpXX XKpԀ# XKpXXXKpY#XKpXX XKpRoche# XKpXXXKpZ#XKpXX XKp,81 "$ F.3dat25455. t$& # XKpXXXKp`Z#XKpXX XKp ` WhathasbeensaidabovelargelydisposesofValente's  &p!( argumentsonthisappeal.Hercounselclaimsthatweshouldlook '#* onlyattheMcCannreportbecauseWallace,inadepositiontaken x)$, twoandahalfyearsafterthearrest,saidthatthiswastheonly $+t&. evidenceofguiltandhernervousnesswasnotmentionedinthe  arrestreport.ButValente'saccess,proximitytothenotesand \ nervousnessattheinterviewwerecontemporaneouseventsknownto X thepoliceanddoubtlessconsideredbythemevenifnotformally   designatedevidenceofguilt. `  # XKpXXXKpZ#XKpXX XKp ` Finally,Valentesaysthatapsychologicalprofile  \  commissionedbyHPallegedlysuggestedthattheculprithadtraits   thatdifferedfromValente's.However,whilehandwritingisan d  inexactscience,psychologicalprofilingappearstobeevenmore `  inexact;handwritingexpertshavebeenroutinelyusedincourtsfor   acenturynow,Mnookin,supra,at1726,whilepsychological h profilingremainsprimarilyalawenforcementdevicefornarrowing d thefieldofsuspectsandisrarelyadmissibleincourt.1  Giannelli&Imwinkelried,ScientificEvidence9.7at479(3ded. l 1999).Iftheprofilecountsatallintheprobablecause h calculus,itdoesnotaltertheresultinthiscase.   ` Affirmed.# XKpXXXKp]#