WPCmN 9^<ϾQ#YqR\uy܂j271eCX" ?:#nC5'_V01ai."{1d3ORU&RPB <*YG3Rk_<MH>ooB~1 5\XgM~ە>UApD7Pk]_.BLhkW4ȷ{u{]Yckl+l%ec5Enk8&׸dTJ׭7ρb   wp۪L9dЊw!q@O.YI*\"e$P$ ZN#}# % 0D 0G U:( 0b U8G nT N UN U F#i^ KwW4[oE~fa mN^UBbQY 0U 0t 0] 0C 0& 0 0 0 0 0Ch 0 0 B V 0s 0D 0 0 0 0j 0@* 0j 0> 0! 0! 0" 0p# 05$ 0$ 00% 0<% 0 & 0>& 0v' 0`' 0`' 0`R( 0`( 0`) 08r) 0) 02|* 0* 0:+ 0.Y+ 0_=, 0 , 0j- 0/ B*0 D/0 D+0 01 D/2 02 063 03 0:4 0^5 0<o5U65U >5U*6 0NI6 0b6UF6?7/; 1e,? 0(? AM?E@U>KB2BEE 0cE-JFJF 1uwHH 72III4I4I4IJJJJJ ASxLxLxLL 0cM 0DM D58NHP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2d$ !XLXXX    =2XXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular MARSOCCIBoudinLauferDarigan LLPMartinelliPlaistowRooker suasponteShumway i]f}0s Bl06X?,}backup3|xTABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7L(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7&  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7K)2dxd0KS.SampleKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(O$(:2D$ !XLXXX  <4 9Z+.Courier New Regular  d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    6    _BecauseweconcludethatDesrosierswasalawenforcement  officerforthepurposesof15Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.708,wedonot  considerthedistrictcourt'salternativeholdingthatthecourt \ clerkproperlyissuedthecomplainttoDesrosiersinhiscapacity 2 asaprivatecitizenbecausethedistrictattorney'soffice X approvedtheprosecution.See15Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.708 . (providingthatintheabsenceorunavailabilityofajusticeof   thepeaceorprosecutingattorney,acourtclerkmayissuea   complainttoapersonwhoisnotalawenforcementofficerfora `  nonfelonyoffense"withtheapprovaloftheAttorneyGeneralor 6   hisdesignee").F  bX XXXL  \  #XLX XbX]# % d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    5    _"[P]riortoreachinganyconstitutionalquestions,federal  courtsmustconsidernonconstitutionalgroundsfordecision."Gulf  OilCo.v.Bernard,452U.S.89,99(1981);seealsoUnitedStates \ v.Maldonado,356F.3d130,137(1stCir.2004)(avoidinga 2 constitutionalquestionabouttherelevanceofsubjectiveintentto X FourthAmendmentanalysisofanadministrativesearchwherethe . appellant'ssubjectiveintentargument"fail[ed]onitsfacts").$%&()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.($Z_MA<< c ; d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    4    _ XLXXXLTheFourthAmendmentprovides:"Therightofthepeopletobe  secureintheirpersons...againstunreasonablesearchesand  seizures,shallnotbeviolated,andnoWarrantsshallissuebut \ uponprobablecause...."U.S.Const.Amdt.4.#XLXX XL#\  `&Times New Roman ( d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    3    _Heatherhadstatedinherswornstatementandinapretrial  interviewwithADAMitchellthatshehadviewedSantoni'sgenitals  onJuly15.However,duringcrossexamination,sheacknowledged \ thatshehadnotbeenabletoseeSantoni'spenisbecauseofthe 2 placementofhishandsaroundit.Thedistrictcourtfoundthat X Heather'stestimonyfailedtosatisfy17AMe.Rev.Stat.Ann. . 854,whichprohibitsapersonfromknowinglyexposinghisorher   genitals. e   e (;3$2#  0  .3  0   # d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    7    _ XLXXXLTheUSPSdoesnotchallengethisdeterminationonappeal; e indeed,theattorneyforthegovernmentconcededatoralargument ; thatthediscretionaryfunctionexceptiondoesnotbar  considerationofSantonisclaims.#XLXX XL#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)   ii)  d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    2    _Santonifiledthisappealagainstalloftheoriginalparties  butexpresslyabandonedhisclaimsagainstthestatedefendantsin  hisbrieftothiscourt.  d$XLXXX  =2XXdd=    1    _BothpartiestreattheclaimsagainstnameddefendantJohnE.  PotterasclaimsagainsttheUSPS.Forsimplicity,wereferto  thispartythroughoutthisopinionastheUSPS.yzZ{|E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$ !XLXXX  ($$   1  '''')!dxdx !XLXXX  _6XXLTRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! B6     jOaeWdOUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals B B  FortheFirstCircuit  @N B XLX @N     `     h      p     A') ` dE< ` A      `     h      p   No.031914 u     @  @`  @  @  @h VINCENTJAMES_SANTONI_,JR., ! q    ` @ Plaintiff,Appellant,    @tt)v. y    JOHNE.POTTER,POSTMASTERGENERALANDCEO,UNITEDSTATESPOSTAL %u  SERVICEETAL., K  @*@Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<R` A S @*@` ` APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE ^ Q@ [Hon.GeorgeZ._Singal_,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K     8 @ 0@`    @ Boudin,ChiefJudge, G Lynch,and_Lipez_,CircuitJudges.  A') ` dE<N ` A O "     CynthiaDillfortheappellant. 4!$   EvanJ.Roth,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom  "Z% PaulaD._Silsby_,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbriefforappellees "0& JohnPotter,UnitedStatesPostmasterGeneral,andMichael #' _Desrosiers_.PeterT._Marchesi_,withwhomWheeler&_Arey_,P.A.was $( onthebriefforappelleesBarry_DeLong_ԀandRandyWing. b% )   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4#   SIH(#- @38133@SMay27,2004 )n$/  RHC)D%0" @38133 @ R(H(#1  (* !     XLXX XL + '2? _# XLXXXL#    82XXdd8*,X` XX* ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .VincentSantoniappealsfromthe  districtcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthe x defendantsonhisclaimsagainstMichaelDesrosiersandJohnE. $t Potter,PostmasterGeneralandCEOoftheUnitedStatesPostal   Service(USPS).q #  1      ׀Santoni,aformerpostmasterofSolon,Maine,was |  arrestedforindecentexposurebyalocaldeputysheriff. ( x  Desrosiers,apostalinspectorwhohadswornoutthearrest $  warrant,accompaniedthedeputysheriffandparticipatedinthe   arrest.Santonisubsequentlyfiledan18countcomplaintagainst ,|  Desrosiers,theUSPS,andthesheriffanddeputysheriffof ( SomersetCounty,Maine,assertingavarietyoffederal  constitutionalandstatelawclaimsinconnectionwiththe 0 allegedlyunlawfularrest.Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummary , judgmentinfavorofthedefendantsonallcounts.Santoniappeals  fromthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthe 4 federaldefendantsn #  2      ׀onhisFourthAmendmentclaimunderBivensv. 0 SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFederalBureauofNarcotics,403U.S.   388(1971),andhisclaimsofunlawfularrest,assault,battery, 8!"  andfalseimprisonmentundertheFederalTortClaimsAct(FTCA),28 "4$ U.S.C.1346(b),26712680.Weaffirmthedecisionofthe  districtcourt. \    I.  X m  ` OnAugust2,1999,MichaelDesrosiers,apostalinspector   fortheUnitedStatesPostalService,learnedthattheUSPShad |  receivedacomplaintconcerningVincentSantoni,thepostmasterof ( x  Solon,Maine.ThecomplaintallegedthatSantonihadexposed $  himselftoHeatherM.,a15yearoldgirlwhoresidedinSolon.On   August13,1999,Desrosiers'supervisorinstructedhimtoconduct ,|  animmediateinvestigation. (  ` OnAugust16,1999,DesrosiersinterviewedHeather,who  saidthataround2p.m.onJuly15,1999,shewasridingher 0 bicycleacrossabridgenearthepostofficeinSolonwhenshe , heardsomeonecallhername.Sheturnedaroundandrecognized  Santoni,whomsheknew,standingbytheedgeofthewaterwithhis 4 pantsdowntohiskneesandbothofhishandsholdinghisexposed 0 penis.HeathertoldDesrosiersthatforseveralyearsSantonihad   beenmakinginappropriatesexualcommentsandgesturestoher 8!" duringhervisitstotheSolonpostoffice.Heather'smother,who "4$ attendedtheinterview,saidthatSantonihadalsomade $& inappropriatecommentstoherandtootherwomen.Desrosiers <&!( preparedatypewrittenstatementbasedontheinterview,which '8#* Heatherreviewedandsigned.Overthenextfewweeks,Desrosiers )$, interviewedotherfemalecustomersoftheSolonpostofficewho @+&. reportedthatSantonihadtouchedthemormadeinappropriate  commentswhilehewasatworkatthepostoffice.F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  .F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F  F     \  ` OnSeptember8,1999,Desrosiersdiscussedtheresultsof X hisinvestigationwithAndrewBenson,anAssistantDistrict   Attorney(ADA)forSomersetCounty,Maine.AtBenson'srequest, `  Desrosiersarrangedforafellowpostalinspector,whowasalsoa  \  polygraphexaminer,toadministerapolygraphexaminationof   Heather.Afterreceivingtheresultsofthetest,whichHeather d  passed,DesrosiersagaindiscussedthecasewithADABenson.At `  theconclusionofthatdiscussion,theDA'sOfficeauthorizedthe   prosecutionofSantonionthecriminalchargeofindecentconduct, h aClassEmisdemeanorunder17AMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.854. d  ` OnOctober5,1999,Desrosiersappearedbeforetheclerk  ofthestatedistrictcourtinSkowhegan,Maine,topresenta l requestforacriminalcomplaintandawarrantforSantonis h arrest.Healsosubmittedasupportingaffidavitidentifying&  Desrosiersasapostalinspectorandstatingthathehadprobable p  causetobelievethatSantonihadcommittedthestatelawoffense !l" ofindecentconduct,inviolationof17AMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.[+854. "$ TheaffidavitprovideddetailsaboutDesrosiers'interviewwith t$& Heatherandstatedthatshehadpassedapolygraphexamination.  &p!( ThecourtclerkissuedacriminalcomplaintagainstSantonifor '#* violatingtheindecentconductstatuteandacorrespondingwarrant x)$, forhisarrest.AtDesrosiers'request,RandyWing,adeputy $+t&. eW ee e  sheriffforSomersetCounty,accompaniedDesrosierstoSantoni's  home,whereSantoniwasarrested.OnApril21,2000,Santoniwas \ triedintheSkowheganDistrictCourtandwasacquittedafterthe X courtdeterminedthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosustaina   convictionforindecentconduct.c #  3      ׀ `   ` OnJanuary3,2002,Santonifiledan18countcomplaint  \  intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMaine   againsttheUSPS,Desrosiers,Wing,andSomersetCountySheriff d  BarryDeLong.HesuedtheUSPSpursuanttotheFTCA,18U.S.C. `  ,Ԁ1346,2671etseq.,claimingthatitwasliabletohimfor   unlawfularrest,abuseofprocess,maliciousprosecution,false h imprisonment,intentionaland/ornegligentinflictionofemotional d distress,assault,battery,invasionofprivacy,andnegligent  supervisionandtraining.HesuedDesrosiersinhisindividual l capacity,seekingdamagesforviolationsoftheFirst,Fourth,and h FifthAmendmentsoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionpursuantto  Bivens,403U.S.at388.SantonibroughtanalogousFourth p  AmendmentclaimsagainstWingandDeLongpursuantto42U.S.C. !l" 1983.Hefurtherclaimedthatallfourdefendantshadengagedin "$ acivilconspiracytoviolatehisfederalandstatecivilrights. t$&  ` OnApril8,2002,DesrosiersandtheUSPS,thefederal  defendants,movedtodismissorforsummaryjudgmentonallof \ Santoni'sfederalclaims.Thedistrictcourtdeterminedthatno X constitutionalrightshadbeenviolatedandthat,inanyevent,   DesrosierswasprotectedfromliabilityonSantoni'sFourth `  Amendmentclaimbythedoctrineofqualifiedimmunity.Althoughit  \  foundthatSantoni'sFTCAclaimsagainsttheUSPSdidnotfall   withintheFTCA'sdiscretionaryfunctionexception,itheldthat d  theclaimsfailedontheirmerits.Therefore,thedistrictcourt `  grantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofDesrosiersandtheUSPSand   dismissedSantonisclaimsagainstthem.XLXX XLAfterthedistrictcourt h grantedsummaryjudgmentforthefederaldefendants,thelawsuit d proceededagainstDeLongandWing.Followingdiscovery,thestate  defendantsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,whichwasgranted. l Santonifiledthisappealagainstalloftheoriginaldefendants h buthaschosennottoprosecutehisclaimsagainstthestate  defendants.# XLXXXL9#1   p   `     [XLXX XL0 X II. !l"X(#X(#  0 ` Onappeal,Santonichallengesthedistrictcourt'sgrant"4$` (#` (# ofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofDesrosiersonSantoni'sBivens $& claim.HearguesthatbecauseDesrosierslackedauthorityunder <&!( stateorfederallawtomakeanarrestforaClassEstatelaw '8#* crime,thearrestofSantoniconstitutedanunreasonableseizurein )$, violationoftheFourthAmendment.Hefurtherclaimsthat @+&. Desrosiersisnotentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Inaddition,  Santoniarguesthatbecausethedistrictcourtimproperly \ determinedthatthearrestwaslawful,iterredingrantingsummary X judgmentinfavoroftheUSPSonSantoni'sFTCAclaims.Weaddress   eachoftheseargumentsinturn.# XLXX[XL;#V; `   A.StandardofReview  \    ` 3,XX X,X` X3Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment $  denovo.Wojcikv.Mass.StateLotteryComm'n,300F.3d92,98   (1stCir.2002).Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethe ,|  evidenceshowsthat"thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterial ( factandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatter  oflaw."Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c).Afactis"material"ifit"might 0 affecttheoutcomeofthesuit"undertheapplicablelegal , standard.Andersonv.LibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248  (1986).?ԀAfactualissueis"genuine"only"ifareasonablejury 4 couldresolveitinfavorofeitherparty."BasicControlexCorp., 0 Inc.v.KlocknerMoellerCorp.,202F.3d450,453(1stCir.2000).   Indecidingwhetheragenuineissueofmaterialfactexists,we 8!" construe,CԀtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmoving "4$ party.Flowersv.Fiore,359F.3d24,29(1stCir.2004).D $&  B.0  BivensClaimAgainstDesrosiers<&!((#(#   1.Santoni'sArrest X  (T#*   UnderBivens,apersonmaysueafederalofficialinhisor )%, herindividualcapacityfordamagesarisingoutofaconstitutional x+&. violationcommittedundercoloroffederallaw.SeeBivens,403  U.S.at389;oEAversav.UnitedStates99F.3d1200,1213(1stCir. \ 1999).RelyingonBivens,SantoniclaimsthatbecauseDesrosiers X hadnolegalauthoritytomakeanarrestforastatelaw   misdemeanor,hisarrestofSantoniconstitutedanunreasonable `  seizureinviolationoftheFourthAmendment.a #  4      ׀  \    Wehavenotresolvedwhetheranarrestingofficer'slackof   authorityunderstateorfederallawtoconductanotherwise d  constitutionallyvalidarrestconstitutesanunreasonableseizure `  undertheFourthAmendment.Thecircuitsaredividedonthis   issue.CompareMalonev.CountyofSuffolk,968F.2d1480,148283 h (2dCir.1992)(whetherofficershavevalidauthoritytoarrest d pursuanttostatelawaffectsconstitutionalityofthearrest);  Rossv.Neff,905F.2d1349,135354(10thCir.1990)(arrest l executedoutsideoftheofficer'sjurisdictionviolatestheFourth h Amendmentandgivesrisetoapotential1983action);andUnited  Statesv.Trigg,878F.2d1037,1041(7thCir.1989)(custodial p  arrestisconstitutionalifarrestingofficerhadprobablecause !l" andauthorityunderstateormunicipallawtoeffectacustodial "$ arrestfortheparticularoffense)withUnitedStatesv.Bell,54 t$& F.3d502,504(8thCir.1995);("[W]edonotthinkFourthAmendment  &p!( analysisrequiresreferencetoanarrest'slegalityunderstate '#* law.");Fieldsv.CityofSouthHouston,922F.2d1183,1189(5th  Cir.1991)(holdingthatthereisno1983causeofactionfor \ falsearrestunlessthearrestingofficerlackedprobablecause); X andStreetv.Surdyka,492F.2d368,37273(4thCir.1974)(same).   Wedonotreachthisconstitutionalquestion] #  5      ׀becauseweconclude `  thatDesrosierswasauthorizedtoswearoutthecriminalcomplaint  \  andreceivethecomplaintandwarrantforSantoni'sarrest,and   thatthewarrantwasexecutedunderthelawfulauthorityofDeputy d  SheriffWing.uGF  F  F    `    Underfederallaw,theUnitedStatesPostalServicehas   authority"toinvestigatepostaloffensesandcivilmatters h relatingtothePostalService."39U.S.C.404(a)(7).This d authorityisprimarilyexercisedthroughthePostalInspection  Service,whichischargedwith"[e]nforcinglawsrelatedtothe l PostalService,themails,otherpostaloffensesandotherlawsof h theUnitedStates."39C.F.R.[XLXX XL# XLXX[XL+U#224.3(b)(2).    Thefederalarrestpowersofpostalinspectors,however,are p  limitedandspecificallydefined,includingtheauthorityto"serve !l" warrantsandsubpoenasissuedundertheauthorityoftheUnited "$ States"andtomakecertainwarrantlessarrests"foroffenses t$& againsttheUnitedStates."[XLXX XL18U.S.C.3061(a);seealso39C.F.R.  # XLXX[XL W#[XLXX XL233.1(a).# XLXX[XLW#Postalinspectorsarenotauthorizedunderfederallaw \ toexecuteawarrantormakeanarrestforastatelawoffense. X SeeUnitedStatesv.Univerzagt,424F.2d396,398n.1(8thCir.   1970)("Postalinspectorsunder18U.S.C.A.3061aregivenpower `  tomakearrestsforpostaloffensesuponprobablecausebutare  \  givennopowertomakearrestsforstateoffensesbyeitherstate   orfederalstatute.").Similarly,whileMainelawpermitssome d  specificallydesignated"federalofficers"tomakearreststo `  enforcestatelawincertainsituations,postalinspectorsarenot   amongtheseofficers.25Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.1502A.Thus, h Desrosiersdidnothaveauthorityunderstateorfederallawto d makeanarrestforaviolationofstatelaw.    Nonetheless,thedistrictcourtconcludedthatalthoughMaine l lawdidnotconferuponDesrosiersauthoritytoarrestSantoni,it h didauthorizehimtoswearoutawarrantforSantoni'sarrest,  eitherinhiscapacityasalawenforcementofficialorasa p  privatecitizenactingwiththeapprovalofthedistrictattorney's !l" office.Itfurtherheldthattheexecutionofthewarrantwas "$ lawfulbecauseDesrosiersparticipatedinthearrestasaprivate t$& citizenandwasassistedbyDeputySheriffWing,whohadan  &p!( affirmativedutytoarrestSantoni.Santonichallengesbothof '#* thesedeterminations. x)$,   $+t&.    ` a.SwearingOuttheCriminalComplaint     InaccordancewithMainelaw,aMainedistrictcourtclerk x may,intheabsenceorunavailabilityofajusticeofthepeaceor $t aprosecutingattorneyoranyofhisassistants,prepareanddraft   amisdemeanorcriminalcomplaint"upontherequestofanylaw |  enforcementofficer."15Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.RԀ708.Whilethe ( x  statutedoesnotdefinethephrase"lawenforcementofficer,"the $  districtcourtinterpretedittoincludepostalinspectors.We   agree. ,|    WheninterpretingastatuteunderMainelaw,wordsandphrases ( aretobeconstruedinaccordancewith"theplainmeaningofthe  enactment."1Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. aԀ72.Applyingthisruleof 0 statutoryconstructionto[XLXX XL15# XLXX[XLTc#Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.[XLXX XLbԀ# XLXX[XLc#[XLXX XLc708,wefind , that"any"lawenforcementofficerincludeseverykindoflaw  enforcementofficer,regardlessofwhetherornottheofficeris 4 statutorilyauthorizedtoenforcestatelaw.Moreover,wehave 0 regularlyrecognizedpostalinspectorsaslawenforcementofficers.   See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.CarrilloFigueroa,34F.3d33,43(1st 8!" Cir.2002)(forsentenceenhancementpurposes,defendantshould "4$ haveknownthatpostalinspectorwasa lawenforcementofficer); $& seealsoCosmev.Henderson,287F.3d152,156(2dCir.2002) <&!( (Plaintiff appliedforapositionasapostalinspector,ahighly '8#*  competitivelawenforcementposition.);Stoutv.Potter,276F.3d )$, 1118,1121(9thCir.2002)(ThePostalInspectionServiceis the  lawenforcementbranchoftheUnitedStatesPostalService.).# XLXX[XLd# \    Santoniarguesthatthephrase lawenforcementofficersas X usedin15Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.KdԀ708doesnotincludepostal   inspectorsbecausepostalinspectorsarenotamongthosefederal `  lawenforcementofficialsvestedwiththe"powertoenforcestate  \  law"under25Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.iԀj1502A.However,15Me.Rev.   Stat.Ann.jԀNk708doesnotlimitauthoritytoswearoutacriminal d  complainttostatelawenforcementofficersandfederalofficers `  whoarespecificallyempoweredtoenforcestatelaw.Nordoes25   Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.xkԀl1502Aplaceanylimitationsonthekindsof h officerswhomayswearoutcomplaints.Therefore,weagreewith d thedistrictcourtthatthephrase"anylawenforcementofficer"  doesnotprecludepostalofficialsfromswearingoutcriminal l complaints.\ #  6       h  !l"    ` b.ExecutingtheArrestWarrant     Santonialsoargues,however,thatevenifDesrosierswas x authorizedtoswearoutandreceivethecomplaint,hehadno $t authoritytocarryoutthearrestofSantoni.Onceanarrest   warrantisissued,onlyan"officerauthorizedbylaw"mayexecute |  thatwarrant.Me.R.Crim.P.4(c)(1).Asnoted,postal ( x  inspectorsarenotamongthoseofficersauthorizedunderMainelaw $  toexecutearrestwarrants.25XLXX XLMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.# XLXXXLq#lԀ{q1502A.qԀ   SantoniarguesthatDesrosiersalsohadnoauthoritytoexecutethe ,|  arrestinhiscapacityasaprivatecitizen.Therefore,heclaims ( that"thedistrictcourt'sconclusionthatDesrosierswas  authorizedasaprivatepersontoarrestSantoniwasclearly 0 erroneousandshouldbereversed." ,   SantoniiscorrectthatMainelawdoesnotauthorizeprivate  citizenstomakeanarrestforaClassEcrimenotcommittedin 4 theirpresence.See17AXLXX XLMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.# XLXXXLLt#qԀ16;cf.Unverzagt, 0 424F.2dat398(postalinspector'sarrestofindividualfor   carryingaconcealedweaponwasvalidunderNebraskalawthat 8!" authorizedprivatecitizenstomakeanarrestforafelony "4$ committedintheirpresence).However,thedistrictcourtheld $& thatSantoni'sarrestwaslawful,notbecauseDesrosiershadstate <&!( lawauthoritytoexecutethewarrant,butbecauseDeputySheriff '8#* Wingparticipatedinthearrest.InlightofWing'sknowing )$, participationinthearrest,thecourtexplainedthatit"wouldbe @+&. elevatingformoversubstancetoconcludethatthevalidityofthe  arrestdependedonwhichofthetwomenutteredthewords'Youare \ underarrest,'orplacedthePlaintiffinhandcuffs." X   Weagreewiththedistrictcourt'sconclusionthatSantoni's   arrestwaslawfulbecauseitwascarriedoutunderWing'slawful `  authority.UnderMainelaw,anarrestwarrant"shallbeexecuted  \  byanyofficerauthorizedbylaw."Me.R.Crim.P.4(c)(1).   DeputySheriffWingwasclearlyauthorized!andindeed,required d  !bylawtoarrestSantoniunder15Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.602, `  whichprovidesthat"[i]tistheresponsibilityofallpoliceand   sheriffdepartmentsandtheirofficerstouseallreasonable h effortstoexecutetheoutstandingarrestwarrantsofwhichthey d areaware."SeealsoKanev.Anderson,509A.2d656,657(Me.  1986)(concludingthat"theexecutionofanarrestwarrantisa l ministerialratherthanadiscretionaryfunction");Carrollv.City h ofPortland,736A.2d279,283(Me.1999)("[A]ministerialactis  mandatoryandrequiresnopersonaljudgmentorchoice.")(emphasis p  inoriginal).ItisundisputedthatWingaccompaniedDesrosiersat !l" Desrosiers'requesttoSantoni'sresidencewhereSantoniwas "$ arrestedandthentransportedbyWingandDesrosierstothe t$& SomersetCountySheriff'sDepartment.Basedonthesefacts,the  &p!( districtcourtappropriatelyconcludedthatWingwasawareofthe '#* outstandingarrestwarrantandhadalegaldutytoexecuteit. x)$, Desrosiers'presenceatthearrest,forthepurposeofassisting $+t&. Wingintheexecutionofthewarrant,didnotrenderthatarrest  unlawfulunderstatelaworconstitutionallyinfirm.Cf.Wilson \ v.Layne,526U.S.603,614(1999)(holdingthat"itisaviolation X oftheFourthAmendmentforpolicetobringmembersofthemediaor   otherthirdpartiesintoahomeduringtheexecutionofawarrant `  whenthepresenceofthirdpartiesinthehomewasnotinaidof  \  theexecutionofthewarrant").     Forthefirsttimeonappeal,Santoniarguesthatsummary d  judgmentwasinappropriatebecauseitisreasonabletoinferthat `  Wingwasnotawareofthewarrantandthereforehadnoobligation   toexecuteit.ThisargumentreliesonstatementsmadebyWingin h adepositiontakenonJanuary31,2003,fivemonthsaftertheentry d ofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthefederaldefendants.AsSantoni  acknowledges,however,thistranscriptwasnotavailabletothe l districtcourtandthereforeisnotpartoftherecordonappeal. h Moreover,SantonineverarguedbelowthatWingwasunawareofthe  warrant.Indeed,hiscomplaintsuggestedthatWingknowingly p  participatedinthearrest,withareferencetothe"illegalarrest !l" ofSantonibydefendants"andtheclaimthat"DefendantsDeLongand "$ WingdidnothaveprobablecausetoarrestSantoni"(emphasis t$& added).Similarly,inhisoppositiontothedefendants'motionfor  &p!( summaryjudgment,SantoniallegedthatDesrosiers"arrested '#* plaintiffwithoutauthoritytodosoandthattheotherdefendants x)$, knewitwasunlawfulbutagreedtoparticipate"(emphasisadded). $+t&. BecauseSantonifailedtoraisebelowhistheorythatWinghadno  obligationtoarrestSantonibecausehedidnotknowaboutthe \ warrant,thisargumentisnowprocedurallydefaulted.See X Teamsters,Chauffeurs,WarehousemenandHelpersUnion,LocalNo.59   v.SuperlineTransp.Co.,953F.2d17,21(1stCir.1992)("Ifany `  principleissettledinthiscircuit,itisthat,absentthemost  \  extraordinarycircumstances,legaltheoriesnotraisedsquarelyin   thelowercourtcannotbebroachedforthefirsttimeonappeal."). d  F  F  F    Insum,Desrosiershadvalidauthoritytoswearoutthe `  criminalcomplaintandreceivethecomplaintandwarrantfor   Santoni'sarrest,andWinghadvalidauthoritytoexecutethat h warrant.Therefore,weagreewiththedistrictcourtthat d Santoni'sarrestwaslawfulunderMainelawandthatitdidnot  constituteanunreasonableseizureundertheFourthAmendment. l    2.QualifiedImmunity  h   BecauseSantonihasnotpresentedaviableconstitutional 0 claim,wedonotconsiderwhetherDesrosiersisprotectedfrom   liabilitybyqualifiedimmunity.SeeSaucierv.Katz,533U.S.194 8!" 201(2001)("Ifnoconstitutionalrightwouldhavebeenviolated "4$ weretheallegationsestablished,thereisnonecessityforfurther $& inquiriesconcerningqualifiedimmunity.");Flowersv.Fiore,359 <&!( F.3d24,34(1stCir.2004)("Uponfindingthattherewasno '8#* constitutionalviolation,wedonotaddresstheissueofqualified )$, immunity."). @+&. Ї C.0  FTCAClaimsAgainsttheUSPS tX(#(#   Wenextconsiderwhetherthedistrictcourterredingranting   summaryjudgmentfortheUSPSonSantoni'stortclaimsofunlawful |  arrest,assault,battery,andfalseimprisonment.Ԑ ( x    TheFederalTortClaimsAct,28U.S.C.2671etseq., $  providesalimitedcongressionalwaiverofthesovereignimmunity   oftheUnitedStatesfortortscommittedbyfederalemployees ,|  actingwithinthescopeoftheiremployment.Underthestatute, ( theUnitedStatesmaybeheldcivillyliable"inthesamemanner  andtothesameextentasaprivateindividualunderlike 0 circumstances."28U.S.C.2674.Certaintypesofintentional , tortsareexemptedfromtheFTCAswaiverofsovereignimmunity,  butthestatuteallowsclaimsagainsttheUnitedStatesforthe 4 tortsof assault,battery,falseimprisonment,falsearrest,abuse 0 ofprocess,ormaliciousprosecutionarisingoutof actsor   omissionsofinvestigativeorlawenforcementofficersofthe 8!" UnitedStatesGovernment.28U.S.C.2680(h). "4$   Thiswaiverofsovereignimmunity,however,issubjecttoa $& numberofstatutoryexceptions.See28U.S.C.2680.Onedefense <&!( raisedintheproceedingsbelowwasthediscretionaryfunction '8#* exception,whichshieldsfromliabilityclaims baseduponthe )$, exerciseorperformanceorthefailuretoexerciseorperforma @+&. dO de d  discretionaryfunctionordutyonthepartofafederalagencyor e anemployeeoftheGovernment,whetherornotthediscretion  involvedbeabused.28U.S.C.2680(a).Ifthediscretionary X functionexceptionapplies,theagencyiscompletelyimmunefrom i  suit,andtheclaimmustbedismissedforlackofsubjectmatter   jurisdiction.Kellyv.UnitedStates,924F.2d355,360(1stCir.  \  1991). m    Thedistrictcourtheldthatthediscretionaryfunction   exceptiondidnotprecludeconsiderationofSantonistortclaims `  againsttheUSPSforallegedharmsarisingfromDesrosiers q  participationinthearrestofSantoni.BecauseDesrosiersacted  outsidethescopeofhisfederalauthorityasapostalinspector d whenheparticipatedinthisarrest(regardlessofwhetherhis u conductwasauthorizedunderstatelaw),thecourtconcludedthat ! thediscretionaryfunctionexceptiondidnotapply.g #  7      ׀Aswe h recentlynoted,"courtshavereadtheSupremeCourt'sdiscretionary y functioncasesasdenyingprotectiontoactionsthatare %  unauthorizedbecausetheyareunconstitutional,proscribedby  l" statute,orexceedthescopeofanofficial'sauthority."Thames }"$ Shipyard&RepairCo.v.UnitedStates,350F.3d247,25455(1st )$& Cir.2003)(collectingcases).However,wehavenotresolved %p!( Wwhetherthediscretionaryfunctionexceptionextendstoactions '#* thatareotherwiseoutsidethescopeofanofficial'sactual e federalauthority,andweneednotdosohere.Nordoweaddress  whetherDesrosiershadimpliedfederalauthoritytoparticipatein X thearresttothelimitedextentofswearingoutthecriminal i  complaint,receivingthearrestwarrant,andassistingWinginthe   executionofthatwarrant.ٟԀSee,e.g.,id.at260(holdingthatthe  \  discretionaryfunctionexceptionappliedwheretheCoastGuardhad m  impliedstatutoryauthoritytoordertheevacuationofasinking   ship).7Assuming,arguendo,thattheUSPSisnotshieldedfrom `  liabilitybythediscretionaryfunctionanalysis,Santonistort q  claimsfailonthemerits^.D    Asnoted,undertheFTCA,theUSPSisliableforthetortsof d itsagents,"inthesamemannerandtothesameextentofaprivate u individualunderlikecircumstances."28U.S.C.2674.Because ! theallegedtortiousconducttookplaceinMaine,welooktoMaine h tortlawindeterminingthedefendant'sliabilityundertheFTCA. y 28U.S.C.1346(b)(1).i %  {  Santoni'sclaimsoffalsearrest,falseimprisonment,assault,  l" andbatteryrelyonthepremisethatDesrosiersactedatleast }"$ negligentlybyarrestingSantoniwithoutanylawfulauthoritytodo )$& so.UnderMainelaw,thetortsofassaultandbatterybyalaw %p!( enforcementofficerrequireeitherafalsearrestortheuseof '#* excessiveforceduringoraftertakinganindividualintocustody. -)$, Balev.Rider,290A.2d359,360(Me.1972).Similarly,inorder *t&. toestablishatortclaimoffalsearrestandfalseimprisonment , (0  theauthorityuponwhich[P]laintiffisconfinedmustbe e unlawful.Nadeauv.State,395A.2d107,116(Me.1978)(stating  elementsoffalseimprisonmentclaim);seeJedzierowskiv.Jordan, X 172A.2d636,637(Me.1961)(holdingthatfalsearrestisone i  meansofcommittingfalseimprisonment).     Aswehavealreadyconcluded,supra,Santoniwasarrestedand  \  confineduponvalidstatelawauthority.Desrosiersparticipation m  inthearrestdidnotrenderitunlawfulunderstatelaworthe   FourthAmendment.BecauseSantonisarrestwaslawful,thereisno `  basisforfindingliabilityforfalsearrest,falseimprisonment, q  assault,orbattery.Therefore,weconcludethatthedistrict  courtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants d onSantonisFTCAclaimsagainsttheUSPS. u    III.  ! 6  Fortheforegoingreasons,thedistrictcourtsentryof  summaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendantsis affirmed.  0   Soordered.  ]