## Facts

- Claudine L. Boyce worked as a housekeeper and caretaker for Auda Tunis, an elderly woman with dementia.
- Boyce obtained a general power of attorney from Tunis, arranged for Tunis’s admission to a nursing home, removed furniture from Tunis’s home, and stored it at Boyce’s residence.
- Boyce transferred title to Tunis’s Cadillac into Boyce’s own name and kept the car at her residence.
- Tunis’s adult granddaughter reported suspected elder abuse and financial exploitation to police.
- Officer Vera Fernandes investigated, interviewing Tunis (who accused Boyce of threats, abuse, and theft) and speaking with the granddaughter, nursing-home staff, and the attorney who prepared the power of attorney.
- Fernandes confirmed the Cadillac was at Boyce’s home and that registration had been changed to Boyce’s name.
- Fernandes arrested Boyce for theft of the Cadillac; Boyce was not prosecuted and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois law for false arrest/false imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Fernandes had probable cause to arrest Boyce for theft, defeating Boyce’s § 1983 false-arrest claim.
2. Whether, in a false-arrest case where probable cause is the only immunity-related question, qualified immunity adds any separate inquiry beyond the merits.
3. Whether probable cause is a complete defense to Illinois false-arrest/false-imprisonment claims against the officer and the municipality.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Fernandes and the City.
- The court held Fernandes had probable cause to arrest Boyce for theft based on the victim’s accusations, corroborating information, and objective evidence concerning the car’s transfer and location.
- Because probable cause existed, any additional qualified-immunity analysis was academic.
- The existence of probable cause also defeated the state-law false-arrest/false-imprisonment claims.

## Legal Principles

- In § 1983 false-arrest cases where the only immunity-related question is probable cause, the merits and qualified-immunity inquiries effectively merge; the dispositive question is whether probable cause existed.
- Probable cause is evaluated from the facts known to the officer at the time of arrest; lack of later prosecution does not retroactively negate probable cause.
- A power of attorney does not authorize the agent to appropriate the principal’s property for personal benefit; it does not, by itself, preclude probable cause to believe theft occurred.
- Under Illinois law, probable cause is a complete defense to claims for false arrest and false imprisonment, including claims asserted against a municipality on the arrest’s legality.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the officer had probable cause to arrest a caretaker suspected of exploiting an elderly principal despite the caretaker’s reliance on a power of attorney, and it affirmed dismissal of both the federal and state false-arrest claims, treating qualified immunity as resolved by the probable-cause determination.


Boyce v. Fernandes, 77 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 1996)