Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal in Soto-Santana v. Wengen

Case Result

Elliott Greenleaf secured a favorable outcome for our client, Officer Stephen Wengen of the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department, in the matter of Soto-Santana et al. v. Wengen (3d Cir. No. 24-2032). On April 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the District Court’s grant of Officer Wengen’s 12(b)(6) motion and the dismissal of all claims brought against him. 

Case Overview

Plaintiffs alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law following their arrest for defiant trespass. The plaintiffs were discovered occupying an apartment in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, that had been officially declared uninhabitable by city code enforcement due to unsafe plumbing conditions.

Despite the property’s posted notice and orders to vacate, the plaintiffs returned to the residence with the landlord’s verbal permission. Officer Wengen responded to neighbor complaints, confirmed their continued presence, and, upon investigating, arrested the plaintiffs for defiant trespass. The charges were later dropped when Officer Wengen was unable to appear at the preliminary hearing.

Plaintiffs then filed suit alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit.

Drew McLaughlin, managing shareholder in the Wilkes-Barre office, led the firm’s defense team.   

Third Circuit Decision

The Third Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling on the following grounds:

• Probable Cause Existed: The Court determined that Officer Wengen reasonably believed the plaintiffs were unlawfully present based on the city’s official notice and neighbor reports. The landlord’s alleged permission did not defeat probable cause.
• Affirmative Defense Irrelevant at Arrest Stage: The plaintiffs argued that they believed they were lawfully permitted to stay, but the Court clarified that potential defenses do not negate probable cause at the time of arrest.
• Qualified Immunity Applied: Even assuming any legal ambiguity, the Court held that Officer Wengen was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established law prohibiting his actions under the circumstances.

The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim warranting relief and affirmed the dismissal in full.

Key Takeaways

• Probable cause is based on objective facts, not subjective defenses: Law enforcement officers are not required to adjudicate competing claims of right-of-entry on the spot. Clearly posted notices and citizen complaints can form the basis for valid arrests.
• Verbal landlord permission does not override municipal code enforcement: Tenants cannot rely on informal arrangements when a property has been condemned or posted as unsafe for habitation. In this case, both the District court and the Third Circuit relied upon the Wilkes-Barre Code of Ordinances, cited by Elliott Greenleaf, to bolster Officer Wengen’s probable cause determination and affirm dismissal of the complaint.  
• Qualified immunity continues to shield officers from personal liability where the law is not clearly established: This ruling reaffirms that officers are protected from civil claims in close legal calls. While many district courts defer adjudication of qualified immunity until the summary judgment stage, the Third Circuit’s decision here is a reminder that qualified immunity is supposed to be decided at the earliest opportunity in the case. 

Learn more about our civil rights defense practice.