2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-22-2008 

# M ar t in v . L ak ewo o d P ol D ept P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4542

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ar t in v . L akewood P o l D ept " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1540. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1540A L D - 130 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4542

___________ H E N R Y G . M A R T IN , J R .,

A p p e llan t, v . LAK EW OO D PO LI CE D EPARTM ENT; CH AR LI E CU NLI FF E, CO M M I SS I ON ER L AKE WOOD P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND O F F I CI AL CA PACI TY A ND M AY OR OF TO W NSH I P OF LAK EW OO D; W AY NE R . YH OST, D I R E C T O R O F P U B L I C S A F E T Y ; R I C H A R D D O E A N D J O H N D O E U N K N O WN P OL I CE OF F I CE R F OR T HE T OWNS HI P OF L AKE WOOD NE W J E RS E Y; L E RO Y M ARS HALL, I NDI VI DUA L AND OFF I CI AL CAP ACI TY; HARRY VAN DE Z I L VE R, P OL I CE OF F I CE R I NDI VI DUAL AND OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; GUI L L E RMO CL AR KE , P OL I CE OF F I CE R I NDI VI DUAL AND OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; F E L I X R I VE RI A, OF F I CE R I NDI VI DUAL AND OF F I CI AL CA PACI TY; PI NE B ELT CHEV Y I NC OR PORA TED; DA VI D K I DD , M AN AG ER

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 2593) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr.

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February14, 2008 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: February22, 2008 )2 _________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A pp el l ant, H enryG . M art i n, Jr . , app eal s fr om tw o D i stri ctC ou rtorders : the fir st gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s Pi ne B el tC hevyI nc. ( “Pi ne B el t ”) an d D av id K idd , the m an ag er o f P ine B elt(“K idd ”); th e se co n d g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s L akew ood Pol i ce D epart m ent , L akew ood Pol i ce D epart m entC om m i s s i onerC har l i e C unl i ffe , L akew ood D i r ect orof Publ i c Safe t yW ayne R . Y h o st, L a k e w o o d P o lice D e p a rtm e n t O f f ice rs G u ill e rm o C lar k e , L e ro yM a rsh a ll, F e lix R iveria, an d H arryV an D ez il v er (co ll ec ti v ely“the M u n ici p al D ef en d an ts”). I . Backg r ound O n J ul y2, 2004, M ar t i n w as dr i vi ng hi s vehi cl e i n t he vi ci ni t yof M art i n L uther K i ng B l vd. i n L akew ood, N ew J er s ey . O ffi cer s L er oyM ar s hal l and Fel i x R i ver i a ( t he “off i cers ”) w ere pat rol l i ng t he area i n p l ai nclothes and i n an un m arked car w hen theyfi rs t not i ced M ar t i n’ s car . T he s econd t i m e theynot i ced, M art i n’ s carw as parked i n fr ontof an ar ea w el l know n fordrug act i vi t yand a pe r s on w as l eani ng i nt o t he w i ndow , w hi ch M ar t i n does notdeny . A ct i ng on w hatappea r ed t o t he off i cer s t o be a pot ent i al drug t r ans act i on, t heybegan t o fol l ow M art i n. T he off i cer s cl ai m , and M ar t i n does notdeny , thatM art i n fai l ed t o m ake the a p p ro p ria te tra f

f ic s ig n a l th re e tim e s w h ile th e yw e re f o llo w in g h is v e h icle . W h e n M a rtin3

arr i ved athom e, he dec i ded t o m ove hi s vehi cl e fr om hi s pr i vat e parki ng s pace t o s i de p ark ing . A fter p lacing h is car in rev erse h e c o ll ided w ith the u n m ark ed p o li ce ca r, s t r i ki ng t he fr ontof the off i cer s ’ vehi cl e. W hetherthe off i cer s hi tM art i n’ s parked ca r , or w hetherM art i n hi tt he off i cer s ’ unm arked ca rw hi l e bac ki ng up, i s di s put ed. O ffi cer G ui l l erm o C l ark r es ponded t o t he s cene , compl et ed an a cci dentr epor tand i s s ued a s um m ons t o M ar t i n forcar el es s dr i vi ng bas ed on M art i n’ s admi s s i on thathe w as di s t r act ed and ba cked hi s vehi cl e i nt o t he vehi cl e oper at ed byO ffi cerM ar s hal l . T he offi cer s i s s ued M art i n t hr ee tr aff i c s um m ons es forfai l ur e t o gi ve a pr opers i gnal and one s um m ons forcar el es s dr i vi ng. A l l of the s um m ons es w er e di s m i s s ed bythe Lakew ood m uni ci pal courtaft erO ffi cer s M ar s hal l and R i ver i a fa i l ed t o appea ratthe hea r i ng. M a r t i n f i l e d a c o mp l a i n ta l l e g i n g c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. §§ 1983, 1985( 3) , 1986 and 1988. H e al l eges thatthe off i cer s i nvol ved i n t he i nci dent e n g a g e d in ra c ial p ro f

ili n g , file d a f

a lse a c c id e n t re p o rt a n d iss u e d g ro u n d les s tra f f ic c i t a t i o n s , v i o l a t i n g h i s r i g h tt o e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e F o u r t e e n t h Am e n d me n t . He f u rth e r a lleg e s th a t th e c o lli sio n a m o u n ted to a n ill e g a l se izu re , v io latin g h is F o u rth A m endmentr i ght s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the muni ci pal D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on on J une 8, 2007. M art i n al s o appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s D ece m ber7, 2006 or der gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s Pi ne B el tand K i dd. M art i n fi l ed a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l.4 I I . D i s cus s i on A . D e f

e ndant s Pi ne Bel t and K i dd M ar t i n’ s cl ai m s agai ns tPi ne B el tand K i dd ar e bas ed on the vehi cl e l oan agr eementbetw een Pi ne B el tand the Lakew ood Pol i ce D epart m ents etfor t h i n a contr act d a ted A p ril 5 , 1 9 8 9 (th e “ C o n tra c t”) . M a rtin a lleg e s th a t P in e B e lt l o a n e d th e v e h icle s to t he D epart m ent , i ncl udi ng t he unmar ked vehi cl e us ed dur i ng the eve nt s ati s s ue, know i ng t hatt he pol i ce w er e “pe r form i ng unr eas onabl e, arbi t r aryand capaci ous [s i c] s t ops bas ed on r ace i n t he bl ack c om m uni t y , ” and thatK i dd al l ow ed the Lakew ood Pol i ce D epart m ent to b o rr o w a n d u s e u n re g is te re d m o to r v e h ic le s . (C o m p l. ¶ ¶ 1 3 -1 4 .) T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Pi ne B el tand K i dd becau se nei t her act ed “u nd er col or of st at e l aw . ” “S ect i on 19 83 provides a federal cause of ac t i on fort he depr i vat i on, undercol orof l aw , of a c i t i zen’ s r i ght s , pr i vi l eges , or i m m uni t i es s ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on and l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” Li vadas v. B r ads haw , 512 U . S. 107, 132 ( 1994) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng M ai ne v. T hi bout ot , 448 U . S. 1, 4 ( 1980) ) . “Pr i vat e per s ons , j oi nt l yengage d w i t h s t at e off i ci al s i n t he cha l l enged act i on , are act i ng ‘under color ’ of l aw for pu rposes of § 1 98 3 acti on s. ” D enn i s v. S parks, 449 U . S. 24, 27- 28 ( 1980) ( ci t i ng A di ckes v. S. H . K r es s & C o. , 398 U . S. 144, 152 (1970 )) . H ow ever, such p ri vate pers on s m ustprove thattheyw ere “w i l l ful part i ci pan t [s] i n j oi ntact i on w i t h t he St at e ori t s agent s . ” I d. at27; s ee a l s o A di ckes , 398 U . S. at152 (p lain tiff e n tit led to re lief

u n d e r 1 9 8 3 a g a in st p riv a te p a rtyif sh e c a n p ro v e th a t p riv a tePar agr aph 10 of the C ont r actpr ovi des that“[t ] he Tow ns hi p s hal l i ndemni fy , s ave 1 a n d h o ld h a rm les s, P in e B e l [ sic ] C h e v ro let, C o ., In c ., f ro m a n ya n d a ll cla im s, ju d g m e n ts orexpens es i ncl udi ng couns el fee s , ar i s i ng fr om the us uage [ s i c] of al l vehi cl es w hi c [s i c] a re th e s u b

je c t o f th is A g re e m e n t.” (D e f ’s M o tio n , E x h . A , ¶ 1 0 .) 5 p a rtya n d p o lice o f

f ice r “ re a c h e d a n u n d e rsta n d in g ” to c a u se h e r a rre st o n im p e rm iss ib le gr ounds ) . T he “i nqui r ym us tbe w hetherther e i s a s uffi ci ent l ycl os e nexus betw een the s t at e and the cha l l enged a ct i on of the . . . ent i t ys o t hatthe ac t i on of the l att erm aybe fai r l yt r eat ed as t hatof the St at e i t s el f. ” J acks on v. M etr o. E di s on C o. , 419 U . S. 345, 351 ( 1974) . A pl ai nt i ff c an es t abl i s h s uch a ne xus byal l egi ng and pr ovi ng the el ement s of a c iv il co n sp ira c yb e tw e e n a sta te a n d p riv a te a c to r to v io late a n in d iv id u a l’s rig h ts. M e lo v . H a f e r, 9 1 2 F .2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 8 n .1 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (c iti n g A d ick e s, 3 9 8 U .S . at 1 5 2 ). M a rtin f a i l s t o p r o v i d e e i t h e rd i r e c to rc i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f s u c h a c o n s p i r a c y. M art i n co ntends that the joi nt par t i ci pati on or “nex us” requir em ent i s m etbecau se P ine B eltloan s v eh icl es to the M u n ici p al D ef en d an ts w ith “f

u ll k n o w ledg e” that theyare vi ol at i ng t he C ons t i tut i on byengagi ng i n r aci al pr ofi l i ng. H e al l eges thatthe contr act betw een the M uni ci pal D efe ndant s and Pi ne B el tcons t i tut es evi dence of a c ons pi r acyor “form al arr angement ” t o engage i n a “j oi ntact i on pl an . . . t o al l ow unr egi s t er ed vehi cl es to b e u sed b yu n d erc o v er p o li ce o ff icer [s ic] i n law en fo rce m en t. ” (P l’ s O p p ’n a t ¶ 9 . ) H e furt hercl ai m s t hatt he i ndemni fi cat i on pr ovi s i on i n t he contr acti s evi dence of Pi ne B el t ’ s know l edge thatt heym i ghtbe i m pl i cat ed i n a l aw s ui tagai ns tthe M uni ci pal D ef en d an ts. M arti n also su b m it s tha t Pine B eltan d the M u n ici p al D ef en d an ts are 16

r epr es ent ed byt he s ame couns el and mustther efor e be c ons i der ed “i nt ert w i ned” f or purpos es of fi ndi ng s t at e ac t i on. V iew in g th e u n d e rly in g f a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to M a rtin , an d d ra w in g a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n hi s favor , A nder s on v. L i ber t yL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 255 ( 1986) , w e ca nnotconcl ude thata tr i abl e i s s ue of f actexi s t s w i t h r egar d t o Pi ne B el tor K i dd’ s w i l l ful par t i ci pat i on i n the al l eged w r ongful conduct . T her e i s s i m pl yno evi dence of a c ont r actual orotheragr eementt o i nvol ve Pi ne B el torK i dd i n anyl aw enfor cement deci s i ons w i t h r egar d t o t he under coveract i vi t i es of the M uni ci pal D efe ndant s . T he contr actati s s ue i s l i m i t ed ent i r el yt o t he l eas i ng arr angement . M art i n has pr es ent ed no evi dence t hatPi ne B el torK i dd had anyknow l edge of the day - t o- dayl aw enfor cement o p e ra tio n s o f

th e L a k e w o o d P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, m u c h les s a n yp a rticip a tio n w ith th e ir al l eged profi l i ng act i vit i es. B . T h e M u n ici p a l D efe n d a n ts T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the M uni ci pal D e f e n d a n ts u n d e r th re e se p a ra te th e o rie s. F irst, su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s g ra n ted to D ef en d an t of

fice rs C larke , M arsh all , R iveria, an d V an D ez il v er b ec au se th e C o u rt co n clud ed theyw ere en ti tl ed to q u ali fied im m u n ity . W h en ex am ining w h ethe r of fice rs ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , w e fi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe conduc tal l eged byt he pl ai nt i ff vi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . Scot tv. H arr i s , 127 S. C t . 1769, 1774 ( 2007) ; s ee a lso S h o w e rs v . S p a n g ler , 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 6 5 , 1 7 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). If so , the se c o n d ste p is to7

det erm i ne w hethert he unl aw ful nes s of the ac t i on w oul d have be en appa r entt o an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e off i ci al . Show er s , 182 F. 3d at172. A n offi cer ’ s s ubj ect i ve i nt ent in c a rr y in g o u t th e c h a lle n g e d a c tio n is im m a te ri a l to a q u a lif ie d im m u n ity a n a lysis . In ste a d , “w h e th e r a n o f f icia l p ro tec ted b yq u a lifie d im m u n itym a yb e h e ld p e rso n a lly l i abl e foran al l egedl yunl aw ful offi ci al act i on gener al l yturns on t he ‘ obj ect i ve l egal re a so n a b len e ss ’ o f

th e a c tio n , as se ss e d in lig h t o f th e leg a l ru les th a t w e re ‘c lea rly es t abl i s hed’ att he t i m e i tw as t aken. ” A nder s on v. C r ei ght on, 483 U . S. 635, 639 ( 1987) (cit ati o n o m itted); see also B erg v . C o u n tyo f A ll eg h en y , 2 1 9 F . 3 d 2 6 1 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). He r e , Of

f i c e r s Ri v e r i a a n d M a r s h a l l n o t i c e d M a r t i n ’ s c a rtwi c e , th e s e c o n d t i me parked i n an ar ea know n fordrug act i vi t y . T heyobs erved a pe r s on l eani ng i nt o t he w in d o w o f

h is v e h icle . S u sp e c tin g d ru g a c tiv ityth e yb e g a n to f o llo w M a rtin . W h ile f o llo w in g h im , th e o f

f ic e rs o b s e rv e d M a rt in f a ilin g to s ig n a l w h e n m a k in g m u ltip le tu rn s . T heydi d noti s s ue M art i n a tr aff i c s um m ons unt i l aft erthe col l i s i on betw een the unm arked pol i ce ve hi cl e and M art i n’ s vehi cl e had oc curr ed. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatM art i n’ s as s ert i ons thatD efe ndant s caus ed the a cc iden t and fil ed a f alse rep o rtto d ep ri v e h im o f h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts are b are a lleg a tio n s o f

m a lice th a t ar e n o t su f

f icie n t to d e f

e a t im m u n ityb e c a u se th e D e f e n d a n ts a c ted in a n o b

jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le m a n n e r b yf ili n g a n a c c id e n t re p o rt a n d iss u in g M a rtin f o u r tra f f ic s u m m o n se s. S e e id . T h e o f f ice rs f o llo w e d M a rtin b a se d o n th e ir re a so n a b le8

s us pi ci on t hatdrug act i vi t yhad t aken pl ace , and cont i nued t o fol l ow hi m aft erhe had comm i t t ed w hata r eas onabl e off i cerw oul d bel i eve w er e mul t i pl e tr aff i c vi ol at i ons . E ven if th e o f f ice rs is su e d th e c itatio n s to M a rtin f o r im p ro p e r m o tiv e s, su c h e v id e n c e is “s i m pl yi r r el evant ” t o a qual i fi ed i m m uni t ydefe ns e. I d. ( s ubj ect i ve i nt enti s notr el evant t o a qual i fi ed i m m uni t yanal y s i s ) . N ordoes the evi dence s uppor tM art i n’ s al l egat i on t hat th e o f f ice rs p u rp o se lyh it h is c a r. M a rtin a d m its in h is c o m p lain t th a t h e p lac e d h is c a r in r ever s e and thathe as ked the off i cer s w hytheydi d notbl ow thei rhorn w hen theys aw hi m backi ng up. ( C om pl . at¶¶ 28, 29. ) B eca us e w e do notfi nd thatthe off i cer s vi ol at ed M ar t i n’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byfol l ow i ng hi m upon t hei rr eas onabl e s us pi ci on of drug act i vi t y , t hei ri nvol vementi n t he col l i s i on ori n t he i s s uance of an a cci dentr epor tand tra f f ic s u m m o n se s, w e n e e d n o t p ro c e e d to th e se c o n d ste p o f th e q u a lifie d im m u n ity a na l y s i s . Sc ottv. H a r r i s , 12 7 S. Ct . 17 69 , 17 74 ( 20 07 ) ( c i t i ng Sa uc i e rv. K a t z , 53 3 U. S. 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (20 0 1 )). T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o corr ect l yconcl uded thatD efe ndantL akew ood Pol i ce D epart m entw as ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entbeca us e M art i n’ s theoryof r es pondeat superi or w as fl aw ed. “[A ] m un i ci pali t ycann ot be hel d li able s olel ybecau se i tem ploy s a t or t fea s or– or , i n ot herw or ds , a muni ci pal i t ycannotbe hel d l i abl e under§ 1983 on a r e s po nd e a ts up e r i ort he ory . ” M on e l l v. D e p’ tof Soc . Se r vs . of

Ci t yof N . Y . , 43 6 U. S. 658, 691 ( 1978) . Pur s uantt o M onel l , M art i n coul d onl yas s erta cl ai m under§ 1983 agai ns tt he pol i ce de part m enti f the al l eged c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on i nvol ved a pol i cyT he D epart m ent ’ s offi ci al pol i cypr ohi bi t s “[t ] he det ent i on, i nt er di ct i on orot her 2 di s par at e tr eatm entof an i ndi vi dual s ol el yon t he bas i s of thei rr ace , ethni ci t y , age, gender o r s e x u a l o ri e n ta tio n .” S e e P l’ s O p p ’n E x h . “ L a k e w o o d P o lic e P o lic y .” 9 offi ci al l yadopt ed byt he depa r t m entorw her e, al t hough notoffi ci al l yadopt ed, the vi ol at i on ar os e fr om t he l ocal governm ent ’ s “cus t om . ” I d. at690- 91; s ee a l s o B eck v. C i t yof Pi t t s bur gh, 89 F. 3d 966, 971 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . M art i n has notpr offe r ed evi dence of ei t heran off

i ci al pol i cyoran unoff

i ci al cus t om . I ndeed, M art i n’ s evi dence i ncl udes L akew ood Pol i ce D epart m ent ’ s offi ci al pol i cypr ohi bi t i ng di s cr i m i nat orypr ofi l i ng. 2 V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o M art i n, he fa i l ed t o pr es entevi dence t hatr aci al pr ofi l i ng w as ei t hera pol i cyor“cus t om ” of the Lakew ood Pol i ce D epart m ent an d there fo re su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of the L ak ew o o d P o li ce D ep artm en t i s p rop er. F in a lly , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t is p ro p e r a s to D efen dan t s C un l i ffe an d Y ho st ’s al l eged enco uragem ent of raci al profi l i ng becau se M ar t i n has fai l ed t o r ai s e anygenui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatthe Lakew ood Pol i ce D epart m entoper at ed underanyoffi ci al pol i cyorcus t om of r aci al pr ofi l i ng. M onel l , 436 U . S. at691. W e w ill su m m a rilya f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.