2009 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 11-24-2009 

# Kai Ingram v

. D a vid L up a s 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 . 09-1688

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_2009

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 2009 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 " K ai In gr am v

. D a vid Lup as " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 204. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/204CL D- 0 1 5 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. 09- 1688

___________ K A I D W A Y N E I N G R A M, A ppel l ant v . D A V I D L U PA S, L uzerne C ount yC hi ef D i s t r i ctA t t orney ; D A N I E L B E K Y , L uzerne C ount yD et ect i ve; ST E PH E N K O FC H A K , L arks vi l l e A s s i s t antC hi ef of Pol i ce

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 3: 07- cv- 02259) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

____________________________________ 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 P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 O ct ober16, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember24, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM K ai D w ayne I ngr am, a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derent er i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the def endant s . Fort he fo ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.2 I. I n M ay2006, s ever al w i t nes s es s aw a man know n as “K ai ” fi r e s hot s fr om a t ancol or ed van a tt w o m en on the s t r eet . T he w i t nes s es des cr i bed K ai as a bl ack mal e about fi ve fe etand t en inches t al l w ho w ei gh ed ap proxim at el yon e hu nd red and ei gh t ypo un ds, and w ho w as w ear i ng a w hi t e t - s hi r tand baggypant s . Sever al w i t nes s es r ecogni zed the v a n a s b e lo n g in g to K a i’ s g ir lf ri e n d , F a ith L a n e . A f ter in ter v iew in g th e w itn e ss e s a t th e sc e n e o f th e sh o o tin g , L u z e rn e C o u n ty D et ect i ve D ani el B ekyand Lar ks vi l l e B or ough A s s i s t antC hi ef of Pol i ce St ephen K o f c h a k sp o k e to M s. L a n e , w h o to ld th e m th a t K a i In g ra m h a d tak e n h e r v a n to h is m o th e r’s h o u se . A s a re su lt, th e o f f ice rs w e n t to lo o k f

o r In g ra m th e re . U p o n a rriv a l, theys poke t o I ngr am’s m ot heron herfr ontpor ch, and s he agr eed t o l etthem ent erthe hous e. A s t he off

i cer s ent er ed, I ngr am desc ended the s t ai r s w ear i ng cl othes thatm at ched the w i tnes s es ’ des cr i pt i ons . D et ect i ve B ekyt ol d I ngr am t hathi s name had been m ent i oned i n connec t i on w i t h a cr i m e, and as ked hi m t o acc om panythem t o t he pol i ce stat ion fo r qu esti o n ing . Ing ram ag ree d . O n ce at th e stati o n , h o w ev er, I n g ram ask ed fo r a law y e r a n d d e c lin e d to a n sw e r a n yq u e stio n s. T h e o f f ice rs c o n su lted L u z e rn e C o u n ty C hi ef D i s tr i ctA t t or neyD avi d L upas , w ho det erm i ned thatthe evi dence es t abl i s hed p ro b a b le c a u se to su p p o rt a n a rre st. In g ra m w a s s u b se q u e n tlya rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d w ith th e s h o o tin g . B efor e tr i al , I ngr am fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s cert ai n evi dence on t he gr ound thatB ecause the defen dan t s at t ached po rt i on s of t he cri m i nal r ecord t o thei r pl eadings, 1 a n d b e c a u se In g ra m re sp o n d e d to th e ir su b m iss io n s, th e D istric t C o u rt a p p ro p ria tely co n side red their m o ti o n s to d ism iss as m o ti o n s fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. S ee In re B u rl in g to n C o a t F a c to ry S e c . L itig ., 1 1 4 F .3 d 1 4 1 0 , 1 4 2 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 3 i thad bee n obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s underthe Four t h and Fi fth A m endment s , but the courtdeni ed r el i ef. A j ur ys ubs equent l yfound hi m gui l t yof tw o count s of aggr avat ed as s aul tand one c ountof ca r r y i ng a fi r earm w i t houta l i cens e. T he j udgm entw as aff i r m ed on appea l . I ngr am i s pr es ent l ys ervi ng a s ent ence of tw el ve- and- a- hal f t o t w enty - fi ve y e a rs in s ta te p ri s o n . I n D ece m ber2007, I ngr am fi l ed the pr es entpr o s e ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tD et ect i ve B eky , O ffi cerK ofcha k, and D i s t r i ctA t t orneyL upas . I n t he compl ai nt , I ngr am cl ai m ed thathi s Four t h, Fi fth, and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed i n connec t i on w i th hi s arr es tand det ent i on. Speci fi cal l y , I ngr am al l eged that : ( 1) D et ect i ve B ekyand O ffi cerK ofcha k i l l egal l yent er ed hi s hom e; ( 2) he w as arr es t ed w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e; a n d (3 ) h e w a s n o t b ro u g h t b e f o re a D is tr ic t J u s tic e u n til te n h o u rs a f te r h is a rr e s t. I ngr am al s o as s ert ed both fede r al and s t at e cl ai m s of fa l s e arr es t , fal s e i m pr i s onm ent , and m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on. S h o rt ly af

te r I n g ra m f

ile d h is c o m p la in t, th e d e f e n d a n ts f ile d m o tio n s to d is m is s . B ym emora ndum and or derent er ed February3, 2009, the D i s t r i ctC our tconvert ed the d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n s in to m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, a n d e n ter e d ju d g m e n t in th e ir 14

favor . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . We r e v i e w a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm entde novo. Penns y l vani a C oal A s s ’ n v. B ab b itt, 6 3 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s p rop er o n lyif i t app ea rs “thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C arr as ca v. Pom er oy , 313 F. 3d 828, 832–33 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe a p p e a l p re s e n ts “ n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s 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 a n d w ill, th e re f

o re , s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. A. F o u r t h Ame n d me n tCl a i ms 1 . Il lega l E n try I n the compl ai nt , I ngr am fi r s tcl ai m ed thatD et ect i ve B ekyand O ffi cerK ofcha k v io late d h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w h e n th e ye n ter e d h is m o th e r’s h o m e w ith o u t a w a rra n t b e c a u se h is m o th e r d id n o t co n se n t to th e ir e n try . A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded, how ever , t hi s cl ai m i s barr ed bythe doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel beca us e the s ta te c o u rt a lr e a d yc o n s id e re d it a t th e s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g . T he doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel gener al l ypr ecl udes a part yfr om r e- l i t i gat i ng i s s ues orcl ai m s t hathave a l r eadybeen a dj udi cat ed. See M ont ana v. U ni t ed St at es , 440 U .S . 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 (1 9 7 9 ). It is w e ll es tab lish e d th a t p rin c ip les o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l ar e f u lly5

appl i cabl e t o ci vi l r i ght s act i ons br oughtunder§ 1983. See Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U .S . 4 7 5 , 4 9 7 (1 9 7 3 ). F u rth e rm o re , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t d e f e n d a n ts in a § 1 9 8 3 su it c a n ra ise th e iss u e o f

c o llate ra l es to p p e l w h e n th e p lain tiff a ttem p ts to re -liti g a te in fede r al cour ti s s ues deci ded aga i ns thi m i n s t at e cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . A nel a v. C i t yof W i l dw ood, 790 F. 2d 1063, 1068 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ; s ee a l s o M att hew s v. M aca nas , 990 F. 2d 467, 468 ( 9t h C i r . 1993) , abr ogat ed on othergr ounds as s t at ed i n Pas cual v. M at s um ur a, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1151 ( D . H aw . 2001) ( not i ng thatcol l at er al es t oppel m aybe as s er t ed t o pr ecl ude a de fens e t o a B i vens cl ai m ) ; Scher erv. B al kema, 840 F. 2d 437, 443 ( 7th C i r . 1988) ( s ame) . U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , the doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel r equi r es t hat : ( a) t he i s s ue i n ques t i on be i dent i cal t o an i s s ue ac tual l yl i t i gat ed i n t he pr i or l i t i gat i on; ( b) t he pr i orl i t i gat i on r es ul t ed i n a fi nal j udgm enton t he mer i t s ; and ( c) the partyagai ns tw hom t he es t oppel i s as s ert ed w as a part yori n pr i vi t yw i t h a part yt o t he p ri o r ad jud icati o n . S co o p er D o o p er, I n c. v. K raf tco C o rp., 4 9 4 F . 2 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 4 ). H er e, al l of the el ement s of the col l at er al es t oppel doctr i ne ar e s at i s fi ed: the i s s ue thatI ngr am l i t i gat ed att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng i s i dent i cal t o t he i s s ue he r ai s es her e; t he pl ai nt i ff i n t he i ns t antact i on w as t he def endanti n t he cr i m i nal cas e; and the deni al of a s uppr es s i on m ot i on fol l ow ed bya convi ct i on i s a fi nal j udgm entforcol l at er al es t oppel p u rpo ses, see S h af

fe r v. S m ith , 5 4 3 P a. 52 6 , 5 3 0

– 3 1 (19 9 6 ). T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l yconcl uded thatI ngr am w as barr ed fr om r e- l i t i gat i ng thi s i s s ue.6 2. A rr estW i t ho ut Probab l e C ause T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o corr ect l yconcl uded thatI ngr am fai l ed t o s how that D e tec tiv e B e k ya n d O f

f ice r K o f c h a k lac k e d p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st h im . “[ P ]ro b a b le ca u se to arrest ex ist s w h en the f ac ts an d circu m stan ce s w ith in the arresti n g o ff icer’s know l edge a r e s uffi ci enti n t hemsel ves t o w arr anta r eas onabl e per s on t o bel i eve thatan offe ns e has been ori s bei ng comm i t t ed bythe per s on t o be arr es t ed. ” Est at e of Sm i t h v. M ar as co, 318 F. 3d 497, 514 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng O r s att i v. N . J . St at e Pol i ce, 71 F. 3d 480, 482 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . A l t hough, i n gener al , “the ques t i on of pr obabl e ca us e i n a s ect i on 1983 damage s ui ti s one forthe j ury , ” M ont gom eryv. D e Si m one, 159 F. 3d 120, 124 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , a di s t r i ctcourtm ayconcl ude “thatpr obabl e ca us e di d exi s tas a mat t er o f law if th e e v id e n c e , v iew e d m o st f a v o ra b lyto P lain tiff

, rea so n a b lyw o u ld n o t su p p o rt a contr aryfac tual fi ndi ng, ” and mayent ers um m aryj udgm entacc or di ngl y . Sherw ood v. M u lvihil l, 1 1 3 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). U pon r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatD et ect i ve B eky and O ffi cerK ofcha k had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tI ngr am. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, s ever al ey ew i t nes s es pr ovi ded the s ame phy s i cal des cr i pt i on of I ngr am, s om e eve n id e n tif y in g h im b yn a m e . T h e w itn e s s e s a ls o re p o rt e d th a t I n g ra m w a s d ri v in g a ta n v a n . I n addi t i on, t he off

i cer s w er e abl e t o l ocat e the ow nerof the van, w ho confi r m ed that In g ra m h a d b o rr o w e d it to d ri v e to h is m o th e r’ s h o u s e .

3. T he Pr el i m i naryH ear i ng7

I ngr am nextcl ai m ed thatt he def endant s vi ol at ed hi s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s by detai ning him for t en h ou rs befo re br i ng i ng him befo re a pr op er i ssui ng authori t y . T hese al l egat i ons do notm ake outa cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. T he Supr eme C our thas m ade c l ear that , aft era w arr ant l es s arr es t , a s us pectm aybe det ai ned bef or e appe ar i ng befor e an i s s ui ng author i t y“fora br i ef pe r i od of det ent i on t o t ake the admi ni s t r at i ve s t eps i nci dent t o arr es t . ” G er s t ei n v. Pugh, 420 U . S. 103, 113–14 ( 1975) . A bs entpr oof thatthe pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on w as del ay ed unr eas onabl y , a pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on w ith in f o rt y -e ig h t h o u rs o f

a rr e s t is s u f

f ic ie n t to c o m p ly w ith th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. C ount yof R i ver s i de v. M cLaughl i n, 500 U . S. 44, 56 ( 1991) . H er e, I ngr am w as br ought b e f o re a ju d icia l o f

f ice r f o r a p ro b a b le c a u se d e ter m in a tio n w ith in ten h o u rs o f h is arr es t

— w el l w i t hi n t he fort y - ei ghthourper i od. Fur t herm or e, I ngr am does notal l ege a ny i m pr operconducton t he partof the off i cer s i n connec t i on w i t h t he t en- hourper i od, nor d o es h e a rgu e tha t he w as p rejud iced as a resu ltthere o f. T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l yconcl uded thatt hes e al l egat i ons fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on.

4. Fal s e A r r es tand I m pr i s onm ent , M al i ci ous Pr os ecut i on Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yr ej ect ed I ngr am’s cl ai m s of fa l s e arr es tand fal se i m pri sonm ent because, as di scussed abo ve, the o ffi cers had probab l e cause to arres t hi m . See D ow l i ng v. C i t yof Phi l a. , 855 F. 2d 136, 141 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( s t at i ng thatthe pr operi nqui r yi n a § 1983 cl ai m bas ed on fa l s e arr es ti s w hetherthe arr es t i ng offi cer s had p rob ab le ca u se to b eli ev e the p erso n arrested co m m itted th e o ff en se). T h e D istri ct C o u rtT o the ext ent that I ng ram ’s com plai nt r ai sed st at e-l aw cl ai m s for fal se arres t , fal se 2 i m pr i s onm ent , and mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tact ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthes e cl ai m s . See U ni t ed M i ne W or ker s of A m e ri c a v . G ib b s , 3 8 3 U .S . 7 1 5 , 7 2 6 (1 9 6 6 ). al s o corr ect l yent er ed s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tI ngr am on hi s m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , as s ucce s s i n t he under l y i ng cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng i s a nec es s aryel ementi n s uch a c la im . S e e J o h n s o n v . K n o rr , 4 7 7 F .3 d 7 5 , 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

2 B . F if

th A m e n d m e n t C laim T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso c o rre c tlyh e ld th a t In g ra m f a iled to e sta b lish a F if

th A m endmentcl ai m , as he di d notpr ovi de anyi ncul pat orys t at ement s t o t he pol i ce a nd ther efor e w as notcompel l ed t o be a w i t nes s agai ns thi m s el f. See G ui ffr e v. B i s s el l , 31 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 5 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I V. B e c a u se th e re is n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n p re se n ted b yth is a p p e a l, w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.

9