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 11-4-2009 

# F e ra v . B aldwin 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 . 07-4589

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 authori 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
" F e r a v . B aldwin" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 309. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/309NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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- 4589 NI CHOLAS F ERA, J R. A ppel l ant

v . BA L DWI N B OR OUGH, a mu n i c i p a l i ty ; J OHN C O N L E Y , m e m b e r o f

C o u n c il; D A V ID D E P R E T IS , m emberof C ounci l ; M I C H A E L D U C K E R , m ember of C ounci l ; M I C H A E L E . FE T SK O , J R . , m emberof C o u n c il; JO H N F E R R IS , JR ., m e m b e r o f C o u n c il; FRAN CI S S CO TT, me mbe ro f Cou n c i l ; CH RI STOPHER T . K E L L Y , an i ndi vi dual and i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas C hi ef of Pol i ce of

B al dw i n Pol i ce D epartm ent

O n A pp eal F rom the U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Forthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 00023) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. A r thurJ . Schw ab Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober28, 2009 BE F OR E : S M I T H, F I S HE R a n d S T AP L E T ON,

C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: N ovember4, 2009)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge:

N icho las F era ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers (1 ) gra n ti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t in th is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n in f a v o r o f th e B o ro u g h o f

B a ld w in , B a ld w in C h ief o f P o lice C h risto p h e r K e lly , an d B a ld w in C o u n c il m e m b e rs J o h n C o n ley, D a v id D epr et i s , M i chae l D ucker , M i chae l Fet s ko, J r . , J ohn Ferr i s , J r . , and Fr anci s Scot t , and ( 2) deny i ng Fer a’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt. I . I n N ovember2001, A ppel l antN i chol as Fer a w as el ect ed t o the B al dw i n B or ough C ounci l ( “the C ounci l ”) i n Pi t t s bur gh. I n O ct ober2004, the C ounci l and a f ew other B or ough offi ci al s hel d a budgetw or ks hop, dur i ng w hi ch theydi s cus s ed, i nt eral i a, u n lice n se d g a m in g d e v ice s. O n e o f th e C o u n c il’s m e m b e rs n o ted th a t h is b a rb e r to ld h im thatE dw ar d A l bert , the ow nerof a l ocal es t abl i s hm entcal l ed the “H af M art , ” ow ned s even ga m i ng devi ces buthad l i cens es foronl yfourof thes e devi ces . A l though the C ounci l di s cus s ed the pos s i bi l i tyof i nves t i gat i ng al l pr opr i et or s w ho ow ned gami ng d e v ic e s , it d o e s n o t a p p e a r t h a t th e C o u n c il m a d e a n yf ir m d e c is io n s a t th e w o rk s h o p .3

T h e d ayaf

ter th e w o rksh o p , F era w en t t o the H af M art, p u rpo rt ed lyto b u ya lottery tic k e t. W h ile h e w a ite d in lin e , h e s a w A lb e rt a n d m o tio n e d h im to th e re a r o f th e s to re . W hen the tw o of them gat her ed atthe r earof the s t or e, Fer a w hi s per ed t o A l bertthathe s houl d getthe addi t i onal l i cens es forhi s gami ng m achi nes . A ccor di ng t o Fer a, he di d not t el l A l bertt o hi de the unl i cens ed gami ng m achi nes orw arn A l bertthatthe pol i ce mi ght b e i n v e s t i g a t i n g h i m. T he nextday , B al dw i n C hi ef of Pol i ce Chri s t opherK el l ycal l ed Fer a and a s ked hi m t o come t o the pol i ce s t at i on. W hen Fer a arr i ved atthe s t at i on, C hi ef K el l yexpl ai ned thata H af M artempl oy ee ha d r eport ed thatFer a had t ol d A l bertt o hi de the unl i cens ed gami ng devi ces . C hi ef K el l ynot ed thatFer a mi ghtbe s ubj ectt o cr i m i nal l i abi l i tyfor h in d e rin g a n in v e stig a tio n , an d th a t th e re c o u ld b e n e g a tiv e p u b licitya g a in st F e ra a n d h is fami l y . C hi ef K el l ythen ei thert ol d oradvi s ed Fer a t o r es i gn fr om the C ounci l . A ft er F e ra re f u s e d , C h ie f

K e lly a s k e d h im if

h e w a n te d to c a ll a n y o n e to d is c u s s th e m a tte r. F e r a a s k e d Ch i e f

Ke l l yt o c a l l S a m Mc P h e r s o n , a f o r me rma y o ro f

Ba l d wi n Bo r o u g h . At th e e n d o f

th e p h o n e c a ll, M c P h e rs o n a d v is e d F e ra to re s ig n . A f ter th e p h o n e c a ll, C h ief K e llya lleg e d lyto ld F e ra th a t h e h a d ten m in u tes to m ake a deci s i on and that , i f he de ci ded nott o r es i gn, C hi ef K el l yw oul d have t o pr epar e a pol i ce r eport . Fer a then agr eed t o r es i gn. C hi ef K el l yvol unt eer ed t o type the r es i gnat i on let ter an d ask ed F era h o w h e w an ted th e lett er to rea d . F era rep li ed that h e d id n o t care w hati ts ai d, s o C hi ef K el l ycomposed a l ett ers t at i ng thatFer a w as r es i gni ng due t o “anF e ra w a s ru n n in g in th a t e le c tio n in a n a tte m p t to w in b a c k h is s e a t o n th e C o u n c il. 1 H e ul t i m at el yl os tthe el ect i on. 4 unexpec t ed fa m i l yemer gency . ” Fer a s i gned the l ett erupon i t s compl et i on. A l though C hi ef K el l ydi d ul t i m at el ypr epar e a pol i ce r eportaboutthe i nci dent , no cr i m i nal char ges w er e eve rbr oughtagai ns tFer a. A t som e p o int th ere af

ter, G ale D o b so n M iscu sh , the B o rou g h ’s T ax C o ll ec tor, al l egedl ydi s s emi nat ed a s er i es of “l ett er s ” t o the publ i c thatpor tr ay ed Fer a i n a nega t i ve l i ghtbyal l udi ng t o, i nt eral i a, the i nci dentatthe H af M art . I tappea r s thatFer a t ender ed onl yone of thes e “l ett er s ” t o the D i s tr i ctC our t . T hatdocument , t i t l ed “The Truth & N othi ng B utthe Truth, ” w as publ i s hed i n the “Taxpay erG aze t t e” s hor t l ybefor e a l ocal e lec tio n . T h is d o c u m e n t sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

1 D id y o u k n o w the re aso n fo rm er C o u n cil m an N ick F era r es i gned fr om counci l w as beca us e he ha d t aken i nform at i on from an ex ecuti ve co un ci l m eet i ng & t old a l ocal busi ness ow nerthathe w as underi nves t i gat i on. H e hi nder ed a pol i ce in v e s tig a tio n , a c ri m in a l a c t, a n d v io la te d th e s ta te e th ic s la w s . Pol i ce r eport s ar e publ i c i nform at i on. H i s r es i gnat i on & pol i ce r eportw er e fi l ed on 10/ 27/ 04. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 6 , F e ra c o m m e n c e d th e in sta n t ac tio n in th e A lleg h e n yC o u n ty C our tof C om m on Pl eas agai ns tB al dw i n B or ough, the B al dw i n B or ough Pol i ce D epart m ent , C hi ef K el l y , and C ounci l m ember s J ohn C onl ey , D avi d D epr et i s , M i chae l D ucker , M i chae l Fet s ko, J r . , J ohn Ferr i s , J r . , and Fr anci s Scot t . I n J anuary2007, D ef en d an ts r em o v ed the c ase to the W estern D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia. A fe w w ee k s lat er,5

Fer a fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nt , nami ng al l of the or i gi nal defe ndant s exce ptthe B al dw i n Pol i ce D epart m ent . T he amended compl ai ntr ai s ed the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s : ( 1) t he defe ndant s unl aw ful l ys ei zed Fer a atthe pol i ce s t at i on and vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s and e q u a l p ro tec tio n rig h ts; (2 ) th e d e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in a c iv il co n sp ira c yin a n a ttem p t to for ce Fer a t o r es i gn fr om the C ounci l ; ( 3) the publ i s hed mat er i al w as defa m at oryand had been pr ovi ded t o the authorbythe def endant s ; and ( 4) Fer a w as ent i t l ed t o att orney s ’ fee s a n d c o s ts p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 8 . A fter the clos e o f d isco v ery , the d ef en d an ts m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. In S ep tem b er 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th ese m o ti o n s as to all o f F era ’s claim s. In d o in g so , the c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t

[c ]on sp icuo u slyab sen t from [F era ’s] st atem en t of fa cts are anyaverm ent s , l etal one r efe r ence s t o evi dence of r ecor d, of the manneri n w hi ch anydefe ndants om ehow di s s emi nat ed anyi nform at i on t o t he ci t i zen w ho defa m ed Pl ai nt i ff i n a s er i es of publ i c l ett er s , anypr oof of a nycons pi r acyor agr eementt o s uppor thi s concl us oryal l egat i ons of cons pi r acy and agr eementt o for ce hi m t o r es i gn, orthathe w as atany t i m e r es tr ai ned ordet ai ned orotherw i s e had hi s fr eedom of m o v e m e n t c u rt a ile d b yC h ie f K e lly. ( Sept . 20, 2007, M emora ndum O pi ni on at9. ) Fer a s ubs equent l ym oved the courtt o al t er oramend t hatj udgm ent . T he courtdeni ed the mot i on w i th r es pectt o Fer a’ s fede r al c laim s, c o n c lu d in g th a t th e m o tio n “ sim p lyre h a sh e s th e a rg u m e n ts h e p re v io u slym a d e in oppos i t i on t o s um m aryj udgm ent. . . . ” ( O ct . 18, 2007, M emora ndum O r derat3. ) T he c o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n , h o w e v e r, as to F e ra ’s s tate law d e f a m a tio n c laim , sta tin g th a t it6

“agr ee[ d] w i th Pl ai nt i ff a nd deems i ta more appr opr i at e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on t o fol l ow i t s us ual pr act i ce a nd decl i ne t o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o ent ert ai n the comm on l aw d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m p u r s u a n tt o i t s s u p p l e m e n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . . ” ( I d . a t4 . ) A c c o r d i n g l y, the courtr emanded the def amat i on cl ai m t o the A l l eghenyC ountyC our tof C om m on P l eas. Fer a i ni t i al l ypur s ued thi s appea l w i thoutr epr es ent at i on. I n February2008, he fi l ed a pr o s e i nform al br i ef. Fer a s ubs equent l yr et ai ned A rnol d Y . St ei nber g, E s qui r e, w ho fi l ed a r epl ybr i ef on Fer a’ s behal f i n M ay2008. Fer a’ s openi ng br i ef a r gues ( 1) t hat th e D istric t C o u rt “ d id n o t h a v e a ll o f th e f a c ts,” a n d th a t h e “ w a s n o t re p re se n ted rig h t” b yc o u n s e l i n th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tp r o c e e d i n g ; ( 2 ) th a tth e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o ta t t e n d two c o u rt-sc h e d u led se ttl e m e n t co n f e re n c e s; a n d (3 ) th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t g iv e h im e n o u g h t i m e t o c o n d u c td i s c o v e r y. Fer a pr es ent s tw o addi t i onal ar gum ent s i n hi s r epl ybr i ef. A l though s om ew hat d if f icu lt t o d isc e rn , ita p p e a rs th a t h is f irst a rg u m e n t is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t as to F e ra ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim b e c a u se h e su f f icie n tly d em o n str ated an injuryto h is r ep u tat ion . T h e se co n d arg u m en t i s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt erred in g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t as t o h is Fo u rth A m en d m en t cl aim b ec au se, co n tr ary t o i t s concl us i on, hi s encount erw i th C hi ef K el l ycons t i tut ed an unl aw ful s ei zur e. II. T h e p re lim in a rytas k in th is a p p e a l is d e ter m in in g w h ich iss u e s a re b e f o re th is7

C our t . A n appel l anti s “r equi r ed t o s etfor th the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al and t o pr es entan ar gum enti n s uppor tof thos e i s s ues i n [hi s ] openi ng br i ef. ” K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ; s ee Fed. R . A pp. P. 28( a) ( 5) , ( 9) . A l though “[i ] ti s w el l s ett l ed thatan appe l l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyorar gue an i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w aive r of

that issue o n ap p ea l, ” U n it ed S tat es v . P elullo, 39 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2005) , thi s C our thas nothel d i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on thatthi s rul e appl i es w i th equal force t o p ro se l i t i gan t s. O ther C ou rt s of A pp eal s, ho w ever, hav e con cl ud ed thata pro se lit ig a n t’s f

a ilu re to ra ise a n iss u e in h is o p e n in g b rie f c o n stitu tes a w a iv e r o f th a t issu e in the abs ence of exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s . See Ti m s on v. Sam ps on, 518 F. 3d 870, 874 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) ( “ W h i l e w e r e a d b r i e f s f i l e d b y pr o s e l i t i g a n t s l i b e r a l l y, i s s ues notbr i efe d on appea l bya pr o s e l i t i gantar e dee m ed aba ndoned. M or eover , w e do notaddr es s ar gum ent s r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n a pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s r epl ybr i ef. ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) ; A nder s on v. H ar dm an, 241 F. 3d 544, 545 ( 7th C i r . 2001) ( “R ul e 28 appl i es equal l yt o pr o s e l i t i gant s , and w hen a pr o s e l i t i gantfai l s t o compl yw i th thatrul e, w e ca nnotfi l l the voi d bycr aft i ng ar gum ent s and per form i ng the nec es s aryl egal r es ear ch

. . . . ”); A l -R a’I d v . Ingl e, 69 F . 3d 28 , 31 (5th C i r. 19 95 ) ( “A n ap pell ant’ s bri ef m ust con t ai n an argum ent on t he is sues that ar e rai sed . . . . T here i s no ex em pti on for pro se li ti g an ts, tho u g h w e c o n stru e the irb ri ef s li b era ll y . ”). W e agr ee w i th thes e court s thati n fai rnes s t o the oppos i ng s i de i ti s notas ki ng t oo m uch of pr o s e l i t i gant s t o r equi r e atl eas tan i dent i fi cat i on i n the fi r s tbr i ef of the i s s uesA r evi ew of the docke ts ugges t s thatboth confe r ence s t ook pl ace , and ther e i s no 2 in d ica tio n th a t A p p e llee s’ c o u n se l w e re n o t p re se n t. A lth o u g h it ap p e a rs th a t C h ief K e lly hi m s el f di d notatt end ei therconfe r ence , he obt ai ned perm i s s i on fr om the courtt o be excus ed fr om att endi ng ( the courtr equi r ed C hi ef K el l yt o “be a vai l abl e” byt el ephone d u ri n g the s ec o n d sett lem en t con fe ren ce ). 8 theyar e as ki ng the appe al s courtt o r es ol ve. Fer a has t ender ed no s at i s fac t oryexpl anat i on forhi s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyhi s r epl ybr i ef a r gum ent s i n hi s openi ng br i ef, and w e hol d t hat th o se a rg u m e n ts h a v e b e e n w a iv e d . O u r u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n w o u ld b e n o d if f e re n t, h o w e v e r, if w e h e ld to th e c o n tra ry . B o th o f th o se a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit. III . Fer a’ s openi ng br i ef doe s noti dent i fyanyfac t s thatw er e over l ooked bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , l etal one expl ai n how s uch fa ct s w arr anta di ffe r entout come i n thi s cas e. A s f o r th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ a lleg e d f

a ilu re to a tten d th e tw o se ttl e m e n t co n f e re n c e s, e v e n if th is a lleg a tio n is tru e , F e ra d o e s n o t in d ica te w h a t re lief h e se e k s o r o th e rw ise e x p lain 2 h o w d e f e n d a n ts ’ f

a ilu re to a tte n d th o s e c o n f e re n c e s im p a c te d th e d is p o s itio n o f th is c a s e . F in a lly, F e ra ’s a rg u m e n t r e g a rd in g h is a b ility to c o n d u c t d is c o v e ry is u n p e rs u a s iv e . T hi s s ui tw as or i gi nal l yfi l ed i n O ct ober2006. I n J une 2007, Fer a’ s or i gi nal att orney s ucce s s ful l yw i thdr ew as couns el . O n J ul y9, 2007, tw o w eeks befor e the cl os e of d isc o v e ry , F e ra ’s n e w a tto rn e ye n ter e d h is a p p e a ra n c e a n d f iled a n u n o p p o se d m o tio n to ext end the di s coverydeadl i ne bythi r tyday s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce a nd hel d t hatthe part i es coul d fi l e a r enew ed j oi ntm ot i on t o ext end the di s coveryper i od s o l ong as the pr opos ed di s coverydeadl i ne di d notaff ectthe A ugus t17,F e ra ’s n o tice o f a p p e a l cr yp tica llya lleg e s th a t h is a tto rn e yto ld h im th a t th e yc o u ld 3 n o t “us e” C h ief K ell y ’s de p o sit ion o r th e p o li ce rep o rtb ec au se th o se m aterial s w ere “b ey o n d d isco v eries.” T o the e x tent F era is at tem p ti n g to arg u e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt p re v e n ted h im f

ro m u sin g c e rta in m a ter ial o b tain e d th ro u g h d isc o v e ryin h is o p p o sitio n to A pp el l ees’ sum m aryj ud gm ent m oti on s, such a c l ai m i s basel ess. 9 2 0 0 7 , d e a d lin e f

o r f ilin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n s . A l though Fer a neve rr enew ed hi s di s coverym ot i on, he now s eems t o cl ai m thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notgi ve hi m enough t i m e t o conductdi s covery . H e does noti ndi cat e, how ever , w hataddi t i onal di s coveryhe i nt ended t o conductorhow thatdi s coverym i ght h av e a ff ec ted th e d ispo sit ion o f h is cl aim s. M o reo v er, a rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt d o ck et pro v ides n o ind icati o n that the p arti es h ad insu ff ici en t t im e to u n d ertak e d isco v ery orotherw i s e pr epar e fors um m aryj udgm ent . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not 3 abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n over s eei ng the di s coveryi n thi s cas e. I V.

“ [ T ]o m a k e o u t a d u e p ro c e ss c laim f o r d e p riv a tio n o f

a lib e rtyin ter e st in r e p u t a t i o n , a p l a i n t i f

f mu s ts h o w a s t i g ma t o h i s r e p u t a t i o n p l u s d e p r i v a t i o n o f s o me ad d it ion al ri g h t or i n terest. ” H il l v. B o rou g h o f K u tzt o w n , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A p lain tiff

sa tisf ies th e stig m a p ro n g o f

th is te st b ysh o w in g th a t th e a lleg e d ly s t i gm at i zi ng s t at ement s w er e made publ i cl yand w er e fa l s e. I d. Fer a ca nnots at i s fythe s t i gm a pr ong, forhe fa i l s t o demonstr at e thatanyof the A ppel l ees m ade the publ i c s t at ement s of w hi ch he c om pl ai ns . A l though he cont ends t hat the B or ough’ s T ax C ol l ect or , w ho i s nota partyt o thi s s ui t , author ed thos e s t at ement s , he10

f a ils to e s ta b lis h th a t a n yo f th e A p p e lle e s f

a c ilita te d th e s ta te m e n ts ’ p u b lic a tio n . M or eover , thatthe B or ough’ s T ax C ol l ect orm ayhave publ i s hed thes e s t at ement s does notr enderthe B or ough s us cept i bl e t o l i abi l i tyher e, forFer a has nots how n thatthe a lleg e d lystig m a tizin g sta tem e n ts re f lec ted th e B o ro u g h ’s p o licyo r c u sto m . S e e M o n e ll v . D ep ’to f S o c. S erv s. , 4 3 6 U . S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 4 (19 7 8 ) (co n clud ing that a m u n ici p ali ty ’s liab ili tyu n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 f o r th e a c ts o r o m iss io n s o f its e m p lo y e e s o r a g e n ts is l i m i t ed t o ci r cumst ance s w her e the exe cut i on of the muni ci pal i ty ’ s cus t om orpol i cy caus ed the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on) . A ccor di ngl y , Fer a’ s fi r s tr epl ybr i ef a r gum entl acks m e rit. T urni ng t o Fer a’ s s econd r epl ybr i ef a r gum ent , “a pe r s on i s ‘ s ei zed’ onl yw hen, by m eans of phy s i cal for ce ora s how of author i ty , hi s fr eedom of m ovementi s r es tr ai ned. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M endenha l l , 446 U . S. 544, 553 ( 1980) . T her e i s no s ei zur e i f “a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld f e e l f re e to d e c lin e th e o f

f ice rs’ re q u e sts o r o th e rw ise ter m in a te the e n co u n ter. ” F lori d a v . B o sti ck , 5 0 1 U . S . 4 2 9 , 4 3 6 (19 9 1 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t F e ra ’s m e e tin g w ith C h ief K e llyd id notcons t i tut e a s ei zur e. Fer a r eport ed t o the pol i ce s t at i on vol unt ar i l y , and i tdoes not appea rthat , aft erFer a arr i ved atthe s t at i on, the meet i ng evol ved i nt o a s ei zur e. Fer a does notal l ege thatC hi ef K el l yphy s i cal l yr es tr ai ned hi m , fl as hed hi s w eapon orm ade a sim il ar sh o w o f a u tho ri ty , o r ev en raised h is vo ice d u ri n g the m ee ti n g . G ran ted, F era does al l ege thatC hi ef K el l ygave hi m an ul t i m atum – r es i gn orbe named i n a pol i ce11

r eport . Y etthi s ul t i m atum , though as ki ng Fer a t o m ake a di ffi cul tdeci s i on, di d not re s tr ic t h is f

re e d o m o f

m o v e m e n t o r o th e rw is e p re v e n t h im f ro m e n d in g th e m e e tin g . Fer a does notal l ege thatC hi ef K el l y , ei theri n w or ds oract i ons , barr ed hi m fr om l eavi ng the s tat ion u n ti l he d ec ided w h ethe r t o resign . Ind ee d , there is no ind icati o n that F era coul d nothave s i m pl yl eftthe pol i ce s t at i on w i thoutr es pondi ng t o the ul t i m atum . I n l i ght o f a ll o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th is m e e tin g , itse e m s th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n in F era ’s po sit ion w o u ld h av e f eltfre e to e n d the e n co u n ter.

V . T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.