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

4-27-2009 

# H olm an v . Y ork

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4438

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" H o lm a n v . Y ork " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1423. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1423P 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- 4438 ( C ons ol i dat ed w i t h N os . 07- 4437 and 07- 4439)

_____________ J OHN R

. HOL M AN, A ppel l ant

v. CI T Y OF YOR K, P E NNS YL VANI A; P O L IC E C O M M IS S IO N E R M A R K L . W H IT M A N ,

i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y; O F F IC E R K O L T A N O V IC H , Y o rk P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, i n hi s offi ci al and i ndi vi dual capa ci t i es

_________ 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. 06- C V

- 02300) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E

. Jo n es, II I

__________ A r gued O ct ober23, 20082 B efore: R E N D E L L , and S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , * D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 27 2009)

D enni s E

. B oy l e, E s q. Sui t e 200 4660 T r i ndl e R oad C amp H i l l , PA 17011- 0000
R a n d a ll L . W e n g e r, E s q . [ ARGUE D] Sui t e 200 4660 T r i ndl e R oad C amp hi l l , PA 17011 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts J o h n Mc T e rn a n ; J o h n R . H o lm a n ; E dw a rdD . Sn e ll
D onal d B

. H oy t , E s q. B l akey , Y os t , B upp & R aus ch 17 E as tM arketSt r eet Y or k, PA 17401- 0000

__________________
* H onor abl e Loui s H

. Pol l ak, S en i orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D is t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.T he ca pt i on i n t he ca s e fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ti dent i fi es 1 t he D efe ndantas “O ffi cer K ol t anovi ch. ” T he corr ect s pel l i ng of D e f e n d a n t’s s u rn a m e is “ K o ltu n o v ich ,” a s re f lec ted in h is U ns w or n D ecl ar at i on. H

. A

. 294- 97. 3 J a m e s D . Y o u n g , E s q . [ ARGUE D] L avery , Faher t y , Y oung & Pat t er s on 225 M ar ketSt r eet , Sui t e 304 P. O

. B ox 1245 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108- 0000 C ouns el

f orAppel l ees C it y o f Y o rk, P en n sylva n ia; P ol i ce Com m is s i onerMark L. W hi tm an, i n His O

f f i ci al C apaci t y; and O f f i cerKol t anovi ch

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
A ppel l an tJ ohn H ol m an ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s grant of sum m ary j ud gm ent an d d i sm i ssal of h i s Mo n e llc l a i ms f o rmu n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t yi n t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1983. A ppel l antJ ohn H ol m an i s a pr o- l i fe a dvocat e w ho r egul ar l ys peaks t o pr egnantw om en a s the yent ert he medi cal cl i ni c ( her ei naft er“C l i ni c”) of Pl anned Par enthood o f C entr al Pe n n s y l v a n i a ( “ Pl a n n e d Pa r e n t h o o d ” ) i n Yor k , Pe n n s y l v a n i a. Off i c e r Kol tu n o v i c h , a me mbe r o f t h e Ci t y o f Yor k pol i ce 14 d e p a rtm e n t, is o n e o f

se v e ra l o f

f ice rs a ss ig n e d to o v e rtim e d e tail att he C l i ni c under a contr act betw een Pl anned Par enthood and t he C i t y . M cTer nan A ppendi x ( “M

. A

. ”) 182. T o di s s uade pr egnantw om en fr om under goi ng an abort ion, H ol m an emphas i z e s t h e s a n c t i t yo f t h e f e tu s , d i s t r i b u t e s p r o - l i fe l i t er atur e, and di s cus s es al t ernat i ves t o, and the hea l t h r i s ks of, ab o rt ion

. H o lm an A p p en d ix (“H

. A

. ”) 3 5 6 -57

. H o lm an ’s act i vit i es em anate fr om deep l yro ot e d Chr i s t i a n r e l i gi ou s bel i efs. H

. A

. 355.
T h is c a se a n d th o se o f

tw o o th e r p ro tes ter s a t th e C lin ic (McT ernan v . C ity o

f Y ork , N o. 07- 4437; and Snel lv. C i t y of Y ork , N o. 07- 4439) w er e consol i dat ed for or al ar gum ent
. E ach of the thr ee a ppel l ant s s ued i ndi vi dual l ycompl ai ni ng of r e s t r i c t i o n s o n h i s F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s o f s p e e c h , a s s e m b l y, a n d re lig io u s e x p re ss io n . A d d iti o n a lly , H o lm a n a n d S n e ll compl ai n t hatt hei rarr es t s foract i vi t yout s i de the C l i ni c vi ol at ed th e ir F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. W h ile c e rta in f a c ts a s s tate d in th e th re e a p p e a ls a re sim ilar, th e c laim s o f e a c h w e re se p a ra tely asse rt ed in, and d ec ided b y , the D istric t C o u rt
. W e the ref o re w rite s e p a ra telyo n e a c h c a se , an d w e n o te th a t th e a n a ly sis a s it r el at es t o H ol m an di ffe r s fr om t he other s s om ew hat , bas ed on t he natur e of the governm entconductati s s ue. T he C l i ni c and i t s envi r ons ar e des cr i bed ful l yi n our O pi ni on i n McTer nan v. C i t y of Y ork, N o. 07- 4437, fi l ed concurr ent l yher ew i t h, and t hat des cr i pt i on w i l l notbe r epea t edT he bas i s of ourj ur i s di ct i on, and the s t andar d of r evi ew 2 appl i cable t o t he C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand d ism iss a l o f

c e rta in c o u n ts o f

th e c o m p lain t, a re se t f o rth in Mc Te r n a n v . Ci t

y o f Y or k, N o . 0 7 -4 4 3 7 , w h ich w e e x p re ss ly in c o rp o ra te h e re in

. T hes e fa ct s , der i ved fr om H ol m an’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony 3 and s w or n aff

i davi t , ar e uncont es t ed unl es s indi cat ed t o t he c o n t r a r y. T he appe ndi x r efe r ence atpage 362 , a D V D pr offe r ed by 4 H o lm a n , d e p ic ts h is c o n v e rs a tio n w ith O f f ic e r K o ltu n o v ic h

. 5 her e. 2
O n D ece m ber7, 2005, O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch w as w or ki ng att he C l i ni c. T hatm or ni ng, as H ol m an w as w al ki ng t hr ough R os e A ll eyt ow ar ds Sout h B eave rSt r eet , O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch a p p r o a c h e d , p o s i t i o n i n g h i ms e l f “ t o e t o t o e ” wi t h Ho l ma n . H. A. 193, 358. O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch then or der ed H ol m an t o “getout

3 of m ys pace ” and “ verbal l yas s aul t [ed] ” hi m . H

. A

. 358, 193. O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch r etur ned t o t he i nt er s ect i on of R os e A l l ey a n d S o u th B e a v e r S tre e t, af ter w h ich H o lm a n c o n tin u e d to advoca t e i n t he al l ey , w i t houtanyobj ect i o n byO ffi cer K ol tun o v ich. H

. A

. 190, 358, 362. A ts om e poi nton t he 4 m or ni ng of D ece m ber7, 2005, O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch ca ut i oned Ho l ma n t h a twa l k i n g i n Ro s e Al l e yc o u l d b e h a z a r d o u s . H. A. 200, 278. H ow ever , H ol m an t es t i fi ed t hatO ffi cerK ol tunovi ch d i d n o tf o rb i d h i s s t a n d i n g i n t h e a l l e yo n t h a td a yo r a ta n yt i me pr evi ousl y , H

. A

. 188- 89, nori s t her e evi dence t hatO ffi cerT h e C o m m o n w ea lth a m e n d e d the c h arg e f rom a su m m ary 5 offe ns e t o a m i s demeanor

. J us t i ce H as kel l di s m i s s ed the cha r ge w ith o u t ex p licitlysta tin g h is re a so n f o r d o in g so . H is c o m m e n ts att h e hea r i ng s ugges tei t herof tw o pos s i bi l i t i es : t he pr os ecut or ’ s fai l ur e t o m ee t the p rim a fa c ie el ement s of the offe ns e, H

. A

. 289, ort he appl i cabi l i t y of an a ffi r m at i ve def ens e. H

. A

. 288.

6 K ol tunovi ch i ns t ruct ed ot her pr ot es t er s t o s t ay out of R os e A l l ey on t hatday

. Snel l A ppendi x ( S. A

. ) 175. Short l yth ere af

ter, the tw o co n v erse d ag ain, th is t im e near t he i nt er s ect i on of R os e A l l eyand Sout h B eave rSt r eet
. H ol m an w a s s tan d in g a t th e e d g e o f th e stre e t n e a r th e C lin ic’ s f ro n t lo t, w hen a tr act or - t r ai l erm ade a “w ide, s w eepi ng tur n” i nt o t he a lleyf ro m S o u th B e a v e r S tre e t. H .A . 2 8 3 , 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 . T o a v o id t he truck, H ol m an st epped i nt o t he P l anned Par enthood par ki ng l ot; O ffi cer K oltun ov i ch i m m ediat el y arr est ed hi m for tres pass. H

. A

. 239, 290. T he cha r ge fordefi antt r es pas s w as di s m i s s ed byt he M agi s t er i al D i s t r i ctJ udge. H

. A

. 229. 5
O ffi cer K ol tunovi ch had pr evi ous l yw arned H ol m an that Pl anned Par enthood pr ohi bi t ed hi s ent er i ng t he fr ontl ot , w hi ch w as i t s p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . H. A. 1 6 6

- 6 7 , 1 7 3 , 2 6 7

- 6 9 , 2 9 6. H ol m an ac know l edged thathe w as aw ar e thathe w as ent er i ng Pl anned Par enthood pr oper t yw hen he s t epped ont o t he el evat ed curb t o avoi d t he truck. H

. A

. 239, 267- 270, 272.
H ol m an and O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch off er ed conf

l i ct i ngHol ma n r e f e r e n c e s h i s c l a i m of

r i g h tt o a s s e mbl yb u td oes 6 nots etfor t h a s epar at e ar gum enti n his b ri ef. Forpurpos es of o u r a n a ly sis , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is c laim is e n c o m p a ss e d in h is f r e e s p e e c h c l a i m. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n fa v o r of 7 O ffi cerK o ltu n ovi ch on al l of H ol m an’ s Fi r s tA m endment cl ai m s. 7 t es t i m onyas t o t he s peed of t he truck, t he imm i nence of the dangerpr es ent ed, and H ol m an’ s a l t e rn a t i v e s t o avoi d a col l i s i on. H ol m an t es t i fi ed thatt he truck w as t r avel i ng atan uns afe s peed, and ma i n t a i n s t h a ts t e p p i n g b r i e f l yo n t o Pl a n n e d Pa r e n t hood pr opertyw as h is sole alterna ti v e to a v o id a c o ll isi o n . A p p ell an t’ s B r . at 32; H

. A

. 198. O ffi cer K ol tunovi ch, conver s el y , t es t i fi ed t hatt he truck, w hi ch cam e t o “pr act i cal l ya dea d s t op, ” di d not p o s e a n “ i mm i n e n td a n g e r ” o rp r e s e n t a “ c l o s e c a l l

. ” H. A. 239- 40, 279. O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch al s o t es t i fi ed tha tH ol m an co ul d have a voi ded a c ol l i s i on byw al ki ng fart herdow n t he al l ey , w hi ch w as cl earof tr aff i c. H

. A

. 274- 75, 277. A s w i t h M cT ernan an d S nell , H olm an assert s Fir st A m endm en t cl ai m s of fr ee s peec h, as s embl y , and r el i gi ous 6 expr es s i on. U nl i ke M cTer nan and Snel l, how ever , H ol m an

7 fa i l s t o d e mon s t r a t e a n yr e s t r i c t i o n o n h i s Fi r s tAm e n d ment r i ght s . H ol m an ac know l edges t hathe w as gr ant ed unfe t t er ed acc es s t o t he al l ey , and thathe exe r ci s ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentFi ndi ng t hat O ff ic erK ol tunovi ch pr ohi bi t ed H ol m an fr om 8 l i nger i ng i n R os e A l l ey , t he D i s t r i ctC our t anal y zed the c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t yo f

s u c h a r e s t r i c t i o n ; we n e e d n o t d o s o , a s we c o n c lu d e th a t H o lm a n ’s u se o f th e a lleyw a s n o t m e a n in g f u lly cur t ai l ed. See, e. g. , T

an ner v. Heise , 8 7 9 F

. 2 d 5 7 2 , 5 8 0 n . 5 (9th C ir

. 9 19 89 ) ( ho l ding t hat an arr estm o tiv at ed b ydesi re t o sup press re lig io u sly -m o tiv a ted e x p re ss io n v io late s th e F irst A m e n d m e n t, re g a rd les s o f

th e p ro c e d u ra l p ro p rie ty o f th e a rre st); B ai l ey v . An dr e ws , 81 1 F

. 2d 36 6, 3 72 (7th C i r. 19 87 ) ( no t i ng t hat arres t m o tiv a ted b yd e sire to su p p re ss a su sp e c t’s s p e e c h is u n c o n stitu tio n a l, no tw ith sta n d in g th e e x iste n c e o f p ro b a b le ca u se f o r th e a rrest)

. Hol ma n a c k n o wl e d g e s t h a t , u n d a u n t e d b yOffi cer 10 K ol tunovi ch’ s “verbal as s aul t , ” he cont i nued t o advoca t e i n t he al l ey . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at10. 8 r i ght s t her e, w i t hout obj ect i on by O ffi cer K ol tunovi ch. T o t he 8 ext entt hatH ol m an does as s er ta r es t r i ct i on on hi s fr ee s peec h r i ght s , i ti s bas ed on hi s arr es t for t r es pas s . M cTer nan cont ends t hathi s arr es t w as m ot i vat ed bya des i r e t o s uppr es s hi s pr o- l i fe v i e w s , a n d c h i l l e d h i s F i r s tA m e n d m e n t a c t i v i t y i n t h e a l l e y. 9 W e d isag ree . A lth o u g h w e a re so m ew h at trou b led b yH o lm an ’s arr es tfora de m i ni m is o ff ense, no evi dence s ugges t s t hat O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch ac t ed bas ed on an i m pr operm ot i ve, ort hat t he arr es tw oul d “det era per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om t he e x e rc is e o f

h is F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts .” See Suppan v

. 10 D adonna , 2 0 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); B e n n e tt v. He n drix ,9 423 F. 3d 1247, 1254 ( 11t h C i r . 2005)

. T o t he contr ary , O ffi cer K o l tu n o v i c h g r a n t e d H o l m a n u n f e t t e r e d a c c e s s t o t h e a l l e y, perm i t t i ng hi m t o pr ot es tt her e w i t houtobj ect i on. H ol m an w as onl yarr es t ed w hen he tr es pas s ed on Pl anned Par enthood propert y , aft er r epeated w arni ng s that the lotw as pri vate pr oper t y . H ence, H ol m an’ s “chi l l ” ar gum ent– t hathe reas on ablyfeared po l i c e re pri sal for exerci si ng his F i rs t A m e n d m e n t rig h ts – is u n f o u n d e d . H o lm a n h a d n o re a so n to fea rpol i ce i nt er fer ence w i t h hi s advoca cy i n t he al l ey , pr ovi ded he resp ect ed P l ann ed P arent ho od ’s propert yri gh t s. T hu s, H ol m an fa i l s t o demonst r at e a cogni zabl e Fi r s tA m endment vi ol at i on. H ol m an al s o chal l enges hi s arr es t on Four t h A m endment gr o u nds

. H e cont ends t hathi s arr es tfort r es pas s w as not s uppor t ed by pr obabl e caus e, beca us e an aff i r m at i ve def

ens e – t he def ens e of nece s s i t y – cl ear l yappl i ed. Speci fi cal l y , H ol m an cont ends t hats t eppi ng ont o t he pr i vat e parki ng l otw as n e c e ss a ryto a v o id c o lli d in g w ith a tru c k th a t h a d ju st tu rn e d in to th e a lley . H e a ss e rts th a t “th e tre sp a ss sta tu te is n o t ap p lica b le w hen ther e exi s t s t he def ense of nece s s i t yt o pr event M r. H o lm a n ’s o w n b o d ilyin ju ry .” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 2 4 ; s ee 1 8 P a.C

. S

. § 5 0 3 (a).
T r es pas s under18 Pa. C

. S. § 3503( b) ( 1) ( i ) r equi r es pr oof t hatt he def

endant , “know i ng t hathe i s notl i cens ed orpr i vi l eged t o do s o, . . . ent er s orr emai ns i n anypl ace a s to w h ich not i ce agai ns t tr es pas s i s gi ven by

. . . actual comm uni cat i on t o t he act or . ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatH ol m an’ s arr es tw as l aw ful for three r easons.10 Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ct C our t not ed thatH ol m an al l butconce ded that O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch had a r eas onabl e basi s forconcl udi ng t hat the e lem en ts of th e c h arg ed o ff en se w ere m et. T h e C o u rt r eas oned thatO ffi cerK ol tunovic h had pr evi ous l yadvi s ed H ol m an thatt he fr ontparki ng l ot w as pr i vat e pr oper t y ow ned or lea se d b yP lan n e d P a re n th o o d , an d th a t P lan n e d P a re n th o o d d id notw ant H ol m an t r es pas s i ng t her e. Fur t her , H ol m an admi t t ed t hat , bas ed on thes e i ns t ruct i ons and hi s appr oxi m at el ya doze n trip s to th e f

a c ili ty , h e k n e w w h ich lo c a tio n s w e re p riv a te pr o p e r t y a n d whi c h l o c a t i o n s wer e p u b l i c , a n d was a war e t hat t h e e l e v a t e d c u rb o n t o w h i c h h e s t e p p e d w a s p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y. H

. A

. 31, 166- 67, 239, 267- 270, 272. Second, cit ing Sands v. McKor m i ck , 502 F. 3d 263, 269 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r th e l d t h a t , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, pr obabl e ca us e exi s t s w h en an offi cerr eas onabl ybel i eves t hat t he elem ents of the charged off ense h a v e been m et , regar dles s o f w h e th e r a n a f

f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n se a p p e a rs to a p p ly : “F irst, j us t i fi ca ti on ornece s s i t yi s an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e. I n m aki ng t he ‘ fundament al l y. . . fac tual anal y s i s . . . at t he s cene , ’ s uch aff i r m at i ve l egal defe ns es ar e not a r el evantcons i der at i on i n an offi cer ’ s det er m i nat i on of proba bl e caus e. ” H

. A

. 32. T hus , t he D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t O f f ice r K o ltu n o v ich h a d p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es tH ol m an, i ndepende ntof af fi r m at i ve def

ens es t hat O ffi cer K o ltunovi ch knew , ors houl d have know n, exoner at ed H ol m an. T hi r d, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hat , even a s s um i ng, ar guendo , t hatan arr es t i ng offi cerm us tconsi d er the appl i cabi l i t yof af

fi r m at i ve def

enses i n det erm i ni ng w hether p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s , t h e n e c e s s i t y d e f e n s e l i k e l y d i d n o ta p p l y.11 I ndeed, H ol m an, pr evi ous l yappr i s ed of the dange rpos ed by vehi cul ar tr aff

i c, coul d have a nt i ci pat ed thatt r es pas s i ng on P lan n e d P a r e n th o o d p ro p e rtyw o u ld b e n e c e ss a ryto a v o id vehi cl es t r avel i ng t hr ough t he al l ey . Fur t her , i tw as not necessaryfor H olm an t o prot est i n t he al l ey becau se num erous, safer l ocati on s exis t ed fr om w hich t o co nv eyhis pro-l i fe view s. T h e D istric t C o u rt a n a lo g ize d th e c a se b e f o re it t o N

orthea st W o m e n ’s C tr. v . M

cMo n a g le , 8 6 8 F

. 2 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 5 2 (3d C ir

. 1989) , w her e w e det erm i ned thatpr ot es t er s t r es pas s i ng atan abo rt i on cl i nic w ere no t enti t l ed to a necessi t ydefe nse, becau se t he pr ot es t er s pos s es s ed l aw ful al t ernat i ves , ot hert han tr esp assin g o n cli n ic pro p erty , to p rev en t th e h arm i dent i fi ed— t he per for m ance of abort i o n s. W e r eas oned that p ro tes te rs c o u ld h a v e v o ice d th e ir p ro -life v iew s e q u a lly e f f e c tiv e ly f

ro m th e p u b lic s id e w a l k s a ro u n d th e c lin ic

. Id

. H e re , the D istric t C o u rt o b se rv e d , s im ilarly , th a t H o lm a n c o u ld h a v e sa f e ly e x e rc ise d h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts o n th e p u b lic s i dew al ks ar ound t he C l i ni c, t her eby avoi di ng t he hazar ds of the a lle y . A l t hough H ol m an concede s t hat al l el ement s of a p r i ma f aci e c a se f

o r tre sp a ss w e re m e t, h e a rticu late s tw o o b jec tio n s to th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro b a b le c a u se . F irst, H o lm a n a rg u e s th a t Sands di d notm ake a l l aff i r m at i ve def

ens es ir re le v a n t to th e p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n . R a th e r, Sands m er el yr el i eved of

fi cer s of the ob li gat i on t o i nqui r e aboutt he s i ngl e a ffi r m at i ve def ens e ati s s ue ther e— t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . W e emphas i zed i n Sa nd s t hatpol i ce of

fi cer s , w ho lac k leg a l train in g , c o u ld n o t re a so n a b lyb e e x p e c ted to c a lcu late th e a p p lica b le to lli n g p e rio d . H o lm a n a rg u e s th a t tres p a ss is d if f e re n t, be c a u se n o leg a l train in g is re q u ire d f o r p o lice to12 det erm i ne w hethera def endant ’ s t r es pass is j us t i fi ed by n e c e ss ity

. U n lik e th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, th e n e c e ss ity d ef en se h as straigh tfo rw ard elem en ts, an d an o ff icer’s i m m edi at e obs er vat i ons ar e oft en s uffi ci entt o det erm i ne w hetheri t s r equi r ement s ar e met
. T hus, h e u rges, nei t hert he hol di ng nor t he r eas oning of Sands cat egor i cal l yr el i eves an arr es t i ng offi cer of t he dutyt o det erm i ne w hetheran af fi r m at i ve d e f e n s e a p p lie s to th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s c o n d u c t. S econ d, H olm an di st i ng uis hes McMo n a g le from t he case befor e us . U nl i ke th e d efe ndant s i n McMo n a g le , w h o c o u ld pr ot es ta b or t i ons w i t houtt r es pas s i ng on cl i ni c pr oper t y , H ol m an l acke d l aw ful alt ernat i ves t o avoi d t he s peci fi c harm t hathe confr ont ed— bei ng s tru c kb ya n appr oachi ng t ruck. H e cont ends th a t ste p p in g o n to th e P lan n e d P a re n th o o d p a rk in g lo t w a s h is so le o p tio n to a v o id a n a c c id e n t. W e ca nnotconduc tan i nfor m ed i nqui r yi nt o t hi s i s s ue w ith o u t n o tin g th a t, in a n o th e r c a s e , R adi ch v. G oode, 886 F. 2d 1391, 1396 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( not ci t ed byt he part i es ) , w e as s um ed forthe s ake of ar gum ent , w i t houtdeci di ng, t hatt he exi s t ence of an af f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e was r e l e v a n tt o t h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n of probab l e cause. T here, w e con si dered w hetherprobab l e cause exi s t ed t o arr es t a d ef

endantfordefi antt r es pas s , w her e the defe ndantpl ed, as an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, t hat( 1) t he pr emi s es w er e open t o t he publ i c, and (2) t he condi t i on i m pos ed byt he pr oper t y ow ner s w as unl aw ful

. 18 Pa. C

. S. § 3503. R athert han h o lding that the pro ff

ere d d ef en se w as irrel ev an t t o the o ff icer’s det erm i nat i on of pr obabl e ca us e as a mat t er of l aw , w e as s um ed ar guendo t hatt he appl i cabi l i t yof the def ens e bor e on the p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n . R adi ch , 8 8 6 F

. 2 d a t1 3 9 6

. We13 then fra m e d the d ispo sit ive in q u iryas w h ethe r an o ff icer, “act i ng reas on ably

. . . un der the f a ct s and cir cum st ances” kn ow n to hi m , w ou l d co n c l ud e t hat the af fi rm at i ve d efen se a p p lie d

. I

d. a t 1 3 9 6 -9 7 . If

th e a n s w e r w a s y e s, th e n p ro b a b le caus e di d notex ist

. T her e, beca us e the def endantcoul d not p r o v e t h a ta r e a s o n a b l e o f f i c e r , b a s e d o n t h e f

a c t s b e f or e h i m, w o u ld b e lie v e th a t th e c o n d itio n im p o s e d b yth e p ro p e rt yo w n ers w a s u n law f

u l, th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a rre st w a s su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le caus e. Id

. at1398.
H o w e v e r, R adi ch i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , b e c a u s e t h e t wo a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se s u rg e d b yth e d e f

e n d a n t w e re sp e c if

ica lly i ncl uded i n t he s t atut e s et t i ng for t h t he el ement s of the cr i m e. T hati s , t he s t atut e s peci fi cal l y s t at ed t hat t he pr os cr i bed conduc t w a s n o t cr im in a l if th e se tw o a sp e c ts w e re p re se n t. H e re , tha t is nott he ca s e. T he “ne cessi ty ” def ens e ur ged her e appe ar s i n a s epar at e s ect i on of the Penns y lvani a cr i m i nal code, § 503, d e f in in g th e g e n e ra l p ri n c ip le s o f ju s tif ic a tio n . S ig n if

ic a n tly, § 5 0 3 is n o t ex p licitlyr e f e r e n c e d in § 3 5 0 3 (b )(1 ), w h ich d e tails t he elem ents of d efi ant tres pass. I n Sa n d s , w e concl uded thatt he af fi r m at i ve def

ens e of t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons need notbe cons i der ed byan arr es t i ng offi cer i n det er m i ni ng pr obabl e caus e. W e s ugges t ed thati tw as a “f aul t ypr emi s e” t o ur ge t hat aff i r m at i ve defens es , s uch as t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , ar e nec es s ar i l yr el evantat t he t i m e a pol i ce offi cerfi l es char ges . 502 F. 3d at269. R ather , w e i ndi cat ed that g en era ll y“a ff

irm ati v e d ef

en ses are t o b e ru led u p o n b ya c o u rt of compet entj u ri sdi ct i on. ” Id . W e b o lste re d o u r re a so n in g in Sands b yn o ti n g th a t sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is n o t a “ c lea r c u t” m a tte r i n a c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n . Id

. H er e, s im il arl y , w hetherW e al s o r ej ectH ol m an’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum ent– t hatO ffi cer 11 K ol tunovi ch us ed exc es s i ve for ce. H ol m an cont ends , “W hen an a rr e s t is ille g a l to b e g in w ith , a n yf o rc e u s e d is e x c e s s iv e .” 14 H o lm a n ’s m o v e m e n t in a c e rta in d ire c tio n , an d o n to p riv a te pr oper ty , w as “nec es s ary ” i s notcl earcutand i s es s ent i al l yan i s s ue of f

act
. I ndeed, w her eas H ol m an cont ends t hatt he truck w a s a p p ro a c h in g a t a n “ u n sa f e ” sp e e d , f

o rc in g h im to ste p o n to t h e P l a n n e d P a r e n t h o o d p a r k i n g l o tt o a v o i d a c o l l i s i o n , H. A. 198, 229, 278, O ffi cer K ol tunovi ch m ai nt ai ns t hatt he truck w as “pr act i cal l yata dea d-st o p , ” and thatH ol m an coul d have a v o i d e d a n a c c i d e n tb y s i m p l y w a l k i n g f a r t h e r d o w n t h e a l l e y. H .A . 2 3 9 -4 0 , 2 7 4 -7 5 , 2 7 8 . R e q u irin g O f f ice r K o ltu n o v ich to re so lv e th e se q u e stio n s, a n d p a in sta k in g lyto w e ig h p o ss ib le d e f e n s e s , w o u ld b e im p ra c tica l, pa rticu lar lyg iv e n th e ra p id ity w i t h w hi ch the eve nt s t r ans pi r ed her e. J us tas t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n Sa n ds req ui r es an anal y s i s of l egal cons i der at i ons t hats houl d no t co n cern an arr es t i ng offi cer , t he “ne ces s i t y ” defens e urge d her e r equi r es an offi cert o r es ol ve equa l l y daunt i ng i s s ues . A n arr es t i ng offi cer w o u ld n e e d to e x a m in e c o u n tles s f a c tu a l p e rm u tatio n s to det erm i ne t he “nec es s i t y ” of s peci fi c conduc tata gi ven mom ent i n t i m e. W e do notendo rse the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementt hat a f f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e s a r e “ n o ta r e l e v a n tc o n s i d e r a t i o n ”

– a s we hav e nev er s o h el d – bu t w e do con cl ud e t hat, here, t he d efen se of nece s s i t y need not have been cons i der ed i n t he as s es s m entof probab l e cause fo r arre st f o r tres pass att he scen e. B ecause O ffi cerK ol tunovi ch had pr obabl e caus e t o arr es tH ol m an for t res pass, his F ou rth A m end m ent cl ai m fai l s. 11A pp el l ant’ s B r. at 32

. H olm an’s excessi ve fo rce cl ai m hinges, t h e r e f o r e , o n t h e l e g a l i t yo f t h e i n i t i a l a r r e s t
. Be c a u s e we con cl ud e t hat O ffi cer K oltun ov i ch had probab l e cause t o arr est H ol m an fort r es pas s , w e r ej ecthi s der i vat i ve cl ai m forexce s s i ve for ce. H o lm a n ’s m u n icip a l li a b ili ty c laim s w o u ld h a v e in e v itab ly 12 fai l ed att he s um m aryj udgm ents t age, s i nce w e concl ude thatno cons t i tut i onal depr i vat i on occurr ed. 15 F in d in g n o v io latio n o f H o lm a n ’s F irst a n d F o u rth A m en d m en t r igh ts, w e w il l A F F IR M th e g ran t of su m m ary j udgm ent
. A l s o, fort he r eas ons s etfor t h i n McTer nan v. C i t y of Y ork , No

. 0 7

- 4 4 3 7 , wh i c h we e x p r e s s l y i n c o rp o r a t e h e r e i n , we w il l A FFIRM t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng H ol m an’s m u n icip a l li a b ili ty c la im s a g a in st th e C ityo f Y o rk a n d h is offi ci al capa ci t ycl ai m s agai ns tO ffi cerK ol tunovi ch, M ay or B r enner , and Pol i ce Com m i s s i onerW hi t m an, as t he al l egat i ons i n H olm an’s com plai nt m i rr or tho se i n M cT ernan’s. 12