2005 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 4-29-2005 

# D ib ell a v . B e a ch wo o d 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 . 03-4892

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Dibell a v . Be a ch wood " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1296. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1296NOT 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 No: 03-4892/04-1257 ROBERT DIBELLA; J OHN MCLAUGHLI N, Appellants - ( Case No.03- 4892)

v. B OROU GHOF B EA CH WOO D, a munic ipality org anize d und e r t

helaws of

theState of New J ersey ; BEACHWOOD POLI CE DEPARTMENT; JOHNWAG

NE R, C HIEF , in

his of fi c ial c a pac ity and pers on a lly ; JOHN ZUPA , PO LI CE O F F I CER , pers on a lly

and in his o ff ic ial c a pac ity R O B E RTD IB E LLA ; J O HNM C LAU G H LIN

v. BO ROUGH OF BEA CHWOOD, a municipality org anized un d e r th el aw s o f

th eS t at eo f

N e wJ e r s e y; B EA CH WOO D PO LI CE D EPARTM EN T; JOHNWAG NE R, C h i e f , i nh i s o f f i c i a lc a p a c i ty an d

p e r s o n a l l y; JOHNZUPA , Po lic eOf

fi c e r, pers on a lly

and in his of fi c ial c a pac ity Appellants - ( Case No. 04- 1257)

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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s tr i ctC our tN o. 02- cv- 03883 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr.

_________________ A r gued on J anuary11, 2005 ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 29, 2005)J udge C hert off he ar d or al ar gum enti n thi s cas e butr es i gned pr i ort o the t i m e the * o p in io n w a s f

ile d . T h e o p in io n is f

ile d b ya q u o ru m o f

th e p a n e l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 6 (d ). H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B e f o re : R O T H a n d C H E R T O F F , C i r cui tJudges , a n d S HAP I RO , D is tr i ct Judge . * * * H arryJ . L evi n, E s qui r e ( A r gued) C o ll ee n F . C yp h ers L ev in & C yp h ers 1410 H ooperA venue T om s R i ver , N J 08753

C ouns el forA ppel l ant s / C r os s A ppel l ees D avi d R . L eahy , E s qui r e ( A r gued) G i l m or e & M onahan 10 A l l en Str eet P. O . B ox 1540 T om s R i ver , N J 08754

C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llee s/C ro ss A p p e llan ts

OP I NI ON S H A P IR O , D is tr i ct

Judge . P lai n ti ff s, R o b ert D iB ell a a n d Jo h n M cL au g li n , ap p ea l a po st- tr ial d istri ct co u rt o rd e r v a c a tin g a ju rya w a rd o f $ 7 8 ,2 3 7 in c o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s, a n d $ 9 5 ,0 0 0 in puni t i ve damages t o eac h pl ai nt i ff. T he j udge hel d ther e had be en no Four th A m endment s ei zur e as r equi r ed i n a mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeci s i on i s aff i r m ed.3 I . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY O n O ct ober30, 1999, D i B el l a and M cLaughl i n w er e ca m pai gni ng forpos i t i ons on the governi ng bodyof the B or ough of B eac hw ood, O cea n C ounty , N ew J er s ey . T hey w ere o n p u b li c p rop ertyh an d ing o u t l it era ture to p ed estri an s, b icy cli sts, an d d ri v ers s t opped ata tr aff

i c l i ght . T heyhad al s o pos t ed s i gns atthe i nt er s ect i on. D i B el l a t es t i fi ed thei rpol i t i cal opponentdr ove byand theyhad a ve rbal confr ont at i on. D i B el l a s us pect ed hi s opponentthen ca l l ed C hi ef of Pol i ce, J ohn W agner( “C hi ef W agner ”) , and pr es s ur ed C h ie f W a g n e r t o h a v e th e m s to p th e irc a m p a ig n in g . Shor t l yaft erthe verbal confr ont at i on, Pol i ce O ffi cerJ ohn Z upa ( “O ffi cerZ upa”) appr oache d D i B el l a and M cLaughl i n and t ol d them t o m ove thei ri l l egal l yparked van; theycompl i ed. W hen O ffi cerZ upa l at err eturned and t ol d them t o l eave the ar ea, they re f u se d . D iB e lla a n d M c L a u g h lin d isp u ted O f f ice r Z u p a ’s c o n ten tio n h e e x p lain e d th a t to ap p roa ch au tom o b il es sto p p ed at th e interse cti o n w as d an g ero u s an d the s ign s w ere bl ocki ng m ot or i s t s ’ vi ew s . O ffi cerZ upa i s s ued a s um m ons fordefi anttr es pas s under N . J . S. A . 2C : 18- 3B , a pettydi s or der l yoffe ns e w hen a pe r s on r emai ns i n a pl ace , know i ng he i s notl i cens ed orpr i vi l eged t o do s o, aft erhe r ece i ves not i ce of tr es pas s byactual c o m m u n ic a tio n . D i B el l a and M cLaughl i n w er e convi ct ed of de fi anttr es pas s i n the B or ough of B eac hw ood M uni ci pal C our t . T he Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , L aw D i vi s i on, C r i m i nal Par t , hol di ng thei rconductdi d notcons t i tut e def i anttr es pas s as a mat t erof l aw , r ever s ed4

the convi ct i on. T he tr i al courtthen amended the cha r ge t o vi ol at i on of N . J . S. A . 2C : 33- 2a( 2) ( cr eat i ng a haz ar dous condi t i on byan ac tw hi ch s erves no l egi t i m at e purpos e of the a c to r). A f

ter a se c o n d c o n v ictio n , the S u p e rio r C o u rt, A p p e llate D iv isio n , rev e rse d a g a in and al l char ges w er e di s m i s s ed. A p p e llan ts f

iled th is a c tio n f

o r m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 in fe d era l distri ct co u rt . T h e juryaw ard ed $ 7 8 , 2 3 7 to the ap p ell an ts i n co m p en sato ry damages forl egal fee s . T he j uryal s o aw ar ded ea ch appe l l ant$75, 000 i n puni t i ve d a m a g e s a g a in s t C h ie f

W a g n e r, a n d $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a g a in s t O f f ic e r Z u p a . A ft erthe j uryver di ct , the j udge ent er ed j udgm entfordefe ndant s and rul ed havi ng t o att end pr etr i al and tr i al hear i ngs di d notcons t i tut e a gove rnm ent“s ei zur e” i n a 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n a c tio n p re d ic a te d o n th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. D iB e lla a n d M c L a u g h lin n o w a p p e a l. C h i e f W a g n e ra n d O f

f i c e rZ u p a c r o s s - a p p e a l b a s e d o n : ( 1 ) q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i ty; and ( 2) pr obabl e ca us e t o i s s ue the s um m ons . T heyal s o appea l the j uryver di cton the gr ound thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entm al i ce t o s uppor tan aw ar d of puni t i ve damages and the p u n itiv e d a m a g e s w e re e x c e s s iv e .

I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d f e d e ra l q u e stio n ju risd ictio n o v e r p lain tiff s’ c iv il righ ts cl ai m as s ert ed under42 U . S. C . § 1983. W e have j ur i s di ct i on of thi s appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal j udgm entunder28 U . S. C . § 1291, and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over5

the gr antof a Rul e 50( b) m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . L i ghtni ng L ube, I nc. v. W itc o C o rp ., 4 F .3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 6 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 3 ) ( c itin g W itte k a m p v . G u lf & W e s te rn , In c ., 9 9 1 F .2 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 1 (3 d C ir .), cer t . deni ed, 510 U . S. 917, 114 S. C t . 309, 126 L . E d. 2d 2 5 6 (1 9 9 3 )) . I I I . D i s cus s i on T i t l e 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i s nota s our ce of s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s buta vehi cl e for vi ndi cat i ng r i ght s confe r r ed bythe U . S. C ons t i tut i on orbyfede r al s t atut e. See B akerv. M cC ol l an, 443 U . S. 137, 145 n. 3 ( 1979) . D i B el l a and M cLaughl i n as s erta Sect i on 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on act i on forvi ol at i on of the Four th A m endment . T heycont end havi ng t o att end thei rtr i al s fordefi anttr es pas s and forvi ol at i on of N . J . S. A . 2C : 33- 2a( 2) cons t i tut ed an unr eas onabl e s ei zur e. T o p revai l i n a S ect i on 19 83 act i on m al i ci ou s prosecut i on act i on , a plai nti ff m ust s h o w: (1 ) th e d e f

e n d a n ts in iti a ted a c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g ; (2) the c ri m inal p roc ee d ing en d ed in the p lai n ti ff ’s fa v o r; (3 ) th e p ro c e e d in g w a s in iti a ted w ith o u t p ro b a b le c a u se ; ( 4) the defe ndant s act ed m al i ci ous l y or for a purpos e o ther tha n b ri n g ing the pl ai nt i ff t o j us t i ce; and ( 5) the pl ai nt i ff s uffe r ed a de pr i vat i on of l i b erty co n sist entw i th the conc ept of s ei zur e as a cons equenc e of a l egal pr ocee di ng. E stat e o f S m ith v . M ara sco , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he s t at e i ni t i at ed cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs agai ns tD i B el l a and M cLaughl i n; the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs ended i n t hei rfavorw hen di s m i s s ed on appe al . I n the s ubs equentA l though t he Supr eme C our tdi d notdi r ect l yaddr es s the i s s ue, w e have i nt erpr et ed *** A l br i ghtas r equi r i ng a vi abl e Sect i on 1983 act i on form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on be bas ed on a f e d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l v io latio n ra th e r th a n sta te c o m m o n law . M e rk le v . U p p e r D u b lin S ch o o l D ist . , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 8 2 , 7 9 2 (3 C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). rd 6 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on tr i al , the j uryfound O ffi cerZ upa had no pr obabl e caus e t o i s s ue the d ef iant tr esp ass s u m m o n s, an d C h ief W ag n er a n d O ff icer Z u p a h ad ac ted f

o r a p u rpo se o ther tha n b ri n g ing the p lai n ti ff s to justi ce . T h e tri al j u d g e v ac ated the ju ry v erd ictb yruli n g that issuing a su m m o n s req u ir ing a c ri m inal d ef en d an t t o ap p ea r i n co u rt d id n o t c o n s titu te a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t s e iz u re a s a m a tte r o f la w . A l br i ghtv. O l i ver , 510 U . S. 266 ( 1994) , s et s the fr amew or k forSect i on 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on j ur i s prudence . A l br i ghtw as arr es t ed forthe s al e of a s ubs t ance w hi ch l ooked l i ke an i l l egal drug; he w as r el eas ed af t erpos t i ng bond; and the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed bec aus e the cha r ge di d nots t at e an of fens e unders t at e l aw . A l br i ghtas s er t ed a s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n b u t d id n o t c la im a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt re

jec ted A lb rig h t’s S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c laim bas ed on the Four t eenth A m endment ’ s D ue Pr oces s C l aus e bec aus e hi s s urr endert o the St at e “c ons t i tut ed a s ei zur e forthe purpos es of the Four th A m endment ” i d. , at812, and w her e “a part i cul arA m endmentpr ovi des an expl i ci tt extual s our ce of cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on agai ns ta part i cul ars or tof governm entbehavi or , thatA m endment , notthe m ore gen eral i zed n oti on of sub st anti ve d ue p rocess m ustbe the gu i de fo r anal y zi ng these c laim s.” Id ., a t 8 1 3 . T h e C o u rt d id n o t d e c id e w h e th e r A lb rig h t as se rte d a v iab le

***7

m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m underthe Four th A m endmentbeca us e thatques t i on w as not p rese n ted in the p eti ti o n fo r cert i orari . A lb rig h t su g g e ste d m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c o u ld be bas ed on a vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endmentw i thoutdel i neat i ng the s peci fi c types of ac t i on able vi olat i on s. J us t i ce G i ns bur g ar gued i n herconcurr i ng opi ni on thatFour th A m endment pr ot ect i on ext ends fr om the i ni t i al arr es tors ei zur e t o the end of tr i al , i d. , at276- 81, but herconce ptof “c ont i nui ng s ei zur e” ha s been e xpl i ci t l yr ej ect ed bythr ee c i r cui t s . K ar am v. C i tyof B urbank , 35 2 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 94 (9 C i r. 20 03 ) ( plai nti ff' s pretri al rel ease th r equi r i ng hert o m ake c our tappea r ance s and i m pos i ng pr etr i al r es tr i ct i ons di d not cons t i tut e a Fourth A m endment"s ei zur e" i n a Sect i on 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on ac ti o n ); R il eyv . D o rt o n , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 4 (4 C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (r ejec ti n g Ju sti ce G insb u rg’s th

“‘ cont i nui ng s ei zur e’ theoryof the Four th A m endment ” i n an exc es s i ve for ce a ct i on w her e pl ai nt i ff’ s al l eged i nj ur i es occurr ed dur i ng booki ng) ; W i l ki ns v. M ay , 872 F. 2d 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 (7 C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) (r ejec ti n g “c o n ti n u ing seizu re” in an ex ce ssive fo rce ac ti o n w h ere

th p lai n ti ff ’s i n

juri es o cc u rred d u ri n g interrog ati o n ). T hr ee c i r cui t s , t o vary i ng degr ees , have a dopt ed J us t i ce G i ns bur g’ s conce ptof co n ti n u ing seizu re. T h e F ifth C ir cu itfo u n d a F o u rth A m en d m en t sei zu re in a ca se w h ere the def endantw as fi ngerpr i nt ed, phot ogr aphed, and then r equi r ed t o s i gn a per s onal r ecogni zanc e bond, r eportr egul ar l yt o Pr etr i al Ser vi ces , obt ai n perm i s s i on befor e l eavi ng the s t at e, and pr ovi de fe der al offi cer s w i th fi nanci al and i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on. E vansI n thei rbr i efs , and i n or al ar gum ent , appel l ant s pl ace d cons i der abl e w ei ghton a   n o n p rec ed en ti al T h ir d C ir cu itd ec isi o n : G raw v . F an task y , 6 8 F ed . A p p x . 3 7 8 (3d C ir . 2003) . Pl ai nt i ffs i n G r aw al l eged Fi r s t , Four th, and Four t eenth A m endmentvi ol at i ons s t emm i ng fr om a s er i es of i nci dent s and conf r ont at i ons betw een mem ber s of a c i t i zen or gani zat i on and s ever al pol i ce of fi cer s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed def endant s ’ M ot i on to D ism iss; w e re v erse d in p art an d rem an d ed . A fter f ind ing the s eizu re o f a v ideo ca m era w ith o u t p ro b a b le c a u se “ su f f icie n t to sta te a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t v io latio n ,” w e h e ld h av ing to d ef

en d o n ese lf ag ains t bas eless c ri m inal ch arg es su ff ici en tl yall eg ed a se izure “ f o r th e p u rp o se o f

su rv iv in g a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n ” to d ism iss .” Id . at 3 8 2 . G ra w is d ist ing u isha b le, b u t "[b ]ec au se o n lyp u b li sh ed o p inion s h av e p rec ed en ti al va lue, th e c o u rt does notci t e t o i t s unpubl i s hed opi ni ons as author i ty . " Thi r d C i r cui tI nt ernal O per at i ng P ro c e d u re 5 .7 (J u ly 2 0 0 2 ). 8 v. B al l , 168 F. 3d 856, 860- 61 ( 5 C i r . 1999) . T he Second Ci r cui thas rul ed tr avel th r es tr i ct i ons and courtappea r ance s “ar e appr opr i at el yvi ew ed as s ei zur es w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t.” M u rp h yv . L yn n , 1 1 8 F .3 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 6 (2 C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). nd H ow ever , i n M urphy , pl ai nt i ff ha d been ve rbal l yabus ed and phy s i cal l yatt acke d byfour p o lic e m a n , a rr e s te d , c h a rg e d w ith a f e lo n ya n d in c a rc e ra te d o v e rn ig h t. I d ., a t 9 4 2 . A ppel l ant s cont end thi s courthas “adopt [ed] a br oad appr oach” t o the def i ni t i on of “s ei zur e. ” See, G al l o v. C i tyof Phi l adel phi a. 161 F. 3d 217, 224 ( 3 C i r . 1998) . T he rd pl ai nt i ff i n G al l o w as arr es t ed forar s on and pos t ed a $10, 000 bond; he w as pr ohi bi t ed fr om tr avel i ng out s i de Penns y l vani a and N ew J er s ey , r equi r ed t o cont actPr etr i al Ser vi ces on a w eekl ybas i s , and r equi r ed t o att end al l courthear i ngs i ncl udi ng hi s tr i al and a rra ig n m e n t. T h is c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, “a lth o u g h it w a s a c lo se q u e stio n , w e a g re e w ith G al l o thatthes e r es tr i ct i ons amount ed t o a s ei zur e. ” 161 F. 3d at222. ** ** A ppel l ant s r el i ance on d icta fr om G al l o i s m i s pl ace d beca us e “pr os ecut i on w i thout9

p ro b a b le c a u se is n o t, i n a n d o f itse lf , a c o n stitu tio n a l to rt.” Id ., a t 2 2 2 (c iti n g A lb rig h t, 5 1 0 U .S . at 2 7 4 ). T h e typ e o f c o n stitu tio n a l in

ju ryth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t is in ten d e d to re d re s s is th e d e p ri v a tio n o f lib e rt ya c c o m p a n y in g p ro s e c u tio n , n o t p ro s e c u tio n its e lf. Id .

I f G al l o w as a “c l os e ques t i on; ” her e ther e coul d be no s ei zur e s i gni fi cantenough t o cons t i tut e a Fourth A m endmentvi ol at i on i n s uppor tof a Sec t i on 1983 m al i ci ous p ro s e c u tio n a c tio n . G a llo w a s a rr e s te d a n d s u b je c te d to s ig n if

ic a n t p re tr ia l r e s tr ic tio n s . D i B el l a and M cLaughl i n w er e onl yi s s ued a s um m ons ; theyw er e neve rarr es t ed; they neverpos t ed bai l ; theyw er e fr ee t o tr avel ; and theydi d nothave t o r eportt o Pr etr i al Ser vi ces . T hei rl i bertyw as r es tr i ct ed onl ydur i ng the M uni ci pal C our ttr i al s and the Four th A m endmentdoes notext end bey ond the per i od of pr etr i al r es tr i ct i ons . See, T or r es v. M cLaughl i n, 163 F. 3d 169, 174 ( 3 C i r . 1998) ( “the l i m i t s of Four th A m endment rd pr ot ect i on r el at e t o t he boundarybetw een a rr es tand pr etr i al det ent i on. ”) ; s ee a l s o, D o n a h u e v . G a v in , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 8 1 (3 C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s a m e ). rd Pr etr i al cus t odyand s om e oner ous types of pr etr i al , non- cus t odi al r es tr i ct i ons con st i tute a Fou rth A m end m ent s ei zure. D i B el l a and M cL aug hli n fail ed to st at e a cau se of ac t i on for m al i ci ou s prosecut i on becau se theirat t end ance a ttri al did not quali fyas a Four th A m endments ei zur e. CO NC L US I ON A t t endi ng one’ s tr i al i s nota governm ent“s ei zur e” i n a 42 U . S. C . § 1983m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n ac ti o n fo r vio lat ion o f th e F o u rth A m en d m en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s

ju d g m e n t v a c a tin g th e ju ryv e rd ict f o r a p p e llan ts, D iB e lla a n d M c L a u g h lin , is A F F IR M E D ; th e c ro ss -a p p e a l o f C h ief W a g n e r a n d O f

f ice r Z u p a is D E N IE D a s m o o t.

10