UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Alexander Parks

 v. Civil No. 04-CV-445-PB

Carol Ann Tatarinowicz, et al.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This civil action arises from plaintiff William Parks’s

strained relationship with his ex-girlfriend, Carol Tatarinowicz,

and from a series of encounters Parks had with the officers of

several Seacoast region police departments. Parks sued a laundry

list of defendants in Rockingham County Superior Court, including

Tatarinowicz, the Town of Seabrook and Seabrook police officers

Michael Gallagher and Scott Mendes (“Seabrook defendants”), the

Town of Kensington and Kensington police officer Brian Rathman

(“Kensington defendants”), the Town of Hampton Falls, Hampton

Falls police chief Robbie Dirsa and Hampton Falls police officers

Marshall Bennett and Joy LePage (“Hampton Falls defendants”), as

well as Ottoway Newspapers and its publisher John Tabor. He 
 Summary judgment motions have also been filed by 1

Tatarinowicz (Doc. No. 64) and Ottoway and Tabor (Doc. No. 80).

Parks has not asserted federal claims against these defendants

and I do not address their motions here. 

-2-

seeks damages, referrals to the appropriate prosecuting authority

for criminal prosecutions, expungement of his criminal record,

and return of/compensation for certain property. 

Defendants removed the case from superior court on November

24, 2004. The Seabrook, Kensington, and Hampton Falls defendants

have subsequently moved for summary judgment (Docs. No. 63, 31,

and 92). 

1

For the reasons set forth below, I grant the defendants’

motions as to Parks’s federal constitutional claims and remand

the case to Rockingham County Superior Court for adjudication of

the remaining claims, over which I decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
 Parks claims that his complaint and pleadings are 2

verified complaints. Pl.’s Mot. for Assignment of Counsel at 3. 

-3-

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, I construe

the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. 

Navarro v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90, 94 (1st Cir. 2001). 

The party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial

responsibility of . . . identifying those portions of [the

record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine

issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden

shifts to the adverse party to “produce evidence on which a

reasonable finder of fact, under the appropriate proof burden,

could base a verdict for it; if that party cannot produce such

evidence, the motion must be granted.” Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol

Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 94 (1st Cir. 1996). 

The “adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or

denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s

response . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).2
A party may set forth specific triable facts in a verified

complaint rather than an affidavit “to the extent that [the

verified complaint] satisfies the standards explicated in Rule

56(e).” Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d 1259, 1262 (1st Cir. 1991). 

Cf. Felix v. Lugas, No. 00-12225-DPW, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15520

at *6 n.5 (D. Mass. March 2, 2004) (unverified complaint, “is not

the equivalent of an affidavit and therefore does not form part

of the summary judgment record”). A verified complaint must

comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, see Williams v. Browman, 981 F.2d

901, 904 (6th Cir. 1992), which requires that a party sign a

statement “in substantially the following form: . . . . ‘I

declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury

that the foregoing is true and correct.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1746. As

neither Parks’s complaint nor his pleadings contain such

language, I may not treat them as affidavits for summary judgment

purposes. Cf. Nowaczyk v. Warden, No. 97-309-JD, 2003 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 6912 at *3 n.1 (D.N.H. April 24, 2003) (where plaintiff

signed a petition pursuant to § 1746, the factual allegations

contained therein could be considered).

-4-

Further, Local Rule 7.2(b)(2) dictates that “[a]ll properly

supported material facts set forth in the moving party's factual

statement shall be deemed admitted unless properly opposed by the

adverse party.” See also Stonkus v. City of Brockton Sch. Dep’t,

322 F.3d 97, 102 (1st Cir. 2003) (applying Massachusetts Local

Rule 56.1, which is substantially similar to Rule 7.2(b)(2)). 

Evidence that is “merely colorable or is not significantly

probative” is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Anderson,

477 U.S. at 249 (citations omitted). 

This standard of review influences my recitation of the
 The dates in Parks’s writ conflict with those reported 3

in the police officers’ affidavits, which I regard as accurate

and use here. The exact dates are not determinative.

-5-

facts set forth below. While I adhere to the principle that I

must view the facts in the light most favorable to the adverse

party, I accept as true any facts described in defendants’

affidavits that Parks has failed to properly challenge. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Parks met Tatarinowicz on October 25, 2002. Rockingham Cty.

Writ (“Compl.”) at 15. The pair began a romantic relationship,

and Tatarinowicz invited Parks to move into her home after three

weeks of dating. Id. at 16. 

A. June 2003 Incident

On June 15, 2003 , Hampton Falls defendant Bennett was on 3

patrol when he received a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) for a blue

Ford with Florida license plates. The car was wanted by the

Newbury, Massachusetts police department in connection with a

police impersonation incident. Bennett Aff. at 1-2. Bennett had

previously seen a car that matched the BOLO description turn into

Tatarinowicz’s driveway. Id. at 2. He drove to Tatarinowicz’s
 Parks denies that he consented to the search of his 4

vehicle. Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Hampton Falls Defs.’ Mot. for

Summ. J. at 16. This general denial, in an unsworn pleading, is

insufficient to give rise to a genuine factual dispute. In any

event, the dispute is immaterial because Parks does not challenge

the vehicle search. 

-6-

neighborhood and confirmed that a car parked there had the same

license plate number as the car described in the BOLO. Id. 

Bennett met three state police troopers and a detective from the

Newbury police department at the Hampton Falls police station,

and the group went to Tatarinowicz’s home to investigate. Id. at

3; Compl. at 20. Tatarinowicz greeted the officers and led

Bennett and the Newbury detective behind the house to find Parks. 

Parks emerged from the garage and met the state troopers. 

Bennett Aff. at 3. He gave his written consent to a search of

the car, which turned up police equipment including a rotating

light and a handheld radar gun. Id. at 3-4. Nevertheless, the 4

officers determined that Parks had not been involved in the

Newbury incident and left. Id. at 4. Parks claims that the

police officers’ actions “violated [his] U.S. Constitutional 4th

amendment protections prohibiting unreasonable searches and

seizures, [and] violated [his] 5th amendment due process

protections; the Miranda Doctrine.” Compl. at 20. 
 LePage identifies the Kensington police officer as 5

“Officer Doyle.” LePage Aff. at 2. Doyle is not a defendant,

and although Parks states that a second officer assisted LePage,

he does not name him. He does claim that the “Town of Seabrook”

and “the Rockingham County Sheriff Department” (which is also not

a defendant) responded to the 911 call. Compl. at 6. My

analysis of the incident in no way depends on the identity of the

assisting officer.

-7-

B. July 2003 Incident

On July 10, 2003, Tatarinowicz called 911 from her home but

apparently hung up before making a request for assistance. 

Compl. at 6. The 911 dispatch center returned the call and

Tatarinowicz stated that she had mis-dialed the number. Id.

Hampton Falls defendant LePage was dispatched to Tatarinowicz’s

home to investigate. LePage Aff. at 1. LePage requested backup

from the Kensington police department, which sent an officer to

assist her. Id. at 1-2. When LePage arrived at the 5

Tatarinowicz home, Parks met her in the driveway and began

yelling that he and Tatarinowicz had been fighting “but that

nothing happened and it was over now.” Id. at 2. LePage asked

Parks to wait by his car while she spoke to Tatarinowicz. Parks

“flashed a badge” and shouted that he would stay by his car

because he was a cop. Id. While LePage was inside speaking with

Tatarinowicz, she noticed that the Kensington officer had
 Parks claims that he “showed no hostile [or] aggressive 6

behavior” when the officers arrived at Tatarinowicz’s home,

Compl. at 6, and denies that he yelled, screamed, or admitted to

having had a fight with Tatarinowicz. Pl.’s Memo. in Opp. of

Hampton Falls Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 18. These statements

are unsworn general denials of the officers’ statements rather

than specific factual allegations, and as such they are

insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. 

-8-

arrived. She radioed to him and asked him to stay at the end of

the driveway to avoid agitating Parks. Id. at 2-3. When Parks

continued to yell loudly and angrily after the arrival of the

Kensington officer, LePage went outside. She saw the Kensington

officer handcuffing Parks, reportedly because Parks had “[become]

enraged and charged at” the officer after being instructed to

stay outside the house. Id. at 3. LePage took Parks to her 6

cruiser; “[h]e screamed that he wanted to be charged with

something.” Id. LePage attempted to explain to Parks that he

was not being arrested, but rather “detained for safety reasons”

until the end of the investigation into the 911 call. Id. Parks

was held in the back of LePage’s cruiser for nearly an hour until

LePage finished speaking with Tatarinowicz. Compl. at 6. Parks

claims his detention was “in violation of and depriv[ed] [him] of

his Fifth (5th) amendment due process rights as contained in the

U.S. Constitution.” Id. 
-9-

C. September 2003 Incident 

On September 27, 2003, Tatarinowicz obtained an emergency

restraining order against Parks. Id. at 2; LePage Aff. at 4. On

September 28, 2003, Hampton Falls defendant LePage learned that

Parks had returned to Tatarinowicz’s home in violation of the

order. She initiated a BOLO for his vehicle so that he could be

stopped and served with the restraining order. LePage Aff. at 5. 

Kensington defendant Rathman was traveling through Seabrook on

Route 95 when he heard the BOLO. Rathman Aff. at 2-3. He exited

the highway and promptly spotted a car meeting the BOLO

description. Id. at 3. Rathman contacted the Seabrook police

department, which authorized him to stop the car. Id. 

Subsequently, Seabrook defendants Gallagher and LePage arrived on

the scene. Id. at 4; LePage Aff. at 6. LePage served Parks with

the restraining order. LePage Aff. at 6.

 When Rathman asked Parks for identification, Parks

responded by showing a badge and saying, “‘There, how’s that for

an ID.’” Rathman Aff. at 4. Rathman reported this to Gallagher

when Gallagher arrived. Id. at 4-5. Eventually, Parks told the
 Parks originally claimed that upon being stopped, he told 7

Rathman that he was “a former Deputy Sheriff in New London

County, Connecticut . . . and a former officer with the State of

Connecticut, Department of Correction.” Compl. at 5 (emphasis

added). However, he does not contest the officers’ description

of the encounter in his most recent pleadings. Instead, Parks

comments that the officers “sure can recall all the . . . minute

details of what I said and how I said it.” Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to

Kensington Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 26. 

 Under New Hampshire’s false personation statute, it is a 8

misdemeanor when a person “not being a sheriff, deputy sheriff,

-10-

officers that he was retired. Gallagher Aff. at 3. However, 7

neither the badge nor an identification card that Parks showed

said “retired.” Id. Gallagher called the Connecticut State

Police and could not confirm that Parks was a former law

enforcement officer of any kind. Id. at 3-4. Gallagher also

observed two police lights in the back seat of Parks’s car, a red

light with the word “Police” on it and a blue light with the

words “State Police” on it. Id. at 4. According to Parks, the

officers “detained [him] for almost an hour while figuring out

what to charge him with, and finally, unlawfully charged and

arrested [him] for impersonating a police officer.” Compl. at

14. 

On September 29, 2003, Parks was charged with false

personation in Hampton District Court. See Ex. D to Seabrook 8
state police officer, police officer of any city or town, or any

other law enforcement officer or investigator . . . purposely

pretends to be or assumes to act as such law enforcement officer

or investigator.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 104:28-a. 

-11-

Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. The complaint alleged that Parks,

“while not being a New London County Connecticut deputy sheriff

or a State of Connecticut Department of Corrections officer,

purposely pretend[ed] to be [such an officer] by presenting a New

London County Connecticut deputy sheriffs [sic] badge and a

Connecticut Department of Corrections identification card to

Sergeant Gallagher as a form of identification.” Id. On October

29, 2003, Parks pleaded guilty to the charge and on December 18,

2003, the Hampton District Court entered a finding of guilty. 

Id. 

IV. ANALYSIS

A. June 2003 Incident

Parks alleges that Hampton Falls defendant Bennett violated

Parks’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable

searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment rights to due

process and to Miranda warnings during Bennett’s investigation
 Apparently this written consent form is in the possession 9

of the Newbury police department. Bennett Aff. at 3; Dirsa Aff.

at 2.

-12-

into the Newbury BOLO. Compl. at 20. 

Although Parks baldly asserts that the defendant and others

“raid[ed]” his residence, Compl. at 20, there is no evidence that

police officers entered his home. Id.; see Bennett Aff. at 3-4. 

Tatarinowicz was at home at the time of the incident, and she met

the officers in the driveway and “led [them] around back to find”

Parks. Bennett Aff. at 3. “[T]here is no expectation of privacy

in a driveway that is exposed to the public,” U.S. v. Roccio, 981

F.2d 587, 591 (1st Cir. 1992), so Parks’s Fourth Amendment rights

were not violated when Bennett observed Parks’s license plate. 

Even if Parks did have an expectation of privacy “around back,”

Tatarinowicz consented to the officers’ presence there. See

United States v. Meada, 408 F.3d 14, 21 (1st Cir. 2005) (where

police obtain consent from the property owner, a warrantless

search does not violate the Fourth Amendment). The officers

searched Parks’s vehicle, but Parks has not challenged that

search, presumably because he consented to the search in writing. 

Bennett Aff. at 3. Parks has failed to explain how the police 9
-13-

officers’ conduct, which comported with the Fourth Amendment,

violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. 

Nor has Parks shown that he should have been given Miranda

warnings. The protections of Miranda do not apply unless a

person is in custody. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467

(1966); Pasdon v. City of Peabody, 417 F.3d 225, 227 (1st Cir.

2005). Parks’s freedom of movement was not restricted in any

way during this incident, so he was not in custody and therefore

was not entitled to Miranda warnings. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to

this claim is granted. 

B. July 10, 2003 Incident

Parks claims that his detention in the Hampton Falls’ police

cruiser following the 911 call violated his Fifth Amendment right

to due process. It appears that Parks means to invoke his Fourth

Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizures. He has not,

however, provided any evidence to support such a claim. 

Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968),

the police “may make brief investigative stops” in certain

circumstances. Flowers v. Fiore, 359 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir.

2004). “In determining whether a challenged action is
-14-

reasonable, and, thus, falls within the range of permissible

investigatory stops or detentions, a court should engage [in] a

two-step inquiry, asking (1) whether the officer’s action was

justified at its inception; and (2) whether the action taken was

reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the

interference in the first place.” U.S. v. McCarthy, 77 F.3d 522,

530 (1st Cir. 1996). I discuss each step in turn.

1. Justification for the Stop

A Terry stop is appropriate where there is reasonable

suspicion that an individual has committed a crime. Flowers, 359

F.3d at 29. Here, the police officers had ample reason to

believe that Parks had committed a crime. They were responding

to a late-night 911 hang-up that had been made from

Tatarinowicz’s home. LePage found Parks outside the home. He

appeared to be in an agitated state and eventually charged at the

Kensington officer. These circumstances gave rise to reasonable

suspicion that Parks had committed a crime, such as threatening

Tatarinowicz. See, e.g., U.S. v. Romain, 393 F.3d 63, 72 (1st

Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2924 (2005) (after receiving

a 911 call reporting that there was an armed man in a residence,

police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop in part
-15-

because of the suspect’s belligerent behavior when the police

arrived); U.S. v. Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir.

2002) (late hour relevant to determination of reasonable

suspicion); Gainor v. Douglas Cty., 59 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1275-76

(N.D. Ga. 1998) (angry and hostile behavior relevant to a

determination of reasonable suspicion).

2. Scope of the Stop

“Whether a Terry stop remained related in scope to the

circumstances justifying the interference is measured by an

objective reasonableness standard.” U.S. v. Moore, 235 F.3d 700,

703 (1st Cir. 2000). Courts are required to examine the

circumstances of the stop, and balance governmental interests

with the intrusion on the individual. Id. In this case, the

interference with Parks’s liberty was objectively reasonable and

did not escalate into a de facto arrest, for which probable cause

would have been required. 

A Terry stop becomes a de facto arrest when a reasonable

person in the suspect’s position would have believed himself to

be under arrest. Flowers, 359 F.3d at 29. The manner in which

the police carried out this stop demonstrates that a reasonable

person would not have believed himself to be under arrest. 
-16-

First, LePage told Parks that he was not under arrest,

LePage Aff. at 3, and the officers did not treat him as if he had

been arrested. The officers did not interrogate Parks. They did

not take him anywhere in the police cruiser. Although Parks

claims he was “in agony, pain, and in sweltering heat” while he

was in the cruiser, Compl. at 6, he has not pointed to any

specific mistreatment by the police. In fact, it is evident that

Parks had no interaction with the police while he was in the

cruiser. 

Second, the duration of the stop was reasonable. Although

Parks was held for close to an hour, there is “‘no rigid time

limitation on Terry stops.’” U.S. v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159

(1st Cir. 1987) (quoting U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685

(1985)); see also McCarthy, 77 F.3d at 531 (upholding 75-minute

stop). Instead, courts must examine “whether the police

‘diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to

confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it

was necessary to detain the [suspect].’” Flowers, 359 F.3d at

30-31, (quoting Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686). In this case, Parks

was held until LePage finished her conversation with

Tatarinowicz. There is no suggestion that this conversation was
-17-

unduly lengthy. See McCarthy, 77 F.3d at 531 (finding a stop

reasonable where “there [was] no evidence or even an allegation

of less than diligent behavior on the part of the police”). 

Finally, the fact that the officers handcuffed Parks during

the stop is not determinative. Use of restraints does not

“automatically convert the encounter into a de facto arrest.” 

U.S. v. Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 1998). Officers

“acting on less than probable cause” should not “handcuff

suspects as a matter of routine.” Id. However, the use of

handcuffs is appropriate if officers reasonably believe that

handcuffs are necessary to protect the officers, the public, or

the suspect during the stop. Id. at 19. When the police arrived

at Tatarinowicz’s residence, Parks was in an enraged state and

behaved aggressively toward the officers. It was reasonable for

the officers to believe that handcuffs were necessary to preserve

Parks’s safety and their own. 

In light of Parks’ hostile behavior and the officers’ need

to complete their investigation and protect themselves, the scope

of this Terry stop was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, I

grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to this claim. 
 Parks challenges the service of the restraining order 10

itself on state statutory grounds. Compl. at 14.

-18-

C. September 28, 2003 Incident

Parks’s final constitutional claim is that he was unlawfully

arrested and charged with impersonating a police officer after

being pulled over for service of the restraining order. Parks 10

raises this claim despite his guilty plea in Hampton District

Court.

I reject Parks’s claim because the police officers had

probable cause to arrest Parks for false personation. The false

personation statute makes it a misdemeanor to pretend to be a law

enforcement officer. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 104:28-a. Parks

answered Rathman’s request for identification by presenting a

badge that said nothing about retired status. He had two police

light bars in the back seat of his car. Gallagher could not

confirm that Parks had ever been employed by a law enforcement

agency. These facts plainly gave the police probable cause to

believe that Parks had violated the false personation statute. 

Accordingly, his arrest was valid. 

For these reasons, the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment as to this claim is granted.
-19-

 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motions for

summary judgment (Docs. No. 63, 31, and 92) are granted as to

Parks’s federal constitutional claims against the Hampton Falls,

Seabrook, and Kensington defendants based on the events of June

15, July 10, and September 28, 2003. Judgment shall be entered

for the defendants on these claims. I decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Parks’s state law claims. 

Therefore, the remaining claims are remanded to Rockingham County

Superior Court.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

Date November 4, 2006

cc: William A. Parks, Esq.

Donald E. Gardner, Esq.

Lawrence Gormley, Esq.

Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

Kenneth Murphy, Esq.

William Scott, Esq.

 Garry Lane, Esq.