2004 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
7-15-2004 

# T a r u s v . P ine Hi l l P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3100

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" T a r us v . P ine H i l l " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 499. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/499NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 03-3100

ROBERT WAY NE TAR US, Appellant

v. BOROUGH OF PINE HILL; LESLI E GALLAGHER, MAYOR; JOHN WELKER, POLICE CHIEF

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Civi l No. 01-cv- 04468) Distri ct Judge: Hon. Joseph H. Rodri guez
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

July15, 2004 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, B AR RY and W EIS , Circu it Judges

(Fil ed July15, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

SL OV ITE R, Circu it Judge
. This is not the f

irst case beforeus in which a resident of a localcommunity seeks to elev ate his o r her q uarrel w ith loca l offic ials into a fede ral con stitutiona l issue, an d this will pr obablynot be the last of its genre. Each partyto thi s appeal makes broad unsupporte d legal proposit ions. What was needed here was civi lit y, accommodation and

com mo n sen se, rathe r than a n arres t, a local trial, a nd a f edera l laws uit. W e dec line to expa nd th is matte r to yet ano ther lev el. I. Appellant

Robert Tarus, a resi dent of Pine Hill Borough who regul arlyatte nds Borough Council meeti ngs, began vi deotapi ng a meeting on September 18, 2000, without permissi on. Mayor Lesl ie Gall agher of the Borough of Pine Hil l poll ed severalaudience and councilmembers and found that severaldid not wis h to be vide otaped. Tarus refus ed the req uest o f M ayor G allagh er to turn off th e cam era, statin g that h e had the righ t to videotape the procee dings un der Maurice River Township Board of Educat ion v. Mauri ce River Township Teacher s Association , 187 N.J. Super 566 (Ch. Div. 1982). Mayor Gallagher

asked Poli ce Chief John Welker to remove Tarus and Chief Welker as ked Tarus to s top recording. Tarus responded t hat the only way that

the camera would be turned off would beif Chief Welker arres ted him. Chief Welker turned off thevideo camera and escorted Tarus out of the meeti ng room, where he offered to permi t Tarus back int o the meeti ng room if he agr eed to keep t he camera off. Tarus agai n refused and3

Ch ief W elker th en fo rmally ch arged Taru s with disord erly cond uct. The same sequence occur red agai n on October 23, 2000. The Borough Solici tor atte mpted to expl ain the M aurice Rive r Tow nship decisi on to Tarus, but Tarus s tate d that he disagreed with the Solici tor’ s int erpret ation. At the Mayor’ s inst ructi on, Chief Welker then escor

ted Tarus f

rom the meeti ng room and again r equested t hat Tarus ke ep the vi deo equipment off. In the cour se of a twenty- minute conver sati on outsi de of the meeting room, T arus told Ch ief We lker he w ould hav e to arrest him in o rder to keep his came ra off. C hief W elker th en arre sted h im fo r disord erly cond uct. The fo ll owi ng w ee k, a mu ni ci pa l j udg e e nt er ed a f in di ng o f n otgui lt

y as to th e t wo disorde rlyconduct char ges pending against Tarus based on hi s right to videot ape the Council meeting. Since then, Tarus has been permitted to videotape Council meetings. Tarus fil ed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages against the Borough of Pine Hill ( the Borough), Mayor Galla gher, and Pol ice Chief Welker , cl aiming that he had been

arre sted wit hou t pro bab le ca use and ma licio usly p rose cute d in vio latio n of his c ivil rig hts. Tarus als o alle ges that

Mayor Galla gher viol ated hi s Firs t and Fourteenth Amendment right s by apply ing the Borough Counci l’s f ive-minute rule, under which an audi ence member receive s up to fi ve minutes to speak, i n a discriminat ory fashion bas ed on all eged political and personalanimosit y between himself and t he Mayor, who are members of different political parti es. The Distric t Cou rt gran ted the defe ndan ts’ mo tions f or sum mary jud gm ent in f ull4

and decli ned to exer cise s upplementaljuri sdiction over Tarus’ st ate l aw claims. The court di smissed Tarus’ fal se arr est and mal icious prosecution claims based on t he ground that Tar us’ ref usal t o obey Chie f Welker’s order to s top video recording e stabl ished probable c ause to ar

rest him. The court

held that quali fied i mmunity shiel ded Chief Welker from li abili ty because, in arresti ng Tarus, he ha d reasonabl y r elie d on the Bo rou gh S olici tor’s opi nio n th at T aru s ha d no lega l bas is fo r vid eota pin g th e pr oce edin gs. Th e c ou rt a lso he ld th at M ayo r G all ag he r w as no t re sp on sib le f or Ta ru s’ a rre st. La stl y, the co urt rejec ted T arus’ c laim th at the f ive-m inute sp eakin g rule h ad be en ap plied to him in a disc rimina tory fash ion b ecau se he had s ubm itted inad missib le, unsw orn a ffida vits in supp ort of th is allega tion. T arus f iled a tim ely notice o f app eal. II. A. Probable Cause We have juris dicti on to revi ew this cas e pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the D istrict Co urt’s gra nt of s um mary jud gm ent de novo . Huang v. BP Amoco C orp. , 271 F.3d 56 0, 564 (3d Cir. 2001 ). The Distri ct Court he ld that Chief Welker had pr obable caus e to arrest Tarus based on Ta rus’ refusal to cea se videotap ing and c onsequ ent disruption o f the Co uncil’s meetings. The Borough’s dis orderl y conduct ordinance prohibi ts per sons from behavi ng in a dis orderl y manner i n public pl aces. Pi ne Hill Borough Ordi nance 3-11. 1b. Although this ordinance does not defi ne disor derli ness, Tarus rel ies upon New Jersey ’s defi niti on of1 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C :33-2a provides:

A p erson is guilty of a petty disord erly perso ns of fens e, if w ith purp ose to cause publi c inconveni ence, annoy ance or al arm, or reckless ly creating a risk t hereof he (1) Engages in fi ghting or threatening, or in vi olent or tumultuous behavior ; or ( 2) Create s a hazardous or phy sical ly dangerous condition b y any act which serve s no legitimate pu rpose of th e actor. 5 disorde rlyconduct, which involve s fighting, t hreate ning, vi olent or

tumultuous behavior or b eha vio r ten din g to crea te ha zard ous con ditio ns. See N.J. St at. Ann. § 2C:33-2. 1 Tarus thus argues that Chief Welker acted i mproperly

because hi s conduct di d not meet the d esc riptio n of diso rde rly con duc t as in vok ing vio lenc e or thre ats. Signifi cantl y, under New Jerseylaw, di sorderl y conduct is not limi ted to be havior that rises to the le vel of violen ce. In p articular , it provid es that: A person commits a di sorderl y per sons offense i f, with pur pose to pr event or disr upt a la wful meeting, processi on or gathering, he does an act tending to ob str uc t o r in ter fe re w ith it p hys ica lly. N.J. St at. Ann. § 2C:33-8. Moreover , the New Jersey Appell ate Divi sion has s tate d as follows: Reaso nableness is the key. Hence , where a n officer’s instruction s are obviou sly reasonable, in furtheran ce of his d uties, an individual tow ard who m such instructions are directed h as a correlative du ty to obey them. If his re fusal t o respond re sult s in an obst ructi on of the per formance of the offic er’s pro per tas ks, this w ill constitu te a vio lation o f the d isorde rly persons s tatute. State v. Brennan , 344 N.J . Su per . 136 , 144 (A pp. D iv. 2 001 ) (cita tion s om itted ), certi f. denied , 171 N .J. 43 (2002). Her e, Chi ef

Wel ke r p er so na ll y wit

ne ss ed Tar

us und ertake co ndu ct

to di srupt

two6

Co uncil m eeting s: Taru s halted the S eptem ber m eeting as he argu ed w ith the C oun cil about whether

he would be permitted to vi deotape the proceedi ngs and he delayed t he start of th e O ctobe r mee ting w hen h e refu sed to turn o ff his video cam era or c hang e its location. I n both cases , the meeting coul d not procee d untilChief Welker turned off Tarus’ vi deo equipment and removed him from the meeting room. Chi ef Welker thus acted r easonably

in beli eving that Tarus’ refusalto st op videotaping or move his video equipment cons tit

uted dis orderl y conduct as tendi ng to obst

ruct or interfere with the Council’s meetings. Bec ause we agree with the D istrict Co urt that C hief W elker h ad pr obab le cau se to arrest Tarus, Ta rus’ claims for f alse arrest and m alicious prosecu tion fail. Mo reover, because Chief Welker

did not enga ge in anywrongdoing in ar resting Tarus, we need not reach the rela ted issu es of wh ether C hief W elker a nd M ayor G allagh er are e ntitled to qualif ied im mu nity as to T arus’ c onstitu tional c laims o r wh ether M ayor G allagh er sho uld be held j ointl y l iable for Chief Welker’ s acti ons. We will affirm the District Court ’s grant of summary j udgment as to Tar us’ cl aims for fa lse ar

rest and malici ous prosecut ion. B. Admissibi lit

y of Tarus ’ Affidavit

Evidence Tarus conte nds that

Mayor Galla gher dis criminatori ly applie d the Council ’s fi veminute rul e to li mit hi s speaki ng time at Council meeti ngs. He attempted to submi t to t he Distri ct Court hi s own signed st atement and a signed wri ting by

Laura Ann Adriano2 Tarus als o cite s another unsworn statement by Godert Van Diermen, but that statement makes no refe rence t o the fi ve-minuterule. App. at 147. 7 stati ng that the five-minute rul e was singularly enforced against Tarus. 2 Alth oug h bo th

were n otarized, neither stateme nt was sw orn und er penalty of perjury. The D istrict Court reasoned t

hat in l ight of Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 56( e)’s requirement of sworn or certi fied paper s, the two statements, which were “not made spec ific ally under penal ty of perjur y,” did “n ot con tain the requ isite assu rance of relia bility and v eracity to allo w its consideration in l ieu of an affidavit.” App. at 27. The court thus decli ned to admit these statements into evidence. Taru s argu es that b ecau se bo th of th e statem ents in q uestion s we re pro perly not arize d, th e D istrict Co urt e rred in re fus ing to co nsid er th e ev iden ce c ont aine d th erein
. Criti call y, Tarus does not alle ge that

he suffered any harm or prejudi ce as a re sult of the Distri ct Court’ s all eged error . Assuming arguendo that t he District Court

should have adm itted thes e sta tem ents , it do es n ot ap pea r tha t Ta rus h as su ffe red any h arm as a resu lt. Adriano, an e x-Borough resi dent who stated that she attended Borough meetings from 1995 to 1999, off

ered no te sti mony as t o the 2001 dat es which Tarus had pi npointed a s the dates on which he suffe red the C ouncil’s discrimina tion. Adriano ’s statements are thus irre levan t to Ta rus’ cla im. T arus’ s tatem ent, tho ugh topica lly relevant, lar gely mirr ors th e fa ctua l alleg ation s in h is co mp laint and thu s of fere d little new info rma tion
. We therefore conc lude that, e ven if the District Court had admitted the st atements , the admissi on would not have affec ted the outcome of the c ase, maki ng any pur ported er rorharmless. III.

For the for egoing rea sons, we wil l affi rm the Dist rict Court’s de cisi on granti ng summary judgment to the Appellees against Tarus, without prejudice to Tarus’ proceeding with his state l aw claims.