2007 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 7-16-2007 

# P ittm an v . M cDu ff y 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 . 06-2194

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_2007

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 2007 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 " P ittm an v . M cDu ff y " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 763. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/7631 NOT P 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 . 06- 2194

________________ WI L L I AM P I T T M AN, A ppel l ant

vs. W I LLI AM M CD UFFY; J OH N FRA NK LI N; J OSEPH ERN EST; STEVEN W IL C Z N S K Y ; JO H N P IE R R E T H E R R IE N ; R O B IN R E N T E N B E R G , S G T . ; JI M KEA NE, CH I EF; SAN DR A H EHN ; BO RO UG H O F M ETUC HEN

______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . C . N o. 04- cv- 04505) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y3, 2007 Be f o r e : FI SHER, ALD I SERT a n d W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES (F il ed : July1 6 , 2 0 0 7 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON P E R C U R I A M.

T he di s tr i ctcourti s s ued an or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorofW e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 to rev iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s 1 o rde r. “W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m ary jud g m en t. ” M arino v . Ind u s. C rati n g C o . , 3 5 8 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the admi s s i bl e evi dence fai l s t o demonstr at e a di s put e of ma t e r i a l f

a c ta n d th e mo v i n g p a r tyi s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. S e e F e d . R. C iv. P. 56 (c); see a lso A n d erso n v . L ibertyL o b b y , Inc . , 4 7 7 U . S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 7 -48 (19 8 6 ). In r evi ew i ng the r ecor d, “a c our tm us tvi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the n o n m o v i n g p a r ty a n d d r a w a l l i n f e r e n c e s i n th a tp a r ty’ s f a v o r . ” A r m b ru s t e rv . U n i s ys C o rp., 3 2 F . 3 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).

A ppel l ees m ai nt ai n thatPi t t m an, w ho w as s t andi ng on Pel t i erA venue, 2 began t o run w hen he s aw T herr i en’ s patr ol carand notbeca us e the ca rw as i n anydanger of hi t t i ng Pi t t m an. A ccor di ng t o appel l ees , T herr i en gave chas e and f ound Pi t t m an hi di ng in th e b u s h e s o f

a re s id e n c e o n P e ltie r A v e n u e a b u ttin g 7 8 K e m p s o n P la c e . 2 ap p ell ee s, an d P ittm an fil ed this t im elyap p ea l. W e w il l aff irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er. 1 I. O n A ugus t21, 1999, Pi t t m an w as arr es t ed byT herr i en, E rnes t , and Fr ankl i n, pol i ce of

fi cer s of the B or ough of M etuchen Pol i ce D epart m ent . T he c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f

P i t t ma n ’ s a r r e s twe r e a s f o l l o ws : Af

t e rr e c e i v i n g a wa rn i n g f r o m a n e ig h b o r, a r e sid e n t at 7 8 K e m p so n P lac e in M e tu c h e n , N e w Je rse y , ca lled th e p o lice to r e p o r ta p r o wl e ri n h e ry a r d . I n r e s p o n s e , T h e rr i e n wa s d i s p a t c h e d t o th e r e s i d e n c e . As T herr i en w as appr oachi ng the r es i dence , he turned ont o Pel t i erA venue, a bl ock aw ayand p a r a l l e l t o Ke mp s o n P l a c e . Ac c o r d i n g t o P i t t ma n , a tth a tt i me h e wa s wa l k i n g d o wn Pel t i erA venue w hen Ther r i en appr oache d hi m i n hi s patr ol carw i th the ca r ’ s hi gh- beam l i g h t s a c t i v a t e d . P i t t ma n ma d e a ru n n i n g a t t e mp tt o g e to u to f th e wa yo f

, o ra wa yf

r o m, 2 the ca r . A ft era s hor tfootchas e he w as appr ehende d. T herr i en then handc uffe d Pi t t m anT he fi r s tcountof Pi t t m an’ s i ndi ctm entr el at ed t o anotheri nci dent 3 o c c u rrin g o n A u g u st 1 , 1 9 9 9 . A lth o u g h so m e o f P ittm a n ’s la ter f

ili n g s a d d re ss th is i nci dent , hi s compl ai ntfocus es excl us i vel yon hi s A ugus t21, 1999 arr es tand s ubs equent p ro s e c u tio n . P ittm a n a lso a lleg e d v io latio n s o f h is F irst, N in th , an d F o u rte e n th 4 A m endmentr i ght s . W e cons true onl yPi t t m an’ s fal s e arr es tand mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on c laim s a risin g u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. 3 and pl ace d hi m i n t he r earof hi s patr ol vehi cl e. T herr i en dr ove Pi t t m an t o 78 K empson Pl ace w her e Ther r i en s poke w i th t he nei ghborw ho had made the i ni t i al cal l al ert i ng t he re sid e n t o f

7 8 K e m p so n P lac e . A c c o rd in g to P ittm a n , the n e ig h b o r n e v e r p o sitiv e ly i dent i fi ed Pi t t m an as the i ndi vi dual the nei ghborhad s een a t78 K empson Pl ace . Pi t t m an c laim s th a t th e im p lica tio n th a t h e w a s in v o lv e d w a s m e re lyb a se d o n th e f a c t th a t b o th th e s u s p e c te d p ro w le r a n d P ittm a n w e re b la c k m e n .

P ittm a n w a s c h a rg e d w ith c ri m in a l tr e s p a s s in v io la tio n o f N e w J e rs e yla w . See N . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 18- 3( c) . O n J une 7, 2001, a G r and J uryr eturned an i ndi ctm ent of tw o count s of cr i m i nal tr es pas s agai ns tPi t t m an. A ft era benc h tr i al , on O ct ober9, 3 2002, Pi t t m an w as found notgui l tyon both count s . T he tr i al j udge hel d thatthe s t at e had f a ile d to m e e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f. Pi t t m an fi l ed the under l y i ng pr o s e ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyon Sept ember14, 2004, as s ert i ng cl ai m s of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, as w el l as fal s e arr es t . T he appe l l ees m oved for 4 s um m aryj udgm ents eeki ng a di s m i s s al of Pi t t m an’ s compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce. Pi t t m an4

cr os s - m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton D ece m ber13, 2005. I n an or derand l ett er opi ni on, dat ed M ar ch 21, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the appe l l ees ’ var i ous m ot i ons fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, d en ied P ittm an ’s cro ss-m o ti o n , an d d ism issed P ittm an ’s c o m p la in t. P ittm a n tim e ly ap p e a le d . II.

A n arr estm ade w i tho ut pr ob able cause cr eat es a cause of act i on for fal se arrest u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . S ee D o w li n g v . C ityo f P h il a., 8 5 5 F . 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). In o rd e r “ [ t]o p ro v e m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n u n d e r se c tio n 1 9 8 3 w h e n th e c laim is underthe Four th A m endment , a pl ai nt i ff musts how that : ( 1) the def endanti ni t i at ed a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng; ( 2) the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng ended i n hi s favor ; ( 3) the def endant i ni t i at ed the pr ocee di ng w i thoutpr obabl e ca us e; ( 4) the def endantact ed mal i ci ous l yorfor a purpos e otherthan br i ngi ng 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 depr i vat i on of l i bertycons i s t entw i th the conc eptof s ei zur e as a cons equenc e of a l egal pr ocee di ng. ” J ohns on v. K norr , 477 F. 3d 75, 81- 82 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng E s t at e of Sm i th v. M ar as co, 318 F. 3d 497, 521 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ) . “To pre vai l on [a mal i ci ous p ro s e c u tio n ] c la im , [ o n e ] m u s t s h o w th a t th e o f f ic e rs la c k e d p ro b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s t.” W r i ghtv. C i tyof Phi l a. , 409 F. 3d 595 , 6 0 3 - 0 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n v o l v i n g § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms forboth fal s e arr es tand mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on) ; s ee a l s o J ohns on, 477 F. 3d at82 (de cli n ing to ap p lyW ri g h t, an d rem an d ing , in a m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n ac ti o n w h ere addi t i onal char ges bey ond the cha r ge forw hi ch the cl ai m antw as arr es t ed maynothaveT he part i es do notdi s put e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s char act er i zat i on thatupon 5 encount er i ng Pi t t m an, T herr i en form al l yarr es t ed hi m w hen he ha ndcuff ed hi m , pl ace d him i n the back of h i s pat rol car, and transport ed h i m t o 7 8 K em pson P l ace fo r w i tness i dent i fi cat i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. Sharpe, 470 U . S. 675, 685- 87 ( 1984) ; s ee a l s o B aker v. M onr oe Tw p. , 50 F. 3d 1186, 1193 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “I n thi s cas e, addi ng up the us e of guns and handc uffs and, i ndeed, the l ength of the det ent i on, s how s a verys ubs t ant i al inv asio n o f th e B ak ers’ p erso n al sec u ri ty ” a n d thu s a f o rm al arrest). 5 b ee n su p p o rt ed b yp rob ab le ca u se). T h u s, o u r de term ination o f w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton both the fa l s e arr es tand mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s m ayr es ton w hetherther e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tPi t t m an. See M ont gom eryv. D e Si m one, 159 F. 3d 120, 124 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( “Sum m aryj udgm enton M ont gom ery ’ s m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m ther efor e i s onl yappr opr i at e i f t aki ng al l of M o n tg o m e ry ’s a lleg a tio n s a s tru e a n d re so lv in g a ll i n f e re n c e s in h e r f

a v o r, a r e a so n a b le juryco u ld n o t fi n d a lac k o f p rob ab le ca u se f o r M o n tgo m ery ’s st o p an d arrest. ”). III .

“ [ P ]ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st e x ists w h e n th e f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s w ith in th e a rre stin g o f

f ice r’s k n o w led g e [ a t th e m o m e n t th e a rre st w a s m a d e ] a re su f f icie n t in themsel ves t o w arr anta r eas onabl e per s on t o bel i eve thatan off ens e has been ori s bei ng c o m m itt e d b yth e p e rso n to b e a rre ste d .” E sta te o f S m ith , 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 5 1 4 (c iti n g O rsa tti 5 v. N . J . St at e Pol i ce, 71 F. 3d 480, 482 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ) . W e appl ya “‘ comm on s ens e’ appr oach, ” bas ed on the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , t o det erm i ne w hetherther e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es t . Paff v. K al t enbac h, 204 F. 3d 425, 436 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng6

Sharr arv. Fel s i ng, 128 F. 3d 810, 818 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ) . “[T] he evi dent i arys t andar d for pr obabl e ca us e i s s i gni fi cant l yl ow erthan the s t andar d w hi ch i s r equi r ed forconvi ct i on. ” W ri g h t, 4 0 9 F . 3 d at 60 2 (cit ing M ichig an v . D eF il li p p o , 4 4 3 U . S . 3 1 , 3 6 (19 7 9 )). In gener al , “the ques t i on of pr obabl e ca us e i n a s ect i on 1983 damage s ui ti s one forthe j ury . ” M ont gom ery , 159 F. 3d at124. A di s tr i ctcourt , how ever , m ayconcl ude that pr obabl e ca us e exi s t s as a mat t erof l aw and gr ants um m aryj udgm enti f the evi dence , w h e n v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e p lain tiff , w o u ld n o t re a so n a b lysu p p o rt a c o n tr a ry f

a c tu a l f in d in g . S e e S h e rw o o d v . M u lv ih ill, 1 1 3 F .3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). U nderthe t ot al i tyof the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s , even w hen vi ew ed i n the lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to h im , w e f

in d th a t th e re w a s p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st P ittm a n . It i s “w el l es t abl i s hed thatw her e pol i ce of fi cer s r eas onabl ys us pectthatan i ndi vi dual m aybe en g ag ed in crim inal ac ti v ity , an d the in d ividu al de li b era tel ytake s fligh t w h en the o ff icers a ttem p t to sto p a n d q u e stio n h im , the o f f ice rs g e n e ra llyn o lo n g e r h a v e m e re re a so n a b le s us pi ci on, butpr obabl e ca us e t o arr es t . ” U ni t ed St at es v. L avi l l e, 480 F. 3d 187, 195 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . S h a rp e , 4 7 0 U .S . 6 7 5 , 7 0 5 (1 9 8 5 ) ( B re n n a n , J ., d is s e n tin g )) . F ac ts i n d icati n g w ron g d o ing o n P ittm an ’s pa rt , p ri o r t o h is fli g h t, w ere pl ai nl ypr es enther e. Fi r s t , as evi dence d i n the r ecor d, w hen Ther r i en appr oache d the s cene , he w as aw ar e of a nothers us pect ed “Pee pi ng T om ” w ho had bee n act i ve i n the t ow n of M etuchen f

orappr oxi m at el ya y earand the des cr i pt i on of thi s i ndi vi dual m at chedW e not e thatther e w as fur therpr obabl e ca us e t o i ni t i at e cr i m i nal 6 pr ocee di ngs agai ns tPi t t m an, underthe s t andar d form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, gi ven the w i tnes s i dent i fi cat i on and gr and j uryi ndi ctm entoccurr i ng aft erhi s i ni t i al arr es t . See R os e v. B art l e, 871 F. 2d 331, 353 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( “a gr and j uryi ndi ctm entorpr es entm ent c o n stitu tes p rim a f

a c ie e v id e n c e o f

p ro b a b le c a u se to p ro se c u te, . . . th is p rim a f a c ie evi dence m aybe r ebutt ed byevi dence thatthe pr es entm entw as pr ocur ed byfr aud, p erjuryo r oth er c o rrup t m ea n s. ”) 7 Pi t t m an’ s appea r ance . Second, Pi t t m an w as l ocat ed i n extr emel ycl os e t empora l and geogr aphi c pr oxi m i tyt o cr i m e r eport ed at78 K empson Pl ace . T herr i en ca m e upon P ittm a n im m e d iate lya f ter h e w a s d isp a tch e d a n d , tho u g h h e w a s w a lk in g o n a sid e w a lk on Pel t i erA venue pr i ort o fl eei ng fr om T herr i en’ s patr ol car , Pi t t m an w as l ocat ed i n fr ont o f a h o m e w ith a b a c k y a rd d ir e c tly a b u ttin g 7 8 K e m p s o n P la c e .

A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o t he appe l l ees on Pi t t m an’ s fal s e arr es tand mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s on t he bas i s thatPi t t m an’ s arr es tw as s uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e. Forthe 6 fo reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er.