Source: http://openjurist.org/104/f3d/1522
Timestamp: 2016-02-09 01:57:28
Document Index: 41416002

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2000', '§ 2510', '§ 165', '§ 1988', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2021', '§ 8', '§ 501', '§ 456', '§ 2000', '§ 2511', '§ 2510', '§ 2510', '§ 40', '§ 57', '§ 2516', '§ 1983']

104 F3d 1522 The Reverend Timothy Mockaitis v. Harcleroad | OpenJurist
104 F. 3d 1522 - The Reverend Timothy Mockaitis v. Harcleroad HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series104 F.3d
104 F3d 1522 The Reverend Timothy Mockaitis v. Harcleroad 104 F.3d 1522
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 602, 97 Daily JournalD.A.R. 957The Reverend Timothy MOCKAITIS, and The Most ReverendFrancis E. George, O.M.I., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.F. Douglass HARCLEROAD, The Honorable Jack A. Billings, TheHonorable Kip W. Leonard, Conan Wayne Hale,Jonathan Wayne Susbauer, and John DoesNos. 1-5, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-35901.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1996.Decided Jan. 27, 1997.
Thomas V. Dulcich, Bradley I. Nye, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, Oregon, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Virginia L. Linder, Eleanor E. Wallace, Timothy A. Sylwester, Salem, Oregon, for defendants-appellees Harcleroad, Judge Billings, Judge Leonard.
Mark E. Chopko, Jeffrey Hunter Moon, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae United States Catholic Conference, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., Christian Legal Society, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Clifton Kirkpatrick, as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The American Jewish Congress, The Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in the Support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
Frank W. Hunger, Michael Jay Singer, Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Matthew W. Collette, Washington, D.C., for intervenor United States of America.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-913-OMP.
Before NOONAN, THOMPSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
The information in Carley's and William's affidavits, if true, provided a strong basis for believing that Hale was guilty of killing the three youthful victims, Bendele, Finley and Williams. Hale had been in the county jail since December 27, 1995. According to Carley, he had reviewed many of the tapes made of Hale's phone calls and conversations with visitors. Hale had "demonstrated his awareness that his visits are being recorded." On the basis of the information in the affidavits, Carley sought the search warrant for a new tape made on April 22, 1996 for the reason best described in his own words:
Unmentioned in the affidavit were the following facts disclosed in this case: The jail monitored about 90% of Hale's conversations, except conversations with his counsel. Hale "communicated with visitors in writing when he did not want jailers to monitor his conversations." In the sign-in area for visitors was an order of the sheriff that "no recording equipment" was allowed in the visiting area. Father Mockaitis did not know that his encounter with Hale was being recorded nor did he have reason to believe that it would be recorded. Hale was not a Catholic. He was a baptized Christian. In Catholic belief all baptized persons are eligible to participate in the Sacrament of Penance.
Bryant Hodges, district court judge for Lane County, issued the warrant requested by Carley, who executed it. The tape was transcribed into a typed document. Two deputy district attorneys, Kosydar and Patricia Perlow, listened to it.PROCEEDINGS
On June 12, 1996 Father Mockaitis and Archbishop George filed a petition and motion in the county circuit court seeking the destruction of the tape and a continuation of the order as to the secrecy of the tape's contents. They asserted that the taping and its preservation violated both the federal and the state constitutions and federal and state statutes. They supported their claim with an affidavit as to the Sacrament of Penance in Catholic belief, filed by the Reverend Michael Maslowsky, a representative of Archbishop George, and by Father Mockaitis's own affidavit, in which he stated that as long as the tape remained in existence he stated, "I feel uncomfortable in administering the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) in the Lane County Jail."
On June 27, 1996 Father Mockaitis and Archbishop George filed this suit in the district court, setting out five claims based on the taping and retention of its contents: First, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of the right under the First Amendment to the free exercise of religion; second, also under § 1983, alleging violation of the Fourth Amendment; third, violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq; fourth, violation of the Wiretapping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq; and fifth, violation of the Constitution of Oregon, Article I, Sections 2 and 3. They sought an order destroying the tape and transcript and prohibiting publication of its contents; an injunction prohibiting Harcleroad and all agents of the Lane County District Attorney's office from future interception and taping of the Sacrament of Penance "and similar religious communications at the Lane County Jail"; and a judgment declaring ORS § 165.540(2)(a) to violate the First Amendment and the Oregon Constitution if used to monitor confidential religious communications. They asked for their attorney fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The state defendants answered, denying the plaintiffs' claims and asserting that "law enforcement officers in the ordinary course of their duties intercepted the conversation between plaintiff Mockaitis and defendant Hale." Hale answered, objecting to the requested destruction of the tape as impairing his defense to the capital charge of murder. Susbauer answered similarly.
In the course of this proceeding, the affidavit of the Reverend Bertram F. Griffin, J.C.D. was received as to the canon law and theology of the Catholic Church on the Sacrament of Penance. It was noted that "prior to the commencement of the action Lane County agreed not to intercept or tape conversations between Catholic clergy and inmates at the Lane County Jail." Harcleroad, Hale, and Susbauer all argued for the preservation of the tape. It was noted that counsel for Hale and Susbauer had already listened to the tape. On August 8, 1996 Hale filed an affidavit stating as follows:
After receiving evidence and hearing argument the district court on August 15, 1996 dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court began by observing that the plaintiffs were "justifiably outraged" by Harcleroad's actions. The court added:
Harcleroad himself admits that the taping was wrong: "There are somethings which are legal and ethical but are simply not right. I have concluded that tape recording confidential clergy-penitent communications falls within the zone of societally unacceptable conduct."
Nonetheless the court, invoking Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), concluded that the duty of the federal court was to abstain from exercising jurisdiction where such exercise would interfere with the ongoing prosecution by the state of a criminal case. After coming to this conclusion against exercising any judicial power, the district court then undertook to "balance the equities" and held that Hale's and Susbauer's rights to a fair trial outweighed the First Amendment rights of Mockaitis and George. A judgment dismissing the action was entered against the plaintiffs.
Abstention. In abstaining from determining the merits of the case, the district court did not literally apply Younger, for a key requirement of Younger is that the party seeking relief in federal court "has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief." Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. at 750. Mockaitis and George have no remedy at law and at least a portion of the injuries they have alleged will be irreparable without the equitable intervention of the federal courts. The county circuit court has held that they are not parties to the state's murder case against Hale. The county court has held that their petition and motion to destroy the tape did not state a cause of action under Oregon law. Alleging injuries under federal law, as they do, they are not compelled to speculate as to whether a higher Oregon court would grant them relief. They are free to seek federal remedies in the federal courts.
In RFRA Congress finds: "[L]aws, 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise." RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a). Congress prescribes:
Id. § 2000bb-1(a) and (b).
A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section "may assert that violation as a claim or defense ... and obtain appropriate relief against a government." Id. (c). "Government" includes an agency or official of the United States or any state or subdivision of a state. "Demonstrates" means to meet "the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion." "Exercise of religion" means "the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution." Id. § 2000bb-2(1), (3) and (4). Nothing in this chapter "shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion." Id. § 2000bb-4.
Before we can consider the impact of the statute we are confronted by Harcleroad's contention that the statute is unconstitutional. The problem is, as he explains, that the statute goes beyond what is required of a state by the First Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and as interpreted by Employment Div., Oregon Dep't of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). Under Smith the guarantee of the free exercise of religion does not relieve an individual "of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability" on the ground that the law prescribes or proscribes conduct interfering with the individual's exercise of religion. Id. at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600. The valid and neutral law of general applicability on which the prosecutor relies is ORS 165.540(2)(a), which the prosecutor argues implicitly authorizes those in charge of a jail to intercept and record conversations between inmates and all visitors save their counsel. The prosecutor adds that he has an affirmative obligation under Oregon law to disclose to a criminal defendant all of his recorded statements, ORS 135.815, and to prevent the destruction of physical evidence, ORS 162.295. These statutes, too, are asserted to be valid, neutral, and generally applicable. If RFRA invalidates the application of these laws here, Harcleroad argues, then the state is being subjected to the First Amendment beyond what Smith permits and RFRA must be held unconstitutional. The prosecutor completes his argument with the invocation of New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) where the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 2021b et seq. was held to violate the Tenth Amendment by commanding the states to implement legislation enacted by Congress.
Harcleroad has an additional challenge to the constitutionality of RFRA, a challenge deadly in its implications for religious liberty. It is that RPRA, because it advances the exercise of religion, is an establishment of religion and therefore offensive to that portion of the First Amendment which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Harcleroad cites the three-pronged test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), which he claims the advancement of religion accomplished by RFRA fails. He adds for good measure that enforcement of the federal statute necessitates an "excessive entanglement" of the government with religion and so runs up against "the Establishment Clause jurisprudence" of Lemon.
First. There is no doubt that Congress under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment has the power to enforce the provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates and makes binding on the states. Section 5 is "a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment." Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 1723-24, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966). The legislative power is not confined to ratifying restrictions placed on the states by the judiciary construing the Bill of Rights; such a narrow reading of the power granted "would depreciate both congressional resourcefulness and congressional responsibility for implementing the Amendment." Id. at 648, 86 S.Ct. at 1722. The legislative power granted is as broad as the power of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, § 8, cl. 18. Id. at 650, 86 S.Ct. at 1723.
Second. Harcleroad's Establishment theory is that whenever Congress exempts religion from generally applicable law it unconstitutionally advances and therefore unconstitutionally establishes a religion; at the same time in order to effect the exemption Congress must get excessively involved in determining what is a religion. The exemptions and deductions of the Internal Revenue Code, §§ 501(c) and 170(c)(2)(B) must be bad. The deferments of the Selective Service Act, 50 Ap. U.S.C. § 456(g) must be invalid. The creation of chaplaincies in Congress and in the armed forces--particularly striking promotions of religion--must be suspect. The narrow logic of this attack is refuted by the experience of the nation. Of course the statutory protection of the free exercise of religion is good for religion. Neither the benefit nor the means are contrary to the first liberty assured by the First Amendment and made concrete by RFRA. Of course, application of RFRA, like the application of the First Amendment itself and any objection made under this amendment, requires a court to determine what is a religion and to define an exercise of it. There is no excessive entanglement. We join the other courts of appeal that have considered this challenge and rejected it. Sasnett v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir.1996); EEOC v. Catholic University, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C.Cir.1996); Flores v. City of Boerne, 73 F.3d 1352 (5th Cir.1996), cert. granted --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 293, 136 L.Ed.2d 212.
Third. The acts of the prosecutor here that are at the core of the plaintiffs' complaint did not amount to the neutral application of any Oregon statute but were an attempt to use the statutory authorization to monitor inmate conversations in order to gain access to a confession expected to be given in accordance with a religious rite. As Carley put it, he expected the confession to contain "a full and complete acknowledgment" by Hale as a condition of his receiving absolution; Carley believed that the confession would contain "evidence of the crime of murder." The search warrant sought to use the sacramental confession as a tool to establish Hale's guilt. Deliberately, the religious rite was focussed upon and preserved for exploitation as state's evidence.
Harcleroad is provided with a statutory defense if he can prove that his actions were "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and that he used "the least restrictive means" of furthering that interest. RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b) Taping a sacramental confession was an easy way to secure additional evidence if the detective's hunch about what would be confessed was right. But the ordinary means of proving a case by good police work were "the least restrictive means" of furthering the prosecutor's desirable goal. Understandably, Harcleroad does not even attempt to dispute this point and offers no defense when RFRA is applied to the taping itself.
We take note of the stipulation that Lane County Jail has "agreed not to intercept or tape conversations between Catholic clergy and inmates at the Lane County Jail." The stipulation is far from satisfactory. It does not state to whom Lane County Jail made this promise, or who at the jail made it, or how long the promise is good; and it appears to accord a blanket immunity to conversations with Catholic clergy not extended to clergy of other faiths. The stipulation does not remedy the violations of RFRA, or moot out the case.
The Alleged Violation Of The Wiretap Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511 makes it a federal felony wilfully to intercept any wire communication or to disclose or use such wilful interception, but the statute does not apply to interceptions "by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties." 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a). According to the stipulated facts, Lane County jailers taped about 90% of Hale's conversations. The plaintiffs have made no showing that the taping of Father Mockaitis was not done in the ordinary course of the jailors' duties, nor have the plaintiffs challenged the status of the jailors as law enforcement officers within the meaning of § 2510(5)(a). The taping of the confession was a violation of RFRA and so should not have been part of the ordinary course of duty of any law enforcement officer; but that the taping was done in ordinary course negates the wilfulness required by the statute. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201-02, 111 S.Ct. 604, 610-11, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991). The interception was therefore not a violation of the Wiretap Act and Harcleroad's subsequent retention of it was therefore not a felony.
The Violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mockaitis had two bases for a reasonable expectation of privacy in his encounter with Hale: First, ORS Evidence Code § 40.260, Rule 506, "Member of clergy-penitent privilege," provides that "[a] member of the clergy shall not, without the consent of the person making the communication, be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member's professional character." As Mockaitis could not be examined directly in court on a confession it was reasonable for him to suppose that the prohibition of Rule 506 could not be easily circumvented by the prosecutor taping a confession made to him.
A provision conceived in a spirit of the most profound wisdom, and the most exalted charity, ought to receive the most liberal construction. Although by the constitution of the United States, the powers of congress do not extend beyond certain enumerated objects; yet to prevent the danger of constructive assumptions, the following amendment was adopted: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In this country there is no alliance between church and state; no established religion; no tolerated religion--for toleration results from establishment--but religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution, and consecrated by the social compact.
It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered--that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. The sacraments of a religion are its most important elements. We have but two in the Protestant Church--Baptism and the Lord's Supper--and they are considered the seals of the covenant of grace. Suppose that a decision of this court, or a law of the state should prevent the administration of one or both of these sacraments, would not the constitution be violated, and the freedom of religion be infringed? Every man who hears me will answer in the affirmative. Will not the same result follow, if we deprive the Roman catholic of one of his ordinances? Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance; and this important branch of the Roman catholic religion would be thus annihilated.
The evidentiary privilege as it has existed in the United States has been broadly recognized and affirmed in dicta by the Supreme Court. So Justice Field remarked for a unanimous court that "suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional, or those between husband and wife." Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1875). So Chief Justice Burger, a century later, observed approvingly, again for a unanimous court, that the priest-penitent privilege, like the privileges between attorney and client and between physician and patient, was "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51, 100 S.Ct. 906, 913, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). The privilege has been stated broadly as embracing any "confession by a penitent to a minister in his capacity as such to obtain such spiritual aid as was sought and held out in this instance" and so applied to reverse a criminal conviction where a Lutheran communicant had confessed her crime to a minister as a condition for receiving communion and his testimony had been used to convict her. Mullen v. United States, 263 F.2d 275, 277 (D.C.Cir.1958).
All fifty states have enacted statutes "granting some form of testimonial privilege to clergy-communicant communications. Neither scholars nor courts question the legitimacy of the privilege, and attorneys rarely litigate the issue." Developments In The Law--Privileged Communications, 98 Harv.L.Rev. 1450, 1556 (1985); W.Va.Code § 57-3-9. It would be strange if a privilege so generally recognized could be readily subverted by the governmental recording of the privileged communication and the introduction of the recording into evidence.
Against these reasons for objectively concluding that Father Mockaitis's subjective belief in the secrecy of the confession was well-founded, there was the fact that Oregon had legislated against the interception of conversation between a prisoner and his attorney but had not done so against the interception of a confidential communication from an inmate to a member of the clergy; there was also the fact that Wiretap Act did not criminalize recordings made by law enforcement officers in the ordinary course of their duties. We do not believe that the expectation of Father Mockaitis can be made to depend on what a statute fails to forbid. If the inviolability of religious confession to the clergy were not the law of the land, the expectation of every repentant sinner, and the assured confidence of every minister of God's grace, a prosecutor would have a cheap and sometimes helpful way of uncovering evidence of crime by obtaining a court order under § 2516 of the Wiretap Act to wire a church known to be frequented, say, by families or other persons believed to be associated with a criminal organization. On Harcleroad's reasoning such bugging would be lawful because authorized by a judge in accordance with statute and not unlawful because contrary to the reasonable expectations of the participants. Such a fear does not exist because no one expects any prosecutor to engage in such a strategy.
The Violation Of The Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs also seek relief under the more general Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides redress for the deprivation of any right "secured by the Constitution and laws." As our analysis under RFRA and the Fourth Amendment indicates, Harcleroad has violated the civil rights of the plaintiffs secured by RFRA and by the Fourth Amendment. Proving their case under these heads, the plaintiffs have also proved their case under the Civil Rights Act, with the exception already noted as to their case for destruction of the tape.