Title: Sondra Connor v. Penelope Powell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-83-98
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: January 31, 2000

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). GARIBALDI, J., writing for a unanimous Court. This appeal, like Wildoner v. The Borough of Ramsey, ___ N.J. __ (2000), decided today, involves the existence of probable cause, or a police officer's objectively reasonable belief that probable cause existed, to arrest a person. In this case, the specific question includes whether there was probable cause to issue a complaint-warrant for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and a separate complaint for possession of a dangerous weapon. The appeal follows the trial court's involuntary dismissal of claims asserted by Sondra Connor against four City of Newark police officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 (Section 1983). The events at issue began on May 14, 1994, at a hall in Newark where plaintiff, executive director of the Foundation for Servicing Adults with Learning Disabilities of New Jersey, was preparing for a bingo game she was to supervise at the hall. Plaintiff observed Penelope Powell engaging in illegal gambling in the hall and warned her to stop. The women loudly exchanged strong words and Powell attacked Connor with a wooden chair, striking her several times with it and hitting a bingo volunteer once as well. According to plaintiff and others who witnessed the attack, plaintiff had nothing in her hands at the time. An off-duty Newark police officer was present and observed the incident, but refused to arrest Powell as Connor demanded. The other police officers who responded to a call by a bingo volunteer were told by Powell, who admitted striking Connor with the chair, that she had done so in self-defense after plaintiff threatened her with a fork. One officer asked Powell to point out the fork, but she was unable to do so. The only forks accessible to plaintiff were plastic. Neither woman seemed to be injured. The police interviewed none of the other fifty people present, including the off-duty officer. Connor and Powell signed complaints against each other at the police station after repeating their conflicting versions of the incident to the police. Powell was charged with simple assault and was issued a summons. By contrast, based on the allegation of an attack with a fork, Connor was charged on a complaint and warrant with indictable offenses and was placed in jail. While at the main police headquarters where she was to be confined, Connor saw Powell, unrestrained, sitting with her husband, a retired Newark police officer, and her daughter, a current member of the force. Plaintiff remained in jail more than twenty-four hours, no one who inquired on her behalf having been told that bail of $350 had been set. The day after plaintiff was released on bail, the Essex County Prosecutor downgraded the charges against her to petty disorderly persons offenses, of which she ultimately was acquitted at trial in municipal court. Powell was found guilty of simple assault by the municipal court. Following her acquittal, Connor filed her law suit against the City of Newark, several police officers, and Powell. Powell died prior to trial. At trial, plaintiff and five eyewitnesses to the attack testified and deposition testimony of the defendant police officers was read into the record. At the end of plaintiff's case, the trial judge granted defense motions for the involuntary dismissal of all plaintiff's claims. In dismissing the Section 1983 claims against the officers, the court found as a matter of law that probable cause existed for plaintiff's arrest and imprisonment, but stated no factual findings. Plaintiff appealed the involuntary dismissal of the Section 1983 claims to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, noting the fact-sensitive nature of the concept of probable cause and concluding that the police had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for aggravated assault. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's petition for certification. Held: As a matter of law, there was no probable cause to issue a complaint against plaintiff and no objectively reasonable police officer would have believed that probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff and issue a complaint warrant for aggravated assault and weapons offenses. 1. None of the conditions required by Rule 3:4-1(b) (1994) for issuing a complaint-warrant existed in plaintiff's case and the guidelines of Rule 3:4-1 (d) (1994) suggested a complaint-summons was appropriate; the police erred in issuing a complaint-warrant rather than a complaint-summons. This error in and of itself does not constitute a violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights, but is a factor in determining whether the officers had probable cause or reasonably believed they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. (pp.16-18) 2. Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the plain language of R. 3:4-1(b), the lack of evidence against plaintiff, and the different treatment of Powell, it is clear that no reasonably objective police officer would have arrested plaintiff and issued a complaint-warrant. If she should have been charged at all, it should have been with a complaint-summons, which would have permitted her immediate release. Only Powell's unsupported oral statement, contradicted by plaintiff and numerous eyewitnesses, provided any evidence to support a finding of probable cause. (pp.18-21) 3. Powell did not provide a sworn statement to the police and the complaints signed by Powell were not signed in the presence of the officer whose duty it was to determine whether there was sufficient probable cause to issue a complaint. Thus, Powell's statement that Connor attacked her with a fork was not enough to provide probable cause to arrest plaintiff for aggravated assault. Also, Powell was plaintiff's adversary, a factor that must be included in the totality of the circumstances. ( pp.21-24 ) 4. The nature of the incident and the situation the police encountered at the hall were not so compelling that the police could not have conducted further investigation before charging plaintiff with aggravated assault. ( pp.24-26 ) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for a trial on damages in accordance with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and VERNIERO join in JUSTICE GARIBALDI's opinion. SONDRA CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENELOPE POWELL and JOHN DOE, (fictitious name), Defendants, and NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER FOSTER BADGLEY, SGT. JOHN CANTALUPO, OFFICER JAMES BIRCSAK and ACT. LT. RICHARD MANDRIOTA, Defendants-Respondents. Argued November 9, 1999 -- Decided January 31, 2000 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Joel I. Rachmiel argued the cause for appellant. John C. Pidgeon, First Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondents (Michelle Hollar-Gregory, Corporation Counsel, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by NO. A-83 SONDRA CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENELOPE POWELL and JOHN DOE, (fictitious name), Defendants, and NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER FOSTER BADGLEY, SGT. JOHN CANTALUPO, OFFICER JAMES BIRCSAK and ACT. LT. RICHARD MANDRIOTA, Defendants-Respondents. DECIDED January 31, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz