Opinion ID: 2743147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellees’ Alleged Retaliatory Conduct

Text: The police department conducts warrantless administrative inspections at alcohol-serving businesses in downtown Fort Myers, such as the Indigo Room, to ensure compliance with alcoholic-beverage laws. These inspections are authorized by statute. See Fla. Stat. § 562.41. The police department conducts planned operations, usually initiated by the officer or officers responsible for patrolling the area, as well as unplanned inspections, while on patrol. Baker, as Chief of Police, does not personally select businesses for administrative inspections or determine the frequency of those inspections. He has directed that inspections not be limited to a single geographic area. 5 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 6 of 26 Gagnon testified that, as a bike-unit officer in downtown Fort Myers, he is responsible for conducting inspections of alcohol-serving establishments in the area. Generally, he decides which locations will be targeted in a planned operation. There are no guidelines to determine the frequency of administrative inspections, although he often conducts them in response to reports of underage presence at the locations. The inspections generally take less than an hour and are conducted by at least two officers. All alcohol-serving establishments in the downtown area are inspected. According to both Baker and Gagnon, the frequency with which a given establishment is inspected is linked to past violations. If police find violations at a particular place, they are more likely to return to ensure compliance. According to Aulen, the Indigo Room did not permit entry to underage persons from 2002, when the Ordinance went into effect, until September 2011. In the fall of 2011, however, Aulen took the position that the Indigo Room qualified for an exemption under the Ordinance as a “bona fide restaurant,” which would have allowed him to admit persons under twenty-one. 2 Then, Aulen held three “18 and up” events at the Indigo Room in September 2011. After the second of these 2 A “bona fide restaurant” is an establishment “engaged primarily in the service of food and nonalcoholic beverages, where the sale or service of alcoholic beverages is incidental to the sale and service of food and nonalcoholic beverages,” and meets certain criteria. Fort Myers, Fla., Code § 6-81. A judge later found that the Indigo Room did not qualify as a bona fide restaurant. 6 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 7 of 26 events, Gagnon brought Aulen copies of the Ordinance, explained that persons under twenty-one could not enter the Indigo Room, and informed Aulen that he would be cited for violating the Ordinance if he again allowed entry to underage persons. Aulen responded that he intended to continue hosting 18-to-20-year-old people at the Indigo Room on Tuesdays. True to his word, on September 27, 2011, Aulen held a third “18 and up” event. Police visited the Indigo Room during the event and issued five citations for Ordinance violations. In an email to his superiors, Gagnon explained that, although twenty to thirty underage people were present at that event, he issued only five citations to Aulen. Gagnon further opined that he was “sure you will hear about this sooner than later knowing Aulen.” No additional “18 and up” events were held after the one on September 27. According to Aulen, however, officers showed up every Tuesday in October 2011 to ask patrons for identification. On January 7, 2012, police officers, including Gagnon, conducted an inspection of the Indigo Room in conjunction with the Florida State Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Officers had received information that underage persons were drinking alcohol and using fake identification at the Indigo Room. Four underage girls were cited. Aulen was not present on this occasion, but was issued four citations on January 12, 2012, for the underage girls’ presence in the Indigo Room on January 7. 7 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 8 of 26 Aulen testified that he had not seen “a lot of activity from the police or code enforcement prior to my political activity. And then suddenly I was getting visits from them constantly.” He also described the police presence as “excessive.” According to Aulen, Gagnon sometimes would inspect the Indigo Room multiple times on a single night. Baker testified that departmental policy allows an officer to enter an alcohol-serving establishment more than once in a single night. According to police department records, officers issued thirty-seven total citations for Ordinance violations in 2011, six of them to Aulen and one to Jones. Five of the citations issued to Aulen were given on September 27, 2011 3, and one was given on November 17, 2011, when Jones received his citation. For comparison, one other establishment received six citations and two others received five citations in 2011. In 2012, officers issued twenty-one total citations for violations of the ordinance. Aulen received six of these citations, four on January 12, 2012, one on April 26, 2012, and one on December 1, 2012. Gagnon confirmed that other establishments have been cited under the Ordinance and stated that one other establishment had more citations than the Indigo Room. Neither Aulen nor the Indigo Room received any citations in 2013. 3 It appears that the citations technically were issued on September 28, 2011, likely early in the morning, but arose out of Aulen’s third “18 and up” event held on the evening of September 27. The date September 27 will be used for all citations related to this event. 8 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 9 of 26 Appellants contend that the record supports the inference that Gagnon conducted an administrative search or inspection of the Indigo Room 88 times since the fall of 2011. They base their position on the fact that Gagnon testified that he visited the Indigo Room on “official business” about one hundred times since 2008 and that he also testified that he conducted around a dozen inspections of the Indigo Room from 2008 to September 2011. Subtracting the twelve visits from the 100, Appellants assert that Gagnon testified to inspecting the Indigo Room 88 times since September 2011. The district court found that Appellants mischaracterized Gagnon’s testimony, and that, in context, “visits” for official business was a much broader category than “searches or inspections.” In this regard, Gagnon prefaced his answer to the question about how many times he was “at the Indigo Room on official business” by stating, “I don’t know. It’s a lot of times. I mean, sometimes they call us to—to be there for something. . . .” In addition, during the same deposition testimony on which the Appellants relied to argue that Gagnon had conducted 88 inspections of the Indigo Room, Gagnon actually answered the specific question, “[F]rom September 1st, 2011, to the present, how many times have you conducted a warrantless administrative search or inspection at the Indigo Room, to detect the possible violation of the City’s underage persons ordinance?” Gagnon responded, “I would say ten.” Thus, the district court determined that, 9 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 10 of 26 when viewed in context, Gagnon’s testimony that he had visited the Indigo Room 100 times included all of the times that he had been at the Indigo Room, including when he had been there at the Indigo Room’s request. C. Appellees’ Awareness of Appellants’ Political Activity Appellants argue that the City was monitoring the political activity at the Indigo Room, that Baker was actively involved in directing police activity toward the Indigo Room, and that Gagnon was motivated by animus toward them. We review the evidence relating to these contentions. With respect to the City, it appears that some officials within the City forwarded an email Aulen sent entitled, “More downtown Shootings. Another black eye for merchants,” which was critical of the police department. It is unclear to whom Aulen sent the email; he asserts that it was sent to “concerned citizens.” The forwarded emails contain no negative comments toward Aulen. The record also contains City Council minutes relating to the antidiscrimination ballot measure and to the charter-amendment measure to merge the police department with the Sheriff’s Office. A few of the council members described the anti-discrimination measure as an attempt to change the City Code prohibiting persons under twenty-one from entering alcohol-serving establishments. Finally, in an email dated January 11, 2013, one of the council members responded to an email from a “concerned Businessowner” complaining 10 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 11 of 26 about Aulen and the Indigo Room. The council member stated that there are “ongoing issues with the Indigo Room” and that the concerns identified in the email would be placed on the next City Council agenda. Baker and Gagnon both testified that they had no knowledge of Aulen’s or Jones’s political activity with respect to Wake Up, Find a Better Way, or Occupy Fort Myers, at the time of the supposed retaliatory conduct. According to Baker, the first time he heard about the petition drive was at the deposition, he had no knowledge that Aulen was targeted for his political activity, and he did not know Jones before this case. Communications between Baker and others show that Baker had been informed of the inspections and citations at the Indigo Room and numerous other establishments, and that he had directed officers, through a subordinate, to “[w]rite a citation for EACH underage person[,] [n]ot just a few of them,” if they “encounter any more issues with Ray or the other clubs.” Baker also received updates on the Occupy movement. One officer visited the Indigo Room’s Facebook page, viewed its photo album, and identified underage persons. Gagnon was listed as one of the recipients of an email on September 25, 2011, that noted that Aulen was involved in the political group Wake Up, which wanted “to allow 18 and up in the clubs,” and directed the email recipients to “be careful” enforcing the Ordinance because it would not be surprising if Aulen was cited and then called to talk to the media about it. Gagnon was not asked about 11 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 12 of 26 this email during his deposition, and the copy contained in the record appears to have been obtained from another listed recipient, so it is unknown whether or when Gagnon received or reviewed the email. In emails sent on September 25 and 26, 2011, however, Gagnon requested information about the Indigo Room’s licenses and occupant capacity, in an apparent attempt to investigate Aulen’s claim that the Ordinance did not apply to the Indigo Room since he was operating the Indigo Room a bona fide restaurant, “even though he’s operating as a nightclub.” Aulen videotaped the police inspection conducted on September 27, 2011. Soon after, Aulen posted a video, entitled “Human Rights Violated by Police Raid at Indigo Room Mix Tape Tues 9-27-11,” on YouTube. Gagnon emailed his supervisor about the video on October 6, 2011, stating: This libelous statement is directed toward me personally and Aulen’s associate made sure my name on my shirt was visible as you can see toward the end of the video. There are civil laws prohibiting such defamation. Do you think our city legal department should look into this matter and serve Aulen with a letter or possibly take civil action against Aulen? Regarding the proposed merger of the police department with the Sheriff’s Office, Gagnon testified he first heard about the merger proposal in the summer of 2013. He further stated that he did not know that Aulen was the chairperson of the group supporting the merger. Gagnon admitted that he believed that the merger would negatively affect his job. 12 Case: 14-11041 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 13 of 26