Opinion ID: 2980037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts Pertaining to Municipal Liability

Text: At his deposition, Lieutenant [James] Knickle [(Knickle)], of the Kettering Police Department, testified that Pedro and Mannix acted in accordance with the City’s policies, procedures and training, in the course of the arrests of Gros and Skovgard, on March 2, 2007. Knickle is familiar with the history of the regular presence of protestors at the Center, including a mass protest in the early 1990s, where large groups blocked the door of the Center and the police made arrests for criminal trespass. Prior to the incident involving Gros and Skovgard, in 2007, however, the City did not provide any training to its officers regrading how to 4 “When asked why he assumed that the Center’s property line was at the edge of the street, Pedro testified that ‘all of my prior understanding and training told me that basically property is property. If . . . a person’s property is basically the established property line, that the edge of the grass leading up to the sidewalk and everything inside that is their property.’” 5 “A hand-sketched drawing from the Kettering City Engineer indicates that the right-of-way extends approximately 14.5 feet into the grassy area on either side of Wheatland Avenue. However, Gros testifies that the City Engineer did not know how wide the street was, when he prepared the sketch, so the numbers on the sketch would appear to be estimates. The Plaintiffs also point to photographs contained in the record, which were taken in the course of a survey of the property, but there is no indication in the photographs of how many feet the right-of-way extends into the grass.” 4 No. 10-3520 Skovgard v. Pedro identify or handle trespass issues at the Center. After acknowledging that protestors were arrested for criminal trespass, during the mass protest at the Center in the early 1990s, Knickle was questioned about training with regard to trespass issues. A pertinent part of his deposition reads: Q Okay. So it’s fair to say that dating back say – at least say to the 1990s which is when I know a lot of that activity happened, criminal trespass was a charge that the – or situation that the police and the Kettering courts had to deal with? A Correct. Q And do you recall any specific training that the [C]ity of Kettering ever gave to the police officers dealing with trespassissues at that clinic? For example, where are the property lines, where are the protesters allowed to walk, where can’t they walk. Sometimes there [are] sidewalks along some side of the clinic. Other side of the clinic, there are no sidewalks. I’ve just thrown a lot at you but do you recall any kind of training to address that location in particular with the history of protest then? A Prior to this incident in 2007, no. Lieutenant Knickle testified that, although the City did not conduct any training specific to trespass issues at the Center, it had conducted training specific to the Center on the “logistics of how we were going to respond if we were required to make mass arrests and – specifically, you know, what the logistics would be if we brought in buses and the use of flex cuffs versus regular handcuffs and how we would process personnel.” Pedro confirms Knickle’s testimony in stating that, prior to the incident in March 2007, he never received any training or instruction about how to handle protestors at the Center, except on the occasion of the mass protest in the early 1990s when the City instructed him on how to handle the unique aspects of that anticipated event. He also received no training or instruction about the property lines or public right-of-way around the Center. Likewise, Mannix had received no training regarding public rights-of-way or property lines, or any training pertaining to handling issues specific to the Center, with the exception of the instructions pertinent to the earlier mass protest, as described by Pedro. As to other police training, both officers had attended basic peace officer training, as well as in-service training provided by the City. 5 No. 10-3520 Skovgard v. Pedro With regard to the incident in March 2007, Lieutenant Knickle followed up on the same by talking with Officer Pedro and visiting the site in question. He concluded that the officers had acted in accordance with the City’s policies and procedures when they made the arrests in question. Soon thereafter, the City provided its police officers with an aerial photograph of the property surrounding the Center. The City also provided its officers instruction concerning the Center’s property boundaries and how they related to making arrests for criminal trespass. B. On March 3, 2008, plaintiffs filed suit against Pedro, Mannix, 1st Choice, and Kaminski, alleging (1) warrantless, unreasonable, and unconstitutional seizure and detention, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) deprivation of the freedoms of speech and assembly and retaliation for the exercise of speech, in violation of the First Amendment; (3) deprivation of liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (4) false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in violation of Ohio law. Plaintiffs filed a separate suit against the City, alleging inadequate training and/or failure to discipline the police officers, which resulted in the alleged First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The district court consolidated the cases. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims. The district court granted this motion, concluding that (1) Pedro and Mannix had probable cause to arrest plaintiffs; (2) plaintiffs had waived their First Amendment retaliation claims; (3) plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were not violated because Pedro and Mannix had probable cause to arrest them; (4) plaintiffs could not prevail on their Fourteenth Amendment due process claims because the Fourth Amendment, and not the Fourteenth Amendment, establishes procedural protections with respect to the criminal justice system; (5) it was unnecessary to determine whether defendants were 6 No. 10-3520 Skovgard v. Pedro entitled to qualified immunity; (6) the City was not liable for a failure to train Pedro and Mannix because plaintiffs could not show that a constitutional violation had occurred; (7) the City was not liable for a failure to discipline or investigate because it did take steps to investigate the situation and to train its officers regarding the right-of-way at the Center after the alleged incident; (8) there were no facts presented to indicate that Pedro and Mannix deserved punishment given that they had “never been trained on tresspass/boundary issues at the Center”; and (9) Pedro and Mannix were entitled to immunity on plaintiffs’ state law claims because they did not act with a “malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.” Plaintiffs then filed a motion asking the district court to dismiss with prejudice their federal claims and dismiss without prejudice their state claims against defendants 1st Choice and Kaminski. The district court granted the motion, thereby terminating plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court’s summary judgment decision.