Opinion ID: 494589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: arrest and imprisonment

Text: 46 As previously mentioned, the jury found against appellants Pozzi, Campbell, and Anderson on false arrest, actionable under the federal civil rights statute, and on the common law false imprisonment count. Under either theory, the root inquiry with respect to liability is whether the police had legal justification to detain the plaintiff. 47 In Massachusetts, state law requires that there be reasonable grounds for the detention. Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 359 Mass. 319, 322, 268 N.E.2d 860 (1971). In the precincts patrolled by Sec. 1983, the fourth amendment creates a right to be free from unreasonable seizure of the person, see, e.g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), thereby demanding that arrests be supported by probable cause. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 226, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that the terms reasonable grounds and probable cause have a virtually identical connotation. Coblyn, 359 Mass. at 325, 268 N.E.2d 860. We agree that these claims are substantively overlapping, see Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d 920, 926 (1st Cir.1987), so we discuss them in the ensemble. 48 As we have had recent occasion to note, the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest 'depends ... upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it--whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that the [[arrestee]] had committed or was committing an offense. United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1023 (1st Cir.1987) (citation omitted). A fair, reasonable probability that criminal activity is taking or has taken place--determined under an objective standard--is the constitutional minimum for an arrest executed in the absence of an antecedent warrant. Id. at 1023-24, and cases cited therein. Mindful of these prudential principles, we have little difficulty in rejecting the proposition that Wagenmann's arrest on August 18, 1976 was cloaked in constitutionally suitable raiment. 49 The officer-appellants argue that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff three times over: for the motor vehicle violation, for threats made against the Andersons, and for disturbing the peace. We have scrutinized these contentions and find them to be spavined. We concur in the district judge's conclusion that the jury was, at the very least, entitled to reject these supposed bases for the arrest as pretextual. Few things in this case are necessarily black or white; and on this chiaroscuro record, the factfinders were entitled to conclude--as they evidently did--that Wagenmann was arrested because of apprehension as to what he might do to disrupt Linda's wedding and because of a desire to appease Anderson. What is equally as important, those motives could supportably be found to have dictated the scenario, notwithstanding the utter lack of solid evidence to substantiate the former concern and the utter lack of any legitimate reason to venerate the latter sentiment. We look briefly at each set of charges. 50 A. The Motor Vehicle Violation. With respect to the purported motor vehicle violation, the officer-appellants cite M.G.L. ch. 90, Sec. 21 as the basis for Wagenmann's arrest. At the pertinent time, the statute authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of persons who, while violating any motor vehicle law, failed to carry a valid operator's license granted ... by the registrar. According to Pozzi and Campbell, Wagenmann broke the law by neglecting to have the registration certificate for Yvonne's automobile either on his person or in the car. And this bevue, they urge, ripened into an arrestable offense (for which no warrant was required) when the appellee could not produce a valid driver's license issued by the registrar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The argument is fatuous. 51 In the first place, Wagenmann testified that he had the registration certificate at the time of his arrest. Although the police officers (and Yvonne de Bossiere, for that matter, see supra n. 6) disputed this fact at trial, it was the jury's role to assess the credibility of witnesses and to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence. See United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 989 (1st Cir.1987). Given the huge disparities in the evidence on a broad range of issues in this litigation, the jury's apparent conclusion that Wagenmann was taken into custody not because of the missing registration, but despite his actual possession of it, seems an altogether permissible one. 52 Yet, there is more. Whether or not Wagenmann lacked the paperwork required by M.G.L. ch. 90, Sec. 11, he could in no event have been subject to warrantless arrest on this score. M.G.L. ch. 90, Sec. 21 embodies a two-part test: the statute allows lawmen to arrest one who (i) has no valid driver's license and (ii) violates any motor vehicle statute, ordinance, or regulation. Here, the first prong was totally unproven. Although the defendants argue (accurately, it would appear) that Wagenmann had no Massachusetts operator's license, he nevertheless had an (admittedly valid) New York operator's license when arrested. That was enough. While Sec. 21 references licenses granted ... by the registrar, that reference cannot plausibly be read to require all who drive within the commonwealth to possess licenses issued by the Massachusetts registrar. Passing the stark fact that such an application of the statute would likely contravene a variety of federal constitutional protections, then-extant state law was to the contrary. See M.G.L. ch. 90 Sec. 10, set forth in relevant part in the margin. 8 Inasmuch as it was undisputed that the plaintiff had on his person a proper New York license when arrested and Yvonne's car (which he was then driving) was registered in that state, Sec. 10 by its terms held him harmless on the first aspect of the Sec. 21 test. Thus, Sec. 21 could not validly have supplied the justification for Wagenmann's warrantless arrest. 53 B. The Threats. We turn next to the question of whether Pozzi and Campbell had probable cause to orchestrate an arrest based on the threats allegedly uttered by the appellee. The officer-appellants pin their hopes in this respect on M.G.L. ch. 275, Secs. 2, 4, which make it a misdemeanor in Massachusetts to threaten to commit a crime against the person or property of another. The statutory framework is of scant solace, however, for it requires that a complaint be submitted to and reviewed by a judicial officer, M.G.L. ch. 275, Sec. 2, and that a warrant issue from such court, M.G.L. ch. 275, Sec. 3, before any arrest may be conducted thereunder. Neither of these preconditions was met here. It follows inexorably that Wagenmann's purported uttering of threats--a matter which, like his nonpossession of a motor vehicle registration, see supra, was hotly disputed at trial--could not have formed a valid basis for his warrantless arrest by the Worcester police. 9 54 C. Disturbing the Peace. Finally, the officers defend the decision to take Wagenmann into custody by pointing to their good faith belief that a breach of the peace had been committed. 10 The burden of this argument is that the plaintiff's presence near the Anderson residence, coupled with the reported threats of violence, coalesced to discompose the peace and supply probable cause for arrest. The argument proves too much. In Massachusetts, disturbance of the peace, a misdemeanor under M.G.L. ch. 272, Sec. 53, must occur in the presence of a police officer in order to constitute an arrestable offense. M.G.L. ch. 231 Sec. 94A. See also Commonwealth v. Gorman, 288 Mass. 294, 297, 192 N.E. 618 (1934). Yet, Wagenmann did nothing in the company of the gendarmerie which could be characterized as even a genteel breach of decorum. He was present at a public place where he had an unqualified right to be. Even if he had theretofore uttered threats--and on this point, the evidence was at best conflicting--such comminations were assuredly not voiced within earshot of the police, much less in their presence. Thus, any purported saber rattling could not have supplied a legitimate predicate for Wagenmann's arrest. 55 Once the air has been cleared of post hoc rationalizations, it becomes rather plain that the plaintiff was arrested because a local family of some influence claimed he had threatened them and were fearful that his unwanted arrival might portend problems for an upcoming wedding. The hearsay information passed to Pozzi and Campbell furnished, perhaps, such reasonable suspicion of crime as would justify an investigation into the plaintiff's appearance in the vicinity of the Anderson home. As part of this investigation, the police would presumably have been authorized to stop Wagenmann, question him, and perform an exterior frisk of his person. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). And if any substantially incriminating evidence eventuated--that is, if suspicion matured into probable cause--the officers could have proceeded accordingly. Though such a progression might well pass muster, the jury could have found that what happened here was considerably different: that regular procedures were spurned in this instance and that the conduct of the officer-appellants greatly exceeded the bounds of what they were constitutionally empowered to do. They arrested Wagenmann without cognizable cause, handcuffed him, rifled his pockets, and searched his car (including its locked trunk), without so much as a morsel of hard evidence or a shred of probable cause. 56 The appellants lay great stress on their expectation that Wagenmann might be armed and dangerous as a justification for their behavior. Yet, even were such fears sufficiently reasonable to validate the automobile search, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3480, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (limited protective search of automobile allowable where police have reasonable belief that suspect could gain immediate access to weapons), that infrastructure necessarily collapsed when the search produced absolutely no evidence of weaponry or explosives. Once Pozzi and Campbell realized that Wagenmann lacked the means necessary to effectuate the threats which had been ascribed to him, detention on that score could not be justified. Instead of setting Wagenmann free, however, the officer-appellants tightened the screw: they subjected him to a full custodial arrest and to groundless imprisonment. In the process, they left ample room for a factfinder to conclude that they intentionally violated Wagenmann's fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as his state common law privilege not to be falsely imprisoned. 57 D. Qualified Immunity. Pozzi and Campbell essay one last challenge to the adverse verdict on the Sec. 1983 claim. They say that they were qualifiedly immune under the doctrine of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). The exhortation need not occupy us for long. When applying Harlow, we are concerned not with the correctness of defendants' determination, on the one hand, nor their subjective state of mind, but [with] the 'objective reasonableness' of their conduct.... Harlow demands not prescience, but objective good faith. Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d at 924 (quoting De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F.2d 1187, 1193 (1st Cir.1986)). Since reasonable police officers are expected to know the law, we focus our inquiry on whether the officers' conduct on August 18, 1976 violated clearly established ... constitutional rights. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. 58 Thus posed, the question virtually answers itself. The right to be free from unreasonable seizures of the person was well established long before 1976. See, e.g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 59-66, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1900-04, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d at 923. Moreover, what happened here involved more an egregious trespass into constitutionally well-marked terrain than an accidental inching across some vaguely-defined legal border. The contours of the right were, in this instance, sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates [the] right. Anderson v. Creighton, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). No prudent police officer in Pozzi's or Campbell's shoes could have failed to recognize that arrest and imprisonment on the flimsy basis of unsubstantiated hearsay and self-interested rumor would strike a mortal blow at Wagenmann's civil rights. The same is equally true--perhaps more so--of what the jury apparently believed were trumped-up paperwork charges pertaining to a purported infraction of the motor vehicle code. The district court's refusal to treat the defense of Harlow immunity as dispositive of the Sec. 1983 claims against the officer-appellants cannot seriously be faulted. Cf., e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096-98, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (police officers applying for a warrant are immune only if a reasonable lawman could have believed there was probable cause to support the warrant application); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officials not immune if their actions were clearly proscribed by existing law); Emery v. Holmes, 824 F.2d 143, 149-50 (1st Cir.1987) (no qualified immunity for seizure which violated well established Fourth Amendment principles). 59 In sum, as to the liability aspect of the claims against Pozzi and Campbell for civil rights violations and for common law false imprisonment, the district court did not err in denying the officer-appellants' alternative motions for new trials or for judgments n.o.v. 60 E. Anderson's Defenses. The verdict returned against Anderson on these counts stands on a different, less sturdy, footing. His sufficiency challenge presents a surpassingly close question. Our examination of the trial record, however, reveals enough evidence--though barely--from which a jury, drawing all permissible inferences favorable to the claimant and resolving all credibility questions in the same manner, could reasonably have fastened liability upon this appellant with regard to false arrest and imprisonment. 61 Inasmuch as Anderson is and was a private citizen, liability under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 requires a showing that he collogued with state actors--persons acting under color of state law--to deprive the plaintiff of his civil rights. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 183, 186, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980) (Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting 'under color' of law for purposes of Sec. 1983 actions.). Accord Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1605-06, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794, 86 S.Ct. 1152, 1156, 16 L.Ed.2d 267 (1966). As the district court told the jury in its charge, [a] Sec. 1983 defendant need not be an officer of the state. It is enough if he is a willful participant in joint activity with the state or its agents. 62 Anderson's posture is somewhat the same vis-a-vis the common law claim. He did not participate directly in Wagenmann's confinement either at the Worcester police station or thereafter at WSH. If he is liable at all for the tort of false imprisonment, his guilt must rest on evidence that he conspired with the police or acted in a way purposefully calculated to bring about the unlawful incarceration. See 32 Am.Jur.2d False Imprisonment Secs. 42 (Persons other than those who actually effect an imprisonment may be so related to the act or proceeding as instigators or participants therein as to be jointly liable, for all who aid, direct, advise, or encourage the unlawful detention of a person are liable for the consequences.), 45 ([T]he arrest by the officer must be so induced or instigated by the defendant that the act of arrest is made by the officer, not of his own volition, but to carry out the request of the defendant.). 63 We note, first, that there was considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that Anderson exerted influence on the authorities to have Wagenmann removed from circulation. Viewed dispassionately, the proof warranted an inference that Anderson sought Wagenmann's apprehension not out of fear for the personal safety of his loved ones, but out of the apparently misguided concern that Wagenmann might have come to Worcester to disrupt Stephen's wedding. We agree entirely with this appellant's premise that merely initiating a good-faith request for police protection would not attach liability for the subsequent unconstitutional conduct of arresting officers. See, e.g., Burnham v. Collateral Loan Co., 179 Mass. 268, 274, 60 N.E. 617 (Such a person does no more than his duty; and to hold him answerable ... for the result of the mistake or misconduct of the officer would be to make the division line of compromise between the right of the individual to his liberty and the right of the public to protection trench too far upon the domain of the latter.); see also 32 Am.Jur.2d False Imprisonment Sec. 45 (Merely summoning or calling on an officer for protection against a disturbance or trespass or to keep the peace, or to deal with a person accused of crime, is not sufficient participation to impose liability....). That tenet, however, does not carry the day, since the evidence presented in this case, albeit largely indirect, adequately supports the conclusion that Anderson was not a mere complainant, but was implicated in Wagenmann's arrest and imprisonment to a more significant and blameworthy degree. 64 In the first place, it was shown that Anderson and Egan were at least friendly social acquaintances. It was this rapport with the deputy chief which allowed Anderson to bypass regular police emergency procedures when the first whiff of trouble wafted westward. Anderson did not hesitate to use Egan's unlisted telephone number and to reach him at the odd hour at home. That a private citizen felt free to contact the deputy chief of the city's police department at an unpublished telephone number, while the latter was off duty, lends a certain credence to Stephen's warning--voiced to the plaintiff in late 1985--that Anderson was a powerful figure in Worcester and could have Wagenmann arrested at will. 11 65 In addition, Anderson acknowledged that he notified the police in order to secure their assistance in intercepting appellee. He testified that Debbie Walsh had warned him about Wagenmann's menacing statements, and that he feared for his family's safety. Notably, however, the police report (prepared by Pozzi) contained no reference to Anderson's ostensible fright, but addressed itself solely to the concern that the wedding might be disrupted. The other witnesses failed to confirm either Anderson's version of Debbie's call or the mouthing of threats by Wagenmann at the time in question. This evidence, combined with the plaintiff's firm denial that he had ever used fighting words, furnished sufficient reason to conclude that Anderson was, at the very least, exaggerating his claimed fears. The jury could well have inferred that this defendant, bound and determined to see the nuptials occur as planned and without distraction, had woven the garment of contemporaneous threats out of whole cloth and had callously attributed the stitching to Linda's estranged father. 12 66 Then, too, Pozzi described the investigation in such a way as to permit a finding that the decision to arrest Wagenmann was a collective one, made by him and the Andersons in concert, rather than solely an official one. It could be inferred that the cadre of decisionmakers reached this consensus well before the plaintiff set foot in Worcester. Pozzi testified that, after consulting with those present in the Anderson home on the night of August 18, they (Anderson included) came to a conclusion and carried out what we had to do (emphasis supplied). In context, this was not the royal we or the editorial we, but applied logically to a plan of concerted action worked out by the officers and Anderson. Certainly, an inference to that effect was sustainable. Such an illation, if the jury chose to draw it, was buttressed when Pozzi told Wagenmann: You understand we just can't let you go. The comment was made after the illegitimacy of Wagenmann's detention had--or should have--become apparent, and the implication to be drawn is that Pozzi and the Worcester police felt constrained to jail the plaintiff notwithstanding the absence of any legal basis to do so. 67 We end this exercise by remarking the settled principle that circumstantial evidence can support a finding of concerted action. E.g., United States v. Notarantonio, 758 F.2d 777, 789 (1st Cir.1985); United States v. Marsh, 747 F.2d 14, 15 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. DeLutis, 722 F.2d 902, 905 (1st Cir.1983). When the foregoing collocation of evidence is considered as a whole, we think that a jury could reasonably have found that Anderson was not a mere complainant; that, to the contrary, he possessed and exerted influence over the Worcester police, and conspired with them to have Wagenmann arrested and kept under wraps in order to safeguard his son's wedding from unwanted intrusions. The district judge, in denying Anderson's posttrial motions, wrote that a juror could have reasonably believed that ... there was a 'meeting of the minds' of Mr. Anderson and the police officers and that Mr. Anderson gave a 'direct or implied command' to the police to arrest Mr. Wagenmann and deprive him of his civil rights. We concur. Having reviewed the record with care, we find it adequate to support liability in this instance.