Opinion ID: 3013872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation

Text: omitted). “The policy or adopted custom To establish a municipality’s that subjects a municipality to § 1983 liability under § 1983, the plaintiff must liability may relate to the training of police show that plaintiff’s constitutional rights officers. A municipality’s failure to train its were violated by the municipality’s police officers can subject it to liability, deliberate indifference as reflected in its however, only where it reflects a deliberate policy or custom.8 See City of Canton v. or conscious choice by the municipality – a policy as defined in Supreme Court cases.” Brown v. Muhlenberg Township, 269 F.3d 7 The qualified immunity of 205, 215 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation the police officers and the liability of the marks, brackets and citation omitted). Borough are two separate and distinct issues, 9 as the majority explains. See Maj. Op. at 25 A municipality like the (citing Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, Borough “may . . . be sued directly if it is 1213 (3d Cir. 1996) and Fagan v. City of alleged to have caused a constitutional tort Vineland, 22 F.3d 1283, 1294 (3d Cir. through a policy statement . . . officially 1994)). adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 8 “Policy is made when a 485 U.S. 112, 121 (1988) (internal quotation decision maker possessing final authority to marks and citation omitted). Alternatively, a establish municipal policy with respect to plaintiff can establish a causal link between the action issues an official proclamation, the alleged constitutional violation and a policy, or edict.” Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1212 municipality’s custom or practice. (internal quotation marks and citation Muhlenberg Township, 269 F.3d at 214-15. omitted). “Customs are practices of state 14 classic issue for the fact finder and a elaborated upon this in Board of County factual mainstay of actions under § 1983.” Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 A.M . v. Luzerne Cty. Juvenile Detention U.S. 397 (1997). It explained: Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 588 (3d Cir. 2004) In leaving open in Canton (internal quotation marks, citation and the poss ibility that a brackets omitted). Given the evidence plaintiff might succeed in here, that should have been an issue for the carrying a failure-to-train jury to decide and the Borough was claim without showing a therefore not entitled to judgment as a pattern of constitutional matter of law under Rule 50. violations, w e s im ply In Brown v. Muhlenberg Township, hypothesized that, in a 269 F.3d 205, 215 (3d Cir. 2001), we narrow range of quoted City of Canton, noting: circumstances, a violation of federal rights may be a It may seem contrary to highly predictable common sense to assert that consequence of a failure to a municipality will actually equip law enforcement have a policy of not taking officers with specific tools reasonable steps to train its to hand le recu rring employees. But it may situations. The likelihood happen that in light of the that the situation will recur duties assigned to specific and the predictability that an officers or employees the officer lacking specific tools need for more or different to handle that situation will training is so obvious, and violate citizens’ rights could the inadequacy so likely to justify a finding that result in the violation of policymakers’ decision not constitutional rights, that the to train the officer reflected policymakers of the city can “deliberate indifference” to reasonably be said to have the obvious consequence of been deliberately indifferent the policymakers’ choice – to the need. namely, a violation of a specific constitutional or statutory right. The high I believe that a jury could reasonably degree of predictability may conclude that this record establishes such also support an inference of deliberate indifference because the c a usa tion – th at th e Borough’s training left Officer Snyder municipality’s indifference with no reasonable alternative to the use of led directly to the very deadly force. The Supreme Court 15 consequence that the police department, and all police was so predictable. officers in the Borough were required to familiarize themselves with it and attest to Id. at 409-10. having read it. It prescribes an official We applied this teaching in Berg v. policy of “progressive force” for the County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261 (3d Borough’s police, stating that “[t]he use of Cir. 2000). There, we reviewed the force will be progressive in nature, and District Court’s grant of summary may include verbal, physical force, the use judgment in favor of the defendants in a of non-lethal weapons or any other means suit alleging a violation of civil rights as a at the officer’s disposal, provided they are result of the plaintiff’s arrest on an reasonable under the circumstances.” App. erroneous warrant. Plaintiff argued that at 998a. Chief Zuger testified further that the defendant county maintained a “flawed “[t]he policy of the Homestead Police warrant creation practice and poor training Department is to use only the amount of procedures.” Id. at 275 (internal quotation force which is necessary in making an marks omitted). Warrants were generated arrest or subduing an attacker. In all “based on a single datum – the criminal cases, this will be the minimum amount of complaint number . . . [with] no other force that is necessary.” App. at 1001a information [and] no check . . . to guard (emphasis added).10 against the kind of mistake [that was] However, as the majority notes, the made. Nor [were] there procedures that Borough provided only guns to its officers. would allow [an] officer . . . who suspects It did not equip them with any non-lethal an error to confirm that suspicion.” Id. We weapons. Rather, an officer had to request concluded that the “failure to provide any non-lethal weapon he/she might wish protective measures and failsafes . . . to carry and the request had to be approved seems comparable to ‘a failure to equip by Zuger. If the request was approved, the law enforcement officers with specific officer then had to undergo additional tools to handle recurring situations’” and training with the new weapon and become reversed the grant of summary judgment certified to use it. App. at 986a-87a. for the municipality. Id. at 277. Although Chief Zuger was not asked about