Court Opinion

ID: 2964266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:59.554957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:56.151971
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2297

                                 MICHAEL D. VEILLEUX,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         JEFFREY PERSCHAU, DETECTIVE FOR THE
                            MANCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges,
                                          _____________________
                    Selya, Cyr, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                                  ______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                   OPINION EN BANC
                                 ____________________

            Paul J. Garrity for appellant.
            _______________
            Dyana J. Crahan with whom Donald  E. Gardner and Devine,  Millimet
            _______________           __________________     _________________
        & Branch were on brief for appellee.
        ________

                                 ____________________

                                  November 20, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   In the  district court,  Michael Veilleux
                 ___________

            brought  a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.   1983 against

            Jeffrey  Perschau,   a  detective  in   the  Manchester,  New

            Hampshire  Police  Department.   The  district court  granted

            summary judgment in favor of Perschau on grounds of qualified

            immunity.   Veilleux  appealed,  and on  August  30, 1996,  a

            divided  panel of  this court  reversed the  district court's

            decision, which we now  withdraw.  We ordered a  rehearing en
                                                                       __

            banc pursuant  to our  discretionary authority under  Fed. R.
            ____

            App.  P. 35(a).   We  now affirm  the district  court without

            reaching issues  that may  pose difficult problems  in future

            cases.

                 Taking  the  facts most  favorable  to  Veilleux, as  is

            appropriate  on  summary judgment,  St.  Hilaire  v. City  of
                                                ____________     ________

            Laconia, 71 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.
            _______                                  ____________

            Ct.  2548 (1996),  the following  is what  occurred.   On the

            evening of January 19, 1993,  a patrolling police officer  in

            Manchester heard the sound of a gunshot coming from Veilleux'

            direction.  The officer pursued Veilleux  and thought that he

            saw  Veilleux fumbling  as if  to take  something out  of his

            pocket.   But when Veilleux  was caught, there  was no gun on

            Veilleux' person nor was one found nearby.

                 Veilleux apparently had been drinking and  scuffled with

            the  officer.  He was  then arrested for  assaulting a police

            officer  and  resisting  arrest.   The  next  morning,  while

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            Veilleux  was  at   the  Manchester   state  court   awaiting

            arraignment,  he  was  overheard  by  another police  officer

            making statements that indicated that Veilleux had had a gun,

            specifically, a .32  automatic with hollow-point  ammunition.

            This information was relayed  to Detective Perschau who drove

            to  the courthouse  and  had Veilleux  brought  to a  private

            office for interview.

                 Veilleux did not have  an attorney present and requested

            counsel.   Perschau told Veilleux that  he "wasn't interested

            in  arresting  him, [but  only] in  getting  the gun  off the

            street" so that no child could find it and cause itself harm.

            Perschau also  told Veilleux that Veilleux  was familiar with

            the  system and should understand  that any help  he gave the

            police in recovering the  gun could not be used  against him,

            because Perschau had not read him his Miranda rights.  United
                                                  _______          ______

            States  v.  Veilleux, 846  F.  Supp. 149,  152  (D.N.H. 1994)
            ______      ________

            (McAuliffe, J.). 

                 Veilleux then  admitted that he  had had the  pistol and

            had thrown it  on or  beneath a porch  during the chase,  but

            could  not  recall the  precise  location.    Police in  turn

            conducted a  very extensive search  and later that  day found

            the  weapon underneath a porch  near the site  of the arrest.

            The state did not prosecute Veilleux for possessing a weapon,

            but the federal government subsequently indicted Veilleux  as

            a felon-in-possession under  18 U.S.C.   922(g)(1).  There is

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            no evidence that Perschau played any  part in the acquisition

            of incriminating information by federal authorities.

                 In  the federal  district  court, Veilleux  moved before

            trial to suppress the  handgun and the statements he  made to

            police.    Without  deciding   that  a  Miranda  warning  was
                                                    _______

            required, the  district court suppressed the  handgun and the

            statements   because   "[u]nder   the   totality   of   these

            circumstances,  defendant's statements  were involuntary--his

            will not to incriminate himself, exercised  repeatedly during

            the  interrogation, was  overborne by  the promises  made and

            distorted legal  advice given."   Veilleux, 846  F. Supp.  at
                                              ________

            155.1     Following  the   suppression  order,  the   federal

            prosecutor abandoned the case against Veilleux.

                 Veilleux then  brought the  present section  1983 action

            against  Perschau  in the  same  federal  district court  but

            before   a  different   district  judge   (Judge  Barbadoro).

            Veilleux   claimed  that  Perschau   had  violated  Veilleux'

            constitutional  rights  against  self-incrimination   and  to

            substantive  due  process.    Without  deciding  definitively

            whether there  had been  a violation--but  expressing evident

            doubts--the district court granted  summary judgment in favor

                                
            ____________________

                 1The  reason  for  the  court's hesitation  to  rely  on
            Miranda  apparently  stemmed  from  a  recognition  that  the
            _______
            Supreme Court has carved out  an exception to the requirement
            of  Miranda warnings  in situations  where the  questions are
                _______
            "necessary to secure [the police officers'] own safety or the
            safety  of the public."   New York v.  Quarles, 467 U.S. 649,
                                      ________     _______
            658-59 (1984).

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            of  Perschau on grounds of qualified immunity.  We agree with

            the district judge's conclusion.

                 Qualified  immunity  protects   public  officials   from

            section  1983   civil  liability  so  long   as  they  "acted

            reasonably under  settled law in the  circumstances."  Hunter
                                                                   ______

            v.  Bryant, 502  U.S.  224, 228  (1991)  (per curiam).    See
                ______                                                ___

            generally Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39 (1987).
            _________ ________    _________

            The  test is one of objective reasonableness, id. at 641, and
                                _________                 ___

            is applied where possible by the district judge in advance of

            trial, since the immunity is not  only immunity against civil

            liability but  immunity  from the  trial  itself.   Elder  v.
                                                                _____

            Holloway, 510  U.S. 510, 514-15  (1994); Hunter, 502  U.S. at
            ________                                 ______

            228.

                 In appraising Perschau's conduct, our focus of attention

            is on  the self-incrimination claim and  the underlying issue

            of  whether  the  confession  was "involuntary."    There  is

            considerable  doubt  whether,  even  apart  from  Quarles,  a
                                                              _______

            Miranda  violation  standing  alone  would  give  rise  to  a
            _______

            constitutional claim  under section 1983.   See, e.g., Warren
                                                        _________  ______

            v. City of  Lincoln, 864  F.2d 1436, 1442  (8th Cir.),  cert.
               ________________                                     _____

            denied, 490 U.S.  1091 (1989); accord Giuffre  v. Bissell, 31
            ______                         ______ _______     _______

            F.3d 1241, 1256 (3d Cir. 1994).

                 The "involuntariness" standard, at least where  there is

            no  physical abuse,  generally depends  on whether  under the

            totality  of  the  circumstances  the  defendant's  will  was

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            overborne.  See United  States v. Jackson, 918 F.2d  236, 242
                        ___ ______________    _______

            (1st  Cir.  1990).   In  this  case,  some  might think  that

            Perschau  had applied  relatively  little pressure,  that his

            goal was admirable, and that the legal advice that he gave to

            Veilleux  was  sound  and  amply confirmed  by  the  district

            court's grant of the  later motion to suppress.   The absence

            of a lawyer  does not itself automatically render a statement

            involuntary.  See Quarles, 467 U.S. at 652, 658-59.
                          ___ _______

                 On the other hand,  courts have in various circumstances

            found  to   be  "involuntary"  certain   statements  made  by

            defendants  in police  custody in  response to  fairly modest

            police  pressure or  following  advice or  promises that  the

            court  believed to  be unfair  or misleading.2   Here,  it is

            likely  that the  district court  in granting  the motion  to

            suppress  was  affected by  the  federal  prosecutor's action

            which undercut Perschau's  earlier representation.   Further,

            district courts have enjoyed considerable latitude in  making

            their  own  fact-specific   judgment  whether,  under  unique

            circumstances, a statement is "involuntary."

                                
            ____________________

                 2See, e.g., United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1028-
                  _________  _____________    ______
            32  (3d Cir. 1993) (police told defendant he could speak "off
            the cuff"); Griffin v.  Strong, 983 F.2d 1540, 1543-44  (10th
                        _______     ______
            Cir. 1993)  (police impliedly promised "lesser punishment and
            physical protection");  United States v. Pinto,  671 F. Supp.
                                    _____________    _____
            41,  57-60   (D.  Me.  1987)  (Cyr,   C.J.)  (police  officer
            represented  that he could keep  defendant out of  jail if he
            confessed).

                                         -6-
                                         -6-

                 It is enough to resolve this case that the circumstances

            are  unique  and  the  voluntariness  issue  is  very  close.

            Although  the  right  against  self-incrimination  is  itself

            clearly established, Perschau is "nevertheless . . . entitled

            to  qualified   immunity  [so  long  as   his]  decision  was

            reasonable,  even if  mistaken."   Hunter,  502 U.S.  at 229;
                                               ______

            accord  Hegarty v.  Somerset County,  53 F.3d  1367, 1372-73,
            ______  _______     _______________

            1379 (1st Cir.  1995).   Indeed, the Supreme  Court has  said

            that   the  qualified  immunity   defense  was   designed  to

            "provid[e]   ample  protection   to   all  but   the  plainly

            incompetent  or those who knowingly violate the law."  Malley
                                                                   ______

            v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
               ______

                 Under  an  objective  reasonableness standard,  Perschau

            could reasonably believe that  he was not violating Veilleux'

            rights  but   offering  him  an  attractive   bargain  for  a

            legitimate purpose, namely, to protect the public against the

            chance that  the gun would be found by a child (or perhaps by

            a criminal).  It makes no difference that a court might later

            conclude that the officer  was mistaken; one of  the cardinal

            purposes  of immunity is to  offer the police  "a fairly wide

            zone  of protection in close  cases."  Roy  v. Inhabitants of
                                                   ___     ______________

            the City of Lewiston, 42 F.3d 691, 695 (1st Cir. 1994).  This
            ____________________

            is enough to dispose of the present case.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -7-
                                         -7-