Pennsylvania
By Christopher P. Boyle, Sr., Esquire - King of Prussia, PA (cpboyle@mdwcg.com or 610-354-8476)

Police officers, responding to citizen complaints, used an undercover officer and purchased narcotics from Hernandez, an individual known to a back-up officer from prior contacts. The officers let several weeks pass after the buy before arresting Hernandez in order to protect the identity of the undercover officer. Hernandez was acquitted at trial and brought a false arrest claim. The court found that Hernandez was required to submit evidence, rather than mere accusations, to support his claims. His post-arrest claims of an alibi were irrelevant to an analysis of whether the officers' possessed probable cause at the time of arrest. Moreover, the appellant's emphasis on his acquittal is also misplaced, for "[e]vidence that may prove insufficient to establish guilt at trial may still be sufficient to find the arrest occurred within the bounds of the law." Id.; see also Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 36, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed. 2d 343 (1979). The undisputed facts demonstrated that the officers had a reasonable basis to believe the appellant had committed a crime.

The plaintiff, acting pro se, filed suit against, among others, the law enforcement officers who responded to a 2001 domestic violence call at his residence. The mother of his child had called police and alleged that she and her daughter were being held prisoner by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the mother obtained a PFA and sought and gained sole custody of the minor child. The plaintiff alleges that the on-going enforcement of the custody order should be considered an ongoing course of conduct that would permit him to file a civil rights action beyond the two-year statute of limitations applicable to the matter. The Third Circuit disagreed. The ongoing enforcement of court orders will not stay the limitations period.

The plaintiff, the son of a Borough Council member, purchased a surplus police car by a winning bid of $550. Police equipment was to be removed from the vehicle, including the radio and light bar, prior to the plaintiff taking possession. Through a miscommunication, the equipment was not removed prior to the plaintiff taking possession. Having requested numerous times to have the plaintiff make the car available for the equipment to be removed, and receiving no cooperation, the police chief sought the plaintiff's arrest for theft. Thereafter, the plaintiff worked out a plea agreement, and the charges were dropped upon his making the vehicle available for the equipment removal. He promptly sued all involved. As the plaintiff surrendered at the District Justice and was never handcuffed or ordered to post bail and, thus, suffered no deprivation of liberty consistent with a seizure, the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

The plaintiff, a pro se litigant who has brought at least eight actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court against various police departments, individual police officers and municipalities, here brought a due process claim against Officer Huff alleging that Huff violated his civil rights on a traffic stop. The plaintiff alleged that a road closure occurred earlier than advertised and that he was, therefore, improperly stopped by the officer when he ignored the road closure sign. (The advertisement said 7:00 a.m., and he was stopped at 6:35 a.m.). Affirming the dismissal of his claims against Huff, the court held "that Douris filed a motion for sanctions against Huff indicates a sad failure to appreciate when enough is enough. Should he continue to pursue legally frivolous claims against Huff, Douris should expect no further tolerance from the courts." As there are at least two other matters currently pending before the Circuit Court from this plaintiff, updates can be expected in future Law Alerts.

The plaintiff was driving down the center of a two-lane road when he was stopped by the police officer. After failing two field sobriety tests, the plaintiff sat on the hood of the police car and did not obey the officer's instruction to get down. The court held that, although the officer admitted to having "flung" the plaintiff from the hood of the car, a reasonable jury could conclude that the force used was reasonable given that the officer was alone and was confronted with an "uncertain situation" with an individual who was uncooperative and appeared to be intoxicated. Further, the plaintiff clung to or wrestled with the officer after being removed from the hood of the car; two additional officers had to help handcuff plaintiff; and when placed in the back seat of the police vehicle, the plaintiff disobeyed instructions to stay where he was, removed his seatbelt two times, and kicked out the rear window of the vehicle. Such conduct undermined his claims about being roughly handcuffed and arrested and not being permitted to use the bathroom. Thus, the court agreed with the district court that the officer's actions in connection with plaintiff's arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The plaintiff was spending the afternoon at the Muncy Public Library when two juveniles came in and began to bounce a ball. Both Hill and a librarian told them to stop. Thereafter, Hill got into a verbal altercation with the juveniles and struck one of them in the face. When told by the librarian that they had a policy forbidding corporal punishment, Hill responded that if he had it to do over, he would have hit the kid even harder. Hill was asked to leave and had his privileges indefinitely revoked. The Circuit Court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, finding that, informing the plaintiff of library rules and affording him an opportunity to tell his side of the story, comported with due process.

The Third Circuit has held that a malicious prosecution claim can, in fact, survive where a false arrest claim is dismissed because of the plaintiff's conviction. In a case where a plaintiff has been charged with multiple offenses, but convicted on less than all of them, a false arrest claim cannot stand. This is so because such a claim is based on a complete lack of probable cause for any offense. A malicious prosecution claim, the Circuit Court has ruled, requires that the defense establish that the officer had probable cause to arrest for every offense charged. While summary judgment in such a case is not an impossibility, the Circuit Court has set the bar higher.