Excessive Force
Gandy Estate v. City of Millville, et al
Categories: Excessive Use of Force, §1983 and New Jersey Civil Rights
United States District Court Judge Christine P. O’Hearn granted Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Defendants did not use excessive force when they shot and killed the decedent.
Acknowledging that citizens have a right to be free from excessive force during a seizure and that force that is excessive is unconstitutional, the Court found that the Defendants acted reasonably under the circumstances. Defendants believed they were responding to call where an individual was suicidal and homicidal and in possession of a gun (based upon the decedents own call to 911). Thus, the Court found that while the Defendants mistakenly believed that the decent pointed a gun when he actually pointed his cell phone (in response to commands to show his hands and stop advancing towards them), the record was devoid of evidence to show that the Defendants used excessive force under the circumstances and thus violated the Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment rights.
Because the court held that the conduct by the defendants was reasonable, qualified immunity would defeat the Plaintiff’s §1983 and NJCRA claims.
Giavanna Roberson v. Borough of Glassboro, et al.
Categories: Excessive Use of Force, §1983 and New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Qualified Immunity
United States District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez granted Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Defendants did not use excessive force when they pointed guns at and handcuffed the Plaintiffs.
Acknowledging that the Plaintiffs had a right to be free from excessive force during a seizure and that force that is excessive is unconstitutional, the Court found that the Defendants acted reasonably under the circumstances. Defendants believed they were pursuing an individual who was armed and may have already used a firearm in an unlawful manner and were permitted to use force to mitigate a public safety risk (incident happened in a heavily populated area on the campus of Rowan University). The vehicle in which the Defendants were riding had tinted windows and prevented the officers from seeing “the number of persons” in the car and the entire interaction was relatively brief. Thus, the Court found that while the Defendants mistakenly subjected the plaintiffs to a frightening and frustrating encounter, the record was devoid of evidence to show that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment rights under the circumstances.
The Court went on to hold that even if the Plaintiffs claims could survive summary judgement, the qualified immunity afforded the Defendants would defeat them. Qualified Immunity shields Federal and State officials from money damages unless plaintiffs can establish “(1) that the government official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Stated otherwise, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted?” This question is properly answered by a Court and not a jury. Because the court held that the conduct by the defendants was reasonable, qualified immunity would defeat the Plaintiff’s §1983 and NJCRA claims.
Rodriguez v. Township of Hamilton, Officer Gerhard Thoresen, et al
Categories: Excessive Force, False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Monell
U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman granted the Motion for Summary Judgement filed on behalf of the Township and Officer Thoresen, dismissing claims for false arrest, excessive force and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff was arrested at the Hamilton Mall following his verbal and physical altercation with a New Jersey Transit bus driver that had been captured on Officer Thoresen’s body worn camera.
After reviewing the evidence presented including the body cam video the Court found that Officer Thoresen had probable cause to arrest the defendant (having witnessed the Plaintiff engage in a physical dispute) and that his actions in effecting the same were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. As to the Defendant Township of Hamilton, the Court held that the Plaintiff failed to explain any custom or policy that the Township had in place that promoted violations of the Constitution.
Categories: Excessive Force, Monell, Respondeat Superior
Plaintiff was sprayed with pepper spray, arrested and taken to the ground after officers arrived at the motel he owned and operated when there were called there by him for a dispute between Surti and an occupant. After officers arrived Surti did not believe they were “doing their job” while responding to the call and argued with them. When they asked him to lower his voice, as he was drawing a crowd and he refused, they arrested him for disorderly conduct and used an “arm-bar” take down. Surti claims he shattered his shoulder during the take down due to an incorrect application of the same. In denying the individual Defendant police officers’ motion for summary judgment, Third Circuit Court Judge Robert B. Kugler found that the officers involved not use an objectively reasonable amount of force to arrest Mr. Surti. He further denied immunity and found, using the Graham and Sharrar factors, that the individual officer defendants did not apply the Sharrar factors in an objectively reasonable manner and thus, did not make a reasonable mistake about clearly established law. Nevertheless, the Court did find that the Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof with regard to its Monell claim against the City of Absecon. More specifically, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to present an iota of evidence that could sustain a Monell claim. Next, the Court held that the officers were not entitled to Good Faith Immunity under the NJTCA due to the nature of the dispute. Finally, the Court left for the jury the defense claim that the Plaintiff could not show that his injuries were proximately caused by the actions of the individual Defendants.
Shoffler v. City of Wildwood, et al
Categories: §1983, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Excessive Force
Plaintiff was arrested after he swam naked for a second time in water adjected to a restaurant near land he owned after he had been warned by Officers the first time (earlier on the same date). United States District Court Judge Noel L. Hillman granted the Motion for Summary Judgement filed on behalf of the Wildwood Defendants finding that the arguments that Plaintiff asserted were insufficient to avoid summary judgment.
Gardner v. New Jersey State Police, Egg Harbor Township, et al
Categories: Excessive Force, Qualified Immunity, Pursuit Immunity
Plaintiff was shot by now retired police officers Michael Bordonaro, Steven Swankoski and Jeremy Nirenberg in a marsh in Egg Harbor Township after he had fled on foot following an attempted stop of his vehicle by the New Jersey State Police defendants. Plaintiff was shot when he was in the marsh hiding from the Defendants. United States District Judge Robert B. Kugler denied summary judgment motions filed on behalf of Bordonaro and Swankoski on the claims of excessive force and punitive damages. The Court granted summary judgment of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence against the same two defendants. The Court granted summary judgment as to Defendant Nirenberg and all New Jersey State Police Defendants.
As to the claims that remained against Bordonaro and Swankoski, the Court found that the evidence presented was not conclusive to establish that the Plaintiff was in possession of the black metal pipe found or that the Plaintiff pointed the pipe at the officers at the time of the shooting. Court also found there was a genuine issue as to whether or not the Plaintiff posed a significant threat of death or serious injuries to the officers or others at the time of the shooting. Finally, the Court used the same reasoning to find that Bordonaro and Swankoski were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court did find that the officers were entitled to pursuit immunity under the Tort Claims Act.
Categories: Excessive Force, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Conspiracy, Municipal Liability, Qualified Immunity
Plaintiff was arrested for driving while intoxicated after she struck the Longport Bridge Toll Booth causing damage to her car and the booth. When Plaintiff could not produce a urine sample she was taken to the hospital for a blood draw and a catheterization. A member of the Ocean City Police Department was present during the catheterization (where the Plaintiff was unconscious) and held the collection cup.
The Court found genuine issues of material fact regarding exigency that preclude the attachment of qualified immunity and the granting of summary judgment. In addition, the Court held that material issues of fact existed as to whether or not the catheterization was necessary and/or performed in a medically acceptable manner. The Court did grant summary judgment as to the claim for conspiracy.
Cress v. Ventnor City (Opinion)
Category: Excessive Force
Terms: “No Knock” warrant; Confidential Informants
Summary: U.S. District Court decision regarding a no knock search warrant. Discussion regarding the protection of the identities of confidential informants.
Category: Excessive Force
Terms: False Arrest; Qualified Immunity; Excessive Force
Summary: U.S. District Court decision regarding barring of false arrest claim based upon Municipal Court conviction and the Plaintiff’s excessive force.
Category: Excessive Force
Terms: Monell; Qualified Immunity; Failure to Train
Summary: U.S. District Court decision regarding excessive force used on arrestee who told police he recently underwent surgery. Court found no excessive force, conspiracy or failure to train.
Gunter v. Township of Lumberton
Category: Excessive Force
Terms: Wrongful Death; Monell; Punitive Damages
Summary: U.S. District Court decision on Motion for Reconsideration regarding drunk and dangerous arrestee who fought several police officers then subsequently died while restrained. Summary Judgment was granted for the Defendants.
Remillard v. Egg Harbor City (Brief)
Category: Excessive Force
Terms: Fatality; Qualified Immunity; Failure to Train
Summary: U.S. District Court Motion for Summary Judgment regarding an officer’s fatal shooting of a suspect who stole a vehicle, ran from police, and reached for a potential concealed weapon. Officer had prior knowledge of suspect’s violent history.
Gunter v. The Township of Lumberton
Category: Excessive Force
Terms: Wrongful Death; Monell; Punitive Damages
Summary: Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judgment affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court which granted Summary Judgment for the Defendants regarding a drunk and dangerous arrestee who fought several police officers and then subsequently died while being restrained.