Section 1983 Liability for Police Chase Reviewed By Eastern District Court

This is a repeat of yesterday's Tort Talk Blog post -- this time with the Links to the Court's Opinion and companion Order -- sorry about that.

 

In the case of McKenna v. Wolk, No. 2:18-CV-03746-MSG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021 Goldberg, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer and a city Defendant in a Plaintiff’s §1983 unreasonable seizure and excessive force claim.

According to the Opinion, the officer was involved in a police chase and allegedly caused a collision with a dirt biker that the officer was pursuing.

In its decision, the court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a seizure had occurred. The court also felt that a reasonable jury could also conclude that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.

However, relative to the claims against the Defendant city, the court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently point to a custom of violent conduct on the part of that Defendant.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Here is a LINK to the Court's companion Order.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 20, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on unsplash.com.

Section 1983 Liability for Police Chase Reviewed by Eastern District Court

In the case of McKenna v. Wolk, No. 2:18-CV-03746-MSG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021 Goldberg, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer and a city Defendant in a Plaintiff’s §1983 unreasonable seizure and excessive force claim.

According to the Opinion, the officer was involved in a police chase and allegedly caused a collision with a dirt biker that the officer was pursuing.

In its decision, the court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a seizure had occurred. The court also felt that a reasonable jury could also conclude that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.

However, relative to the claims against the Defendant city, the court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently point to a custom of violent conduct on the part of that Defendant.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 20, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on unsplash.com.

Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Section 1983 Claims Relative to Police Entry into House in Response to Domestic Disturbance

In the case of Cost v. Borough of Dickson City, No. 3:-cv-1494 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2020 Mannion, J.), the court addressed summary judgment motions filed by a municipality and Defendant police officers in a §1983 Civil Rights litigation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. 

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a police response to a domestic disturbance. 

 The Defendant police officers asserted that they had knocked on the front door of the home numerous occasions to no response. The officers testified that, based upon the details of the 911 call, which included a notation that children were screaming, and given that, when the officers arrived on the scene and heard yelling and heard a female shouting the word “stop” inside of the residence, and given that everything then became quiet when they approached the front door, the officers eventually forced a door open after which certain individuals, including one of the Plaintiffs, were arrested. 

It was then determined that the disturbance involved an argument with the daughter of the family over a cell phone. 

After one of the Plaintiffs identified themselves within the home, that Plaintiff was released. The other Plaintiff refused to identify himself and was put in the police car to be transported to a processing center. That person was placed under arrest for Disorderly Conduct. Upon arrival at the processing center, that Plaintiff then identified himself and was released. Thereafter, a citation issued to that Plaintiff was dismissed after the officer failed to appear at the hearing. 

The Plaintiffs thereafter brought suit against the various Defendants with each Plaintiff alleging an unlawful search and seizure claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, a state law assault and battery claim, and a Fourth Amendment and state law false arrest and false imprisonment claim, and a claim of inadequate supervision and training by the borough. The Plaintiff who had been taken for processing also alleged Fourth Amendment and state law malicious prosecution claims. 

After reviewing the current status of the law on these types of claims, the court granted the motions at issue in part and denied them in part. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Scranton office of the Bardsley Benedict & Cholden, LLP law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint Dismissed Where Court Finds that Probable Cause Existed to Support the Police Officer's Actions

In the case of Raj v. Dickson City Borough, No. 3:17-692 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2020 Mannion, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants in a §1983 civil rights action arising out of a traffic stop and a vehicle search that allegedly revealed cocaine in the vehicle. 

The Plaintiff brought §1983 claim for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and municipal liability. 

After finding that there was probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff, the court dismissed each of the Plaintiff’s claims under §1983 for unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and for municipal liability. The court noted that, where there was probable cause for the arrest, there was no constitutional violation such that the Plaintiff’s §1983 claims failed as a matter of law. 

The court also noted that there is no evidence presented that the police disregarded the truth in his application for an arrest warrant. Nor was there any evidence of additional information which would have confirmed that there was no probable cause to support the officer's actions. 

Given that there was no lack of probable cause in this matter to support the arrest warrant, the court also granted summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims based upon claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution. 

In the end, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defense on these allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed the matter. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Scranton, PA office of Bardsley, Benedict & Scholden, LLP for bringing this case to my attention.