Posts
The Court of Appeals holds that a jury trial is necessary to resolve a doctor's claim that a police department in Connecticut entered her home without a warrant, subjected her to malicious prosecution, and used excessive force during the arrest.
The case is Pal v. Cipolla, a summary order issued on March 14. It all began when Pal called the police to report that her child's preschool teacher was driving back and forth in front of her house after having threatened her. The police told Pal that she cannot call 911 for non-emergencies and directed her to call on the other line; Pal insisted this was an emergency. Generally, Pal says the police were dismissive of her concerns and did nothing to stop the back-and-forth driver. When the police finally arrived at Pal's house, after a brief exchange of words, she went inside her house but the officers pulled her out of the house, slamming her head against the door frame in the process. One of the officers called Pal a "Muslim bitch." Eventually, the officers sent her to a psychiatric evaluation. In the ambulance, Pal says, she was attacked and sexually assaulted. She was arrested for misusing the 911 system, assault on a public officer, and related offenses. This is just a summary. The district court opinion provides a frame-by-frame detail of this encounter.
Summary judgment was denied on some of Pal's claims, and the officers appeal, claiming entitlement to qualified immunity. Such an early appeal is allowed, but only if the undisputed facts (or the facts as alleged by the plaintiff) allow this immunity to be resolved prior to trial. (Generally, you can't appeal in federal court until the entire case is over).
On the home search claim, the district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirms. The trial court wrote, "the parties dispute whether the defendants entered Pal's home, and the video footage submitted does not show a clear picture of what occurred at the front door. [Officer] Cipolla maintains he was at the doorway of Pal's home when he grasped Pal's shoulders and pulled her to the front stoop. He denies that the officers entered the house. Pal, however, testified that as she started to close the door, Cipolla 'stepped inside' and that all three officers entered" The Second Circuit agrees this issue must be tried before a jury, as the jury may find the officers entered her home without a warrant or any exigent circumstances that would have justified immediate entry to prevent a health or safety problem. And there was no risk that she would escape if not immediately apprehended or that she was armed and dangerous.
Disputed facts also preclude qualified immunity for the officers on the malicious prosecution claim, as the jury may credit Pal's account that she never assaulted any EMT employees or tried to bite an officer. If the jury believes Pal on these issues, then it may find there was no probable cause to arrest on these charges. The facts in this case are convoluted, and the jury will have to sort it all out.
Finally, excessive force. Same result. The trial court reasoned, "when the evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to Pal, the record shows that the three
officers rushed into her home, and dragged her out while she clutched the
bannister of the staircase, causing her head and the right side of her upper
body to be “slammed” against the door frame. Under that set of facts, a reasonable jury could find that the
defendants violated Pal's clearly established constitutional rights." The Court of Appeals agrees.
No comments:
Post a Comment