397 F.2d 799 (1st Cir. 1968), 7092, Caperci v. Huntoon

Docket Nº:7092.
Citation:397 F.2d 799
Party Name:Anthony CAPERCI et al., Defendants, Appellants, v. Earl P. HUNTOON, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees.
Case Date:July 11, 1968
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Page 799

397 F.2d 799 (1st Cir. 1968)

Anthony CAPERCI et al., Defendants, Appellants,


Earl P. HUNTOON, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees.

No. 7092.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

July 11, 1968

Heard June 4, 1968.

Page 800

Raymond F. Barrett, Quincy, Mass., with whom Stephen T. Keefe, Jr., Quincy, Mass., was on brief, for appellants.

Paul T. Smith, Boston, Mass., with whom Manuel Katz, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellees.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiff Huntoon in October 1960 was a sergeant on the police force of the City of Quincy. A serious difference of opinion (whether personal, or in the line of duty, depends upon whose testimony one accepts) arose between him and other members of the force. On October 14 he was arrested and detained at the police station. Other members of the force, supported by a warrant, then visited his home and conducted a search. The search markedly exceeded the bounds of the warrant. Nothing was taken.

At 10:30 that evening two members of the police force, accompanied by a civilian, returned to plaintiff's home and demanded admission. Upon being admitted they searched the deep freezer in the basement. Again, nothing was taken. Later, at 1:30 a.m., a substantial number of police officers came to plaintiff's home and demanded admission. At this time they conducted a rigorous search and removed over 200 articles, ranging from shoe laces and shirts to pencils and tools. Concededly, on neither of these latter occasions did they have a warrant or any

Page 801

probable cause entitling them to obtain one. Much less did they have a right to enter and search, unless upon actual consent.

While plaintiff remained in custody, in his home during all three searches were his wife, the co-plaintiff herein, and a 14-year old daughter. In due course the plaintiffs brought the present action for violation of civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against all the police officers participating. After an extensive trial the jury returned a number of special verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs to the effect that no consent had been given, and for general and punitive damages. 1 On this appeal defendants briefed a number of matters, but at oral argument waived all issues except damages. This, in turn, must mean punitive damages; we perceive no other question.


To continue reading