402 F.2d 367 (7th Cir. 1968), 16650, Joseph v. Rowlen

Docket Nº:16650.
Citation:402 F.2d 367
Party Name:David L. JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James H. ROWLEN, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:October 14, 1968
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 367

402 F.2d 367 (7th Cir. 1968)

David L. JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant,


James H. ROWLEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16650.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 14, 1968

Page 368

Milton K. Joseph, Chicago, Ill., John A. Lambright, Danville, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Harold A. Baker, Champaign, Ill., Wheat, Hatch, Corazza & Baker, Champaign, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, [a1] SWYGERT and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge.

Action against a city police officer for deprivation of federal constitutional rights. Arrest and detention without a warrant and without probable cause were alleged in substance, and a federal claim was asserted under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

The district court directed a verdict in favor of defendant at the close of plaintiff's case. Taking the view of the evidence most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff had established an arrest in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments, and the remaining question is whether a plaintiff need establish more in order to recover under sec. 1983.

Plaintiff David L.Joseph was a sales employee of the division of Alcoa Company which makes household utensils. On September 5, 1963, in Champaign, Illinois, he was demonstrating a sales technique called 'free carding' to a new salesman under his supervision. This consisted of talking to one passerby, after another, asking if she was interested in a home demonstration of kitchen utensils, and endeavoring to make an appointment. Joseph was approaching people under this procedure about four in the afternoon on the sidewalk of a downtown street. The adjoining properties were stores.

Defendant James Rowlen was a city police officer. He arrived in a squad car and beckoned to Joseph, who crossed the street to meet him. After a conversation in which Joseph gave his name and said he was working but apparently declined further information, Rowlen asked him to enter the squad car. Joseph said he would not unless arrested. After apparently conversing with headquarters on his radio, Rowlen arrested Joseph and took him to the police station. After some delay, Rowlen told Joseph he was charged under a city ordinance with soliciting from house to house. Joseph was placed in a cell and remained there for about two hours, until a bondsman arrived. The charge under the city ordinance was later dismissed.

Damages presumably included mental suffering and humiliation from the experience and Joseph described discomfort due to the condition of the cell in which he was detained, and testified that he had lost a potential customer because of a news story about his arrest.

Plaintiff called defendant Rowlen to testify as an adverse party. He testified that he had observed Joseph from across the street for a minute or two and saw him talking to a lady. A Mr. Sholen, manager of a shoe store, had told Rowlen of a complaint that a lady customer of Sholen's had made. According to Sholen, the lady had said a man on the street wanted to talk to her and was trying to sell her pots and pans and was 'obnoxious' and 'very rude.' Sholen pointed out Joseph as the man the lady had pointed out to him.

Rowlen called the sergeant on his radio and related the complaint. The sergeant told Rowlen...

To continue reading