Collier v. Montgomery

• Citation: 569 F.3d 214
• Decision Date: 20 May 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-30665.,08-30665.
• Parties: Rodney Michael COLLIER; Sarah Elizabeth Collier, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Perry Greg MONTGOMERY, Individually; Glenn Paul Sproles, Individually; Rodney D. Harris, Individually; Ken Michael Halphen, Individually, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

569 F.3d 214 Rodney Michael COLLIER; Sarah Elizabeth Collier, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Perry Greg MONTGOMERY, Individually; Glenn Paul Sproles, Individually; Rodney D. Harris, Individually; Ken Michael Halphen, Individually, Defendants-Appellants. No. 08-30665. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 20, 2009.

[569 F.3d 216]

Fred H. Sutherland (argued), Beard & Sutherland, Shreveport, LA, for the Colliers.

Kenneth E. Mascagni (argued), James Richard Sterritt, Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Shreveport, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before GARWOOD, OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

OWEN, Circuit Judge:

Officers Perry Greg Montgomery, Glenn Paul Sproles, Rodney D. Harris, and Ken Michael Halphen appeal the district court's denial of their summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity. We reverse and render.

I

Harris, a Bossier City officer working on the Seat Belt Task Force, saw Rodney Collier driving a pickup truck with the seatbelt not extending forward and across Collier's shoulder as required by Louisiana law. Harris made a traffic stop and decided to issue a ticket.

As Harris was attempting to explain the consequences of failing to honor a written promise to appear, as required by Louisiana Revised Statutes § 32:391, Collier interrupted and attempted to grab a pen from Harris's hand. Harris retrieved a pair of handcuffs from his belt and informed Collier that he was under arrest. When Harris reached for Collier's left wrist, Collier pulled his hand back and turned away from the officer. The two men grappled as Harris attempted to place the handcuffs on a resisting Collier. At one point during the struggle, Harris pushed Collier onto the hood of the police cruiser and forced Collier's right arm behind his back. After Harris placed the handcuffs on Collier, he directed Collier into the back seat of the police cruiser.

At that point, Collier began complaining of chest pain, and Harris immediately called the Bossier City Fire Department to

569 F.3d 217

the scene. However, Collier refused treatment and executed a Fire Department Patient Refusal Information Sheet. Collier was later taken to the LSU Health Sciences Center, but he also refused treatment there.

Collier was charged with resisting arrest, simple battery, and failing to wear his seatbelt. During his criminal trial, Collier admitted that he told Harris that he did not have his shoulder harness on but that he had the lap belt fastened. The City of Bossier Court found that "Officer Harris had probable cause to initiate the stop when he saw what he reasonably believed was an unbelted driver." But the City Court found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the seatbelt was being utilized and, therefore, found Collier not guilty of the seatbelt violation. Collier was also acquitted of the other charges against him.

Rodney Collier and Sarah Elizabeth Collier subsequently filed suit claiming violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Bossier City, Coregis Insurance Company, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, and Officers Michael Stanley Szempruch, Montgomery, Sproles, Harris, and Halphen.

The claims against Coregis Insurance Company and Officer Szempruch have been dismissed. The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In a one-page opinion, the district court denied the defendants' motion, stating, "[h]aving reviewed the film of the arrest, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact remain in the case." The defendants timely appealed. This court later dismissed the appeal as to all parties except Montgomery, Sproles, Harris, and Halphen, in their individual capacities.

II

Although nominally an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden to negate the assertion of qualified immunity once properly raised.¹ This court reviews a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.²

In Saucier v. Katz,³ the Supreme Court held that a court addressing a claim of qualified immunity must determine first whether the plaintiff has adduced facts sufficient to establish a constitutional or statutory violation⁴ before determining "whether [the officers'] actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question."⁵ In Pearson v. Callahan, the Supreme Court has since held that this sequential two-step analysis was no longer mandatory.⁶ Instead, lower courts are "permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances of the particular case at hand."⁷ The Court noted, however, that the Saucier formulation often is the appropriate analytical

569 F.3d 218

sequence.⁸ In this case, we find it appropriate to determine initially whether a constitutional violation occurred.

III A

Collier argues that Harris violated his Fourth Amendment rights by making an unlawful arrest. Harris stopped Collier based on a belief that Collier was not wearing his seatbelt properly. According to Louisiana Revised Statutes § 32:295.1(A)(1), a driver is required to have a "safety belt properly fastened about his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion." Probable cause for such violation "shall be based solely upon a law enforcement officer's clear and unobstructed view of a person not restrained as required by [Louisiana law]."⁹

At the time of the arrest, Louisiana had not identified what "properly fastened about his or her body" meant. However, the Louisiana Attorney General later issued an opinion in an unrelated matter stating that "when the driver's clasp is fastened, but the shoulder and/or chest harness is not properly across the chest and shoulder, then the safety belt is not `properly fastened about the body' and La. R.S. 32:295.1 has been violated."¹⁰

Although Collier claims that Harris had an obstructed view of Collier's seatbelt due to the distance between the vehicles and because Collier's tinted window was up, the video evidence shows that no cars passed between Harris and Collier at the applicable time. Additionally, during his criminal...