Bland v. City of Newark

Decision Date15 August 2018
Docket Number17-2229,Nos. 17-2228,s. 17-2228
Citation900 F.3d 77
Parties Corey BLAND; Virginia Bland v. CITY OF NEWARK; City of Newark Police Department; New Jersey Division of State Police; State of New Jersey; Sergeant James Thompson; Sergeant Brian Murphy; Trooper II Thomas Espinoza; Trooper II William Legg; Trooper Miguel Holguin; Trooper Anthony Sardanopoli; Trooper John Oliveira; Trooper Stephen Riefler; Detective Thomas Del Mauro; Detective Brian Costa; Detective David Martinez; Sergeant Thomas Roe; Officer Danny Costa; John Does (1–100); ABC Entities (1–100), A Series of Fictitious Names, New Jersey State Police, State of New Jersey, Anthony Sardanopoli, James Thompson, Brian Murphy, Thomas Espinoza, William Legg, Miguel Holguin, John Oliveira and Stephen Riefler, Appellants in No. 17-2228, Thomas Delmauro, David Martinez and Ruben Torres, Appellants in No. 17-2229.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Pamela L. Brause, Peter Ventrice [Argued], Brause Brause & Ventrice, 276 Main Street, P.O. Box 232, Metuchen, NJ 08840, Lucas E. Phillips, Jr. [Argued], 134 Evergreen Place, Suite 301, P.O. Box 2487, East Orange, NJ 07019, Attorneys for Appellees.

Michael C. Walters [Argued], Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, Division of Law, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112, Trenton, NJ 08625, Attorney for All Appellants.

Gary S. Lipshutz [Argued], City of Newark Department of Law, 920 Broad Street, Room 316, Newark, NJ 07102, Attorney for Appellants Thomas Del Mauro, David Martinez, and Ruben Torres

Michael H. Freeman, Greenberg Dauber Epstein & Tucker, One Gateway Center, Suite 600, Newark, NJ 07102, Matthew J. Lynch, Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, Division of Law, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, Trenton, NJ 08625, Attorneys for Appellants State of New Jersey, New Jersey State Police, James Thompson, Brian Murphy, Thomas Espinoza, William Legg, Miguel Holguin, Anthony Sardanopoli, John Oliveira and Stephen Riefler.

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

This interlocutory appeal was filed by several law enforcement officers who were involved to varying degrees in a prolonged pursuit of a fleeing motorist, Corey Bland. The pursuit involved the use of lethal force against Bland, who sustained severe injuries after he was shot between 16 and 18 times. The question presented is whether the District Court committed legal error when it denied the officers summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Because the officers’ conduct was within the bounds of the Supreme Court’s relevant decisions regarding the use of lethal force, we will reverse.

I
A. Initial Pursuit

In the early evening of December 26, 2011, Newark Police received a report that a black Audi bearing Pennsylvania license plate number PZK821C had been carjacked at gunpoint. Approximately three hours later, New Jersey State Troopers James Thompson and Brian Murphy spotted the carjacked vehicle in Newark. Appellee Corey Bland was behind the wheel. The troopers activated their police lights, but Bland failed to stop. Instead, he accelerated and began to drive recklessly, running red lights and shutting off his headlights as he went. The troopers lost sight of the Audi, but an officer from the Summit Police Department began following it shortly thereafter. Bland nearly struck that officer’s vehicle and collided with an embankment, but he continued driving. He reached speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour, weaving in and out of light traffic.

State Trooper John Oliveira joined the chase in his marked police car after receiving reports that units from the State Police and Summit Police Departments were pursuing a carjacked vehicle. State Trooper Miguel Holguin,1 driving an unmarked Chrysler 300 accompanied by State Troopers Anthony Sardanopoli and Stephen Riefler, got involved after hearing a radio broadcast by Thompson and Murphy containing details about the carjacked vehicle. Bland continued to drive recklessly, frequently changing lanes, disregarding traffic lights, turning his lights off, accelerating to more than 80 miles an hour in an area with a 25-mile-per-hour speed limit, and driving over a curb in an empty parking lot, which caused the Audi to begin to smoke. Despite all this, the Audi was not disabled, and Bland continued to evade police.

B. Lincoln Park Events

Eventually, Bland began driving the wrong way down Lincoln Park, a one-way street. While doing so, he collided both with Thompson and Murphy in their marked state police car and an occupied Newark Police vehicle. When Bland hit the Newark police car, he was travelling approximately 25 to 35 miles per hour, and the impact caused the police car to strike an unoccupied parked car. As a result, the Audi, the police car, and the unoccupied car became entangled. State Trooper Thomas Espinoza, who had received a radio transmission about an ongoing pursuit involving a vehicle carjacked at gunpoint, arrived on the scene shortly after these collisions.

Numerous officers surrounded the Audi, including Murphy, Thompson, Oliveira, Sardanopoli, Espinoza, and State Trooper William Legg.2 Many of the officers ordered Bland to surrender, and one officer attempted to break the Audi’s window by striking it. During this encounter, the six state troopers fired a total of 28 shots, none of which hit Bland. Newark Police Officer Thomas Del Mauro was present at Lincoln Park, but he did not discharge his weapon.

There is no evidence in the record that Bland attempted to surrender at this time. Instead, he revved the Audi’s engine, spun its tires, and tried to get the vehicle to accelerate. Bland ultimately freed the Audi from the Newark police car by reversing and striking the now-unoccupied state police car a second time.3 He then drove over a curb and through a public park.

Upon exiting the park, Bland continued to speed through Newark with his lights off, at times on roads populated with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Officers and state troopers continued to pursue Bland, but Thompson and Murphy were no longer involved because their vehicle was disabled when it was struck by the Audi at Lincoln Park. During this portion of the chase, a state police car struck an occupied civilian vehicle. Bland eventually drove to the intersection of 18th Avenue and Livingston Street, where the most vigorously disputed series of events took place.

C. The Terminus of the Chase

At the intersection of 18th and Livingston, the unmarked Chrysler 300 driven by Holguin allegedly rammed the Audi, sending the Audi into scaffolding that surrounded a school. State Troopers Holguin, Sardanopoli, and Riefler exited the Chrysler 300 and moved toward the Audi, which remained entangled in the scaffolding. Holguin approached the driver’s side with Riefler standing behind him, while Sardanopoli moved to the Audi’s passenger side.

All three troopers began firing their weapons at the Audi. Holguin and Riefler testified that they initially discharged their weapons because Bland refused to comply with their orders to show his hands and to stop moving and because he repeatedly threatened to kill the officers. Sardanopoli stated that he fired his weapon after he saw Holguin firing. Legg—also on the scene—asserted that he fired because he could see Bland moving around in the Audi as Holguin and Riefler discharged their weapons. Bland, for his part, denied that the troopers shouted any verbal commands or that he made evasive movements, but he conceded that nothing in the record contradicts the officers’ allegations that he threatened to kill them.

After the first volley of shots, Riefler approached the driver’s side of the Audi, whereupon Riefler testified that Bland attempted to climb through the window while again threatening to kill him. In response, Riefler fired his weapon again. Espinoza also discharged his weapon, as did Newark Officers Del Mauro, Reuben Torres, and David Martinez, who had heard about the carjacking at roll call earlier that evening. The Newark officers stated that they fired their weapons because they saw the Audi moving or heard it revving, indicating that it was still capable of flight. Bland disputed this assertion, arguing instead that the Audi became inoperable once it crashed into the scaffolding. Oliveira, though present, did not discharge his weapon at the terminus.

The shooting finally ceased once Riefler observed Bland slumped over, and a Newark sergeant called for the officers to hold their fire. Bland was shot between 16 and 18 times, including in the face, chest, and abdomen. He suffered numerous injuries, including a traumatic brain injury

, respiratory failure, vision loss, and multiple facial fractures. No gun was recovered from the scene, and no officer observed Bland with a weapon during the course of the pursuit.

II

Bland and his wife Virginia filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division alleging (among other things) that Defendants violated Bland’s Fourth Amendment rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2(c). Defendants removed the case to federal court and sought summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity.

After oral argument, the District Court concluded that it was "not in a position to grant or deny qualified immunity." App. 78. Instead, it held that a jury must first decide two issues of material fact: (1) whether the Audi’s engine was revving (and thus whether the car was capable of moving) after it crashed into the scaffolding; and (2) whether the officers could see Bland’s movements inside the vehicle. The District Court opined that the Supreme Court’s decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014), issued three years after the car chase, may decide the "central" question of "whether or not Corey Bland was an active threat to the officers at the terminus so as to justify their actions in using...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • Lankford v. City of Clifton Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 29, 2021
    ...a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals.’ " James , 957 F.3d at 170 (quoting Bland v. City of Newark , 900 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2018) ). Thus, the court "first look[s] to factually analogous precedents of the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit" and the......
  • Jacobs v. Cumberland Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 10, 2021
    ...the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Bland v. City of Newark , 900 F.3d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 2018). In qualified-immunity cases, that "usually means adopting ... the plaintiff's version of the facts," Scott v. Harris , 550 ......
  • Ogrod v. City of Phila.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 12, 2022
    ...‘at a high degree of generality,’ which the Supreme Court has long instructed courts not to do." Id. at *10 (quoting Bland v. City of Newark, 900 F.3d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 2018) ). The court also observed that the plaintiff's position was that the defendants’ duty to intervene "exist[ed] for the......
  • Kelley v. O'Malley, 2:17-cv-01599-NBF
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 13, 2018
    ...known." Kisela v. Hughes , 584 U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 200 L.Ed.2d 449 (2018) (per curiam ) (citations omitted); Bland v. City of Newark , 900 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2018) ; Santini v. Fuentes , 795 F.3d 410, 417 (3d Cir. 2015) ; El v. City of Pittsburgh , No. CV 15-834, 2018 WL 3707420, at *9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT