Toledo Police Patrolman's Ass'n v. City of Toledo, 89-3524
| Citation | 904 F.2d 36 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-3524,89-3524 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. TOLEDO POLICE PATROLMAN'S ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF TOLEDO, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Before WELLFORD and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and HORACE W. GILMORE, District Judge. *
Pursuant to an internal affairs investigation into an assault committed in Toledo, Ohio, two Toledo police sergeants picked up two Toledo police officers at their homes, brought them to the police station, and questioned them. The two police officers, along with the police union, on behalf of all similarly situated police officers, sued the two sergeants, the Toledo Police Chief, various Toledo city officials, and the city of Toledo itself, alleging that the sergeants' actions violated the police officers' constitutional rights.
The district court directed a verdict for the Police Chief, city officials, and the city, finding that the sergeants' actions were not based on a municipal policy. The district court granted judgment NOV for the two sergeants, finding that they did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to immunity for their actions. The district court also imposed sanctions against the plaintiffs for a discovery violation. The plaintiffs appealed all three rulings. Finding no error in the decision of the district court, we affirm it in all respects.
On or about September 3, 1986, a pedestrian was assaulted in a park in Toledo, Ohio. On that evening, Officers Charles Nearhood and David O'Brien of the Toledo Police Department were assigned as partners in a van to patrol a section of Toledo that included the park.
Sergeant Ronald Navarro of the Toledo Police Department was assigned to investigate the assault. During the course of the investigation, one witness stated that he had seen two police officers "using their night sticks to hit a black male." Another witness indicated that he had observed a van in a parking lot along the side of the park, and presumed that it was a police van; however, it apparently did not have Toledo police markings.
On September 20, 1986, Navarro interviewed both Nearhood and O'Brien in connection with the investigation. At that time, Navarro reviewed the "dispatch cards" and the officers' activities for the night of September 3. On September 22, 1986, both officers were ordered to report to Internal Affairs. At that time, Lt. Thomas Gulch asked them to complete a supplemental report about their activities.
On September 24, 1986, Deputy Chief of Police Vetter determined that it was necessary to interview all members of van patrols immediately, beginning with Nearhood and O'Brien. On that day, both Nearhood and O'Brien were on leave, and were not scheduled to return for two days. Deputy Chief Vetter determined that questioning could not be delayed that long. Both Nearhood and O'Brien admit that Toledo police officers are subject to being recalled to active duty at any time.
That same afternoon, Navarro and Sgt. Frank Stiles went to Nearhood's home and ordered him to get dressed and come downtown with them. Nearhood offered to drive, but Navarro and Stiles rejected this suggestion. Navarro, Stiles, and Nearhood then drove to O'Brien's home.
While Nearhood waited in the car, Navarro and Stiles went into O'Brien's home and asked O'Brien to come downtown with them. O'Brien had apparently finished playing a game of tennis, and wanted to shower first. Navarro and Stiles refused to allow him to do this, and after several protestations by O'Brien, O'Brien got dressed and went to the Toledo Safety Building with Navarro, Stiles, and Nearhood.
Nearhood and O'Brien were taken through the basement of the building (a route apparently used to escort prisoners into the building) and into an interrogation room which is commonly used as a holding cell for prisoners. This interrogation room is in a different part of the Safety Building from the Internal Affairs Section, the site of the previous interviews.
Apparently, Nearhood and O'Brien were interviewed separately. Stiles indicated to Nearhood that the interview was to be taped. Nearhood requested either that he be given a Miranda warning, or that he be allowed to talk with a representative from the Toledo Police Patrolman's Association, Local 10, I.U.P.A., the local police union. Initially, Stiles stated that the president of the police union would be present. A short time later, however, Navarro told Nearhood that he had spoken with John Mason, the Chief of Police, who concluded that Nearhood did not have the right to have a union representative present, since this was a "criminal investigation."
O'Brien asserts that, during his interview, Stiles and Navarro attempted to "intimidate" him by telling him that he was involved in a felonious assault investigation which could turn into a homicide investigation. No criminal or administrative charges, however, were brought against either O'Brien or Nearhood. Both O'Brien and Nearhood, ultimately, after protest, received overtime pay for the hours involved in transportation and questioning.
On October 8, 1986, the police union, O'Brien, and Nearhood, on behalf of all similarly situated police officers, sued Stiles, Navarro, Mason, the City of Toledo, and various city officials for deprivation of liberty without due process of law and for an unreasonable seizure. The plaintiffs also sued for the tort of false arrest under Ohio law.
The defendants filed a motion to compel discovery on January 27, 1988. Apparently, the defendants served this motion in a large box of documents which, although related to the case, were unrelated to the specific motion. Plaintiffs apparently overlooked the motion and failed to respond. On February 23 the court ordered plaintiffs to produce the requested discovery by February 28, but the plaintiffs still did not respond. Defendants filed a motion for sanctions on March 3, 1988, premised on plaintiffs' failure to respond to their motion to compel discovery. Apparently, plaintiffs provided the discovery on March 10. On March 18, however, the court granted the defendants' motion for sanctions.
The case went to trial. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, defendants moved for a directed verdict. They argued that, inter alia, no policy or custom existed which would implicate Mason, the city of Toledo or city officials in the actions of Stiles and Navarro. The court directed a verdict for these defendants.
The case against Stiles and Navarro proceeded to the jury. The jury found that these police sergeants had violated the plaintiffs' fourth and fourteenth amendment rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The jury, however, returned a verdict for the defendants on the plaintiffs' false arrest claims under Ohio law. The defendants then moved for judgment NOV.
The court granted defendants' motion for judgment NOV, stating that the interview occurred in the employment context, and that any constitutional rights that were violated in this context were not so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Kast v. The Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm'n, Civil Action No. 09-4575.
...536, 538 (8th Cir.2007)(police have an official duty to cooperate in an internal investigation); Toledo Police Patrolman's Ass'n v. City of Toledo, 904 F.2d 36 (6th Cir.1990)(unpublished)(relying, in part, on Toledo Municipal Code). 99(R. Doc. 41, Ex. A(1), Final Report of GNOEC Investigati......