Belisle v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 16 May 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:18cv514
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: FRANCES J. BELISLE, Plaintiff, v. LAURA BAXTER, et al., Defendants.

FRANCES J. BELISLE, Plaintiff, v. LAURA BAXTER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:18cv514

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

May 16, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on two motions: (1) Defendants Laura Baxter,¹ Michael Whittington, and Lawrence Costello's (collectively with Baxter and Whittington, the "Officer Defendants") Motion to Dismiss (the "Officer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 8); and, (2) Defendant Donald Kyles's Motion to Dismiss (the "Kyles's Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 10). Plaintiffs Frances Belisle and Pierre Belisle² (collectively with Frances, "Plaintiffs") responded in a single filing to both the Officer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Kyles's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) The Officer Defendants and Kyles replied. (ECF Nos. 15, 16).

The Court dispensed with oral argument because the materials before it adequately presented the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process.The Court exercises jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331³ and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.⁴

I. Factual Background⁵

Plaintiffs bring this eight-count Complaint seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for events occurring in March and September 2017 that began when Frances interacted with members of the City of Hopewell Police Department (the "Hopewell PD") at a school function held at Hopewell High School. Frances interacted primarily with Baxter and Whittington and the exchange resulted in Frances's arrest for disorderly conduct.⁶ Frances brings claims against both Baxter and Whittington.

After Frances's trial for disorderly conduct in the City of Hopewell General District Court—Criminal Division (the "Hopewell General District Court"), Pierre had a separate interaction with Kyles, a school bus driver who testified against Frances at trial. This interactionled to Pierre's arrest for obstruction of justice.⁷ Pierre brings claims against Kyles and Costello, the Hopewell PD officer who issued the warrant for Pierre's arrest. Frances also brings a claim against Kyles and Costello.

A. Factual Background Pertaining to Frances's Allegations

Baxter arrested Frances for disorderly conduct following an interaction between Frances and members of the Hopewell PD. The Hopewell General District Court later convicted Frances of this charge and she appealed her conviction to the City of Hopewell Circuit Court. Before Frances's trial on appeal, the Commonwealth Attorney dismissed the charge by nolle prosequi. Frances brings her six counts based on events that occurred between the time leading up to her arrest and the eventual dismissal of her charge.

1. Allegations Leading to Frances's Arrest

On March 25, 2017, Hopewell City Public Schools held an event at the Hopewell High School in which Plaintiffs' minor daughter participated. The Hopewell City Public School Board asked the Hopewell PD to assist with "the event to ensure the safety and welfare of the attending public." (Not. Removal Ex. A "Complaint" ¶ 13, ECF No. 1-1.) In doing so, the Hopewell PD established an entry point⁸ "inside the [h]igh [s]chool to block" entrance into the hallway. (Id. ¶ 14.) "The police randomly allowed some to enter the hallway through the [entry point]. Others were stopped and denied entry." (Id. ¶ 15.)

On the morning of the event, Frances brought both her daughters to the Hopewell High School and planned to escort her younger daughter to the classroom where the instructor had toldthe students to meet.⁹ Officers working at the hallway entrance initially told Frances that she could not accompany her daughter to the classroom, but eventually allowed her to do so.

Upon returning to the hallway entrance, Frances noticed that Hopewell PD officers, specifically Baxter, had stopped another mother from escorting her child. Plaintiffs claim that Frances told Baxter "that 8 and 9-year-old children 'can't be unsupervised and out of the line of sight of their parents. It is both a safety and liability issue.'" (Id. ¶ 19 (quoting Frances).) Frances then "opined that either parents be allowed to escort their children to a specific classroom or, in the alternative, that one of the many officers[] present escort the children to their required location." (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that "Baxter told Fran[ces] that no parents were allowed in the hallway and it was not her 'job to escort children.'" (Id. (quoting without attribution, presumably Baxter).)

Frances "countered that safety of the children was exactly Baxter's job and the main reason she was in the [h]igh [s]chool for this event was student safety." (Id. ¶ 20.) Baxter then purportedly "demanded that Fran[ces] leave the [s]chool or be arrested." (Id.) According to Plaintiffs, Frances "calmly demanded to know upon what grounds she was being evicted and, immediately upon asking that question, Baxter arrested Fran[ces], with handcuffs."¹⁰ (Id. ¶ 21.)Frances alleges that "Baxter never informed [her] . . . that she (Baxter) believed that Fran[ces]'s conduct was unlawful." (Id. ¶ 22.) Frances avers that the exchange between herself and Baxter, which "lasted less than one minute" left her "profoundly insulted, embarrassed, humiliated, shocked[,] and dismayed."¹¹ (Id. ¶¶ 23, 25.)

2. Allegations Arising After Frances's Arrest

Following her arrest, until Baxter identified herself as an attorney,¹² Baxter allegedly "refused to tell" Frances why Baxter arrested her, despite Frances's repeated questions. (Id. ¶ 27.) Then, "in front of many people," Baxter said that she arrested Frances "for 'disorderly conduct in a public place.'"¹³ (Id. (quoting without attribution, presumably Baxter).) However, "Baxter refused to tell Fran[ces] what Fran[ces] had done that supposedly constituted 'disorderly conduct.¹⁴'" (Id. (quoting without attribution).)

After Baxter placed Frances in handcuffs, Frances "went limp." (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs contend that Baxter and Officer Michael Redavid¹⁵ "dragged Fran[ces] . . . outside like a common criminal while Fran[ces] cried out for Pierre."¹⁶ (Id.) Frances adds that "Costello was also present" during this part of the interaction. (Id.)

After Baxter, Redavid, and Frances arrived outside of the high school, "Baxter told [Hopewell Police Captain] Whittington that she was taking Fran[ces] to jail." (Id.) Whittington, however, "told Baxter to take Fran[ces to] the principal's office. Baxter said 'no' and argued with Whittington for about a minute." (Id. (quoting Baxter).) Whittington ultimately ordered Officer Redavid to take Frances to the principal's office. Frances alleges that the police officers¹⁷ kept her in handcuffs for thirty minutes while holding her in the principal's office. She claims that due to her arrest, her eleven-year-old daughter was left unaccompanied during this time.

Pierre alleges that after witnessing the officers take Frances outside of the high school, he learned that Baxter and Whittington had taken Frances to the principal's office. Pierre went to the office. Pierre avers that he could see Frances in the office, still in handcuffs. Plaintiffs statethat "[a]fter almost twenty (20) minutes," Whittington entered the main office. (Id. ¶ 41.) "Pierre asked him why Fran[ces] was still hand-cuffed since the situation had been under control for a long time. Whittington told Pierre that Fran[ces] was still handcuffed because she was 'still under arrest.'" (Id. (quoting Whittington).)

3. Allegations Following Frances's Release

After talking to Pierre, Whittington presumably returned to the conference room where the officers held Frances. When Whittington emerged from the conference room, he told Pierre that Frances "was going to be released on a summons and that she and Pierre would be able to attend their 9-year[-]old's pre-performance." (Id. ¶ 42.) "Pierre advised Whittington to inform his Chief to save some money from the budget because Pierre was 'going to sue your (meaning [the] Hopewell [Police Department]) a** off.'" (Id. (quoting Pierre).) Pierre alleges that Whittington then "became highly disrespectful, took a step back[,] and nervously tried to activate his 'bodycam,' asking Pierre to wait a minute because he needed to record Pierre's 'threat.'" (Id. (quoting without attribution, presumably Whittington).)

After the officers released Frances, "Baxter and Whittington . . . refused to disclose what was the 'disorderly conduct' that Fran[ces] had displayed to justify her arrest. Whittington told Fran[ces] that he did not have to tell her anything and that she would be informed in Court about these details." (Id. ¶ 43.)

4. Publication of the Interaction Between Frances and Members of the Hopewell PD

On March 27, 2017, two days after the event described above, "the Petersburg Progress-Index published an online article entitled 'Hopewell parent handcuffed after incident at Fine ArtsFestival.'"¹⁸ (Id. ¶ 44.) The article said, "Hopewell Police Capt. Mike Whittington said that he understood that [Frances] had 'started getting disorderly with the officers' and yelling while they were engaged in closing off restricted areas. However, he noted that he had not personally witnessed the incident and that officers would have to review the body camera footage¹⁹ of the incident." (Id. ¶ 45 (quoting Whittington).)

On March 29, 2017, four days after the interaction between Frances and members of the Hopewell PD and two days after the Progress-Index article, "WTVR.com published an online article entitled 'Chesterfield mom arrested at school event says "excessive force" used.'"²⁰ (Id. ¶ 47.) The WTVR.com article quoted Hopewell PD Chief, John Koehane,²¹ as saying that he

had heard from Baxter and Whittington . . . [that] Fran[ces] was very loud, very aggressive[,] and belligerent to the officers. Th

...