Coles v. Carlini

Decision Date30 September 2015
Docket NumberCivil No. 10–6132 (JBS/AMD)
Citation162 F.Supp.3d 380
Parties James Coles, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nicholas Carlini, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Boyd Spencer, Esq., BOYD SPENCER & ASSOCIATES, 2100 Swede Road, Norristown, PA 19401, and, William P. Murphy, Esq., Two Penn Center, Ste. 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102, for Plaintiff Louis DeGailler.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, By: Joseph M. Micheletti, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL, P.O. Box 112, Trenton, NJ 08625, for Defendants.

OPINION

SIMANDLE

, Chief Judge
I. INTRODUCTION

In 2009, New Jersey State Troopers stopped a group of six motorcyclists who were riding on Route 70 in Vincentown, New Jersey, wearing jackets bearing “colors,” the marks or logos for motorcycle clubs to which they belonged. At the end of the ensuing 52–minute traffic stop, the motorcyclists were ordered to remove their jackets and were told that the police colors “blue and gold” were the “only colors you wear” on the highway. Three of the motorcyclists brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as various state law claims.1 Only Plaintiff Louis DeGailler remains in this case.

Defendants now move for summary judgment in full [Docket Item 213], arguing that DeGailler's claims must be dismissed because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, no constitutional violations occurred, and DeGailler has no standing to seek injunctive relief. In particular with respect to the § 1983

claims, they argue that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Defendants had reasonable suspicion that the motorcyclists were wearing illegal helmets; no First Amendment violation because the wearing of motorcycle “colors” is not protected by the First Amendment, and Plaintiffs were not actually deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights; and no equal protection violation because no fundamental rights were violated. They also argue that Colonel Joseph Fuentes should be dismissed from the case because there is no evidence that the New Jersey State Troopers had a custom or policy of unconstitutional stops of which he should have been aware. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims on the basis that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the notice requirements of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. N.J.S.A. 59:8–8

.

The Court heard oral argument on August 27, 2015, and received supplemental briefing thereafter. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2009, Plaintiff Louis DeGailler and five other individuals were riding in motorcycles on a highway in Vincentown, New Jersey. Defendants State Troopers Nicholas Carlini and Gregory Manuel saw the motorcyclists pass by and initiated a traffic stop. Carlini testified that he observed the motorcyclists wearing illegal helmets. (Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”) [Docket Item 213–2] ¶ 65; Carlini Dep., Def. Ex. 0 [Docket Item 214–5] 54:9–25.) The traffic stop began at 7:27 p.m. and lasted for approximately 52 minutes. (SMF ¶ 75.) Much of the vehicle stop and dialogue is on a traffic stop video in a State Trooper's vehicle (Def. Ex. U), transcribed into the Traffic Video Transcript (Pl. Ex. H).

After initiating the stop, Carlini told the motorcyclists to stay on their motorcycles and asked for their license and registration numbers. (SMF ¶ 76.) After asking several motorcyclists where they were coming from and where they were meeting up, he told the motorcyclists, “None of you have proper helmets. You don't have windshields either. Supposed to have a windshield on your bike.” State regulations require drivers who do not have wind shields on their motorcycles to wear goggles or a helmet with a face shield. See N.J.S.A. 39:3–76.8

. Carlini then said to one motorcyclist, [O]h, you got a windsheld. Supposed to have a windsheld as well. As well as a proper helmet.” (SMF ¶ 84–85; Traffic Video 19:33:15; Traffic Video Transcript [Docket Item 224–9] 5:10–23.)

Carlini and Manuel then returned to their car, where Carlini told Manuel that Manuel was “going to end up writing a bunch of tickets.” He told Manuel to write the tickets “nice and quick,” and to pick up the pace. (SMF ¶¶ 119–120; Traffic Video Tr. 11:3–5.) Carlini radioed dispatch to run each person's license and registration number and perform a warrant check and ATS and ACS check. (SMF ¶ 108.) Defendants Kristofer Gertsen, Erik Linder, and Thomas O'Connor are members of the State Police who arrived on the scene a little later. (Id. ¶¶ 98, 99, 122.)

The six motorcyclists were wearing jackets or vests adorned with “colors,” the marks or logos of the Pagan's Motorcycle Club or Tribe Motorcycle Club. (Counter Statement of Material Facts (“Counter SMF”) [Docket Item 224–4] ¶ 4). O'Connor informed Carlini that there were approximately 90 motorcycles at a bar up the road and that [t]hey're having a benefit for somebody's kid, man.” (Id. ¶¶ 116–17, 126; Traffic Video Tr. 24:9–10.) According to DeGailler, the group was on their way to a charity event at a bar in Vincentown, New Jersey, to raise money for a sick child. (DeGailler Aff., Pl. Ex. J [Docket Item 224–11] ¶ 18.) DeGailler further asserts that [I]t is the policy and custom of the Pagans Motorcycle Club to sponsor, attend and support charitable events.” He further asserts that Pagan's has supported the Philadelphia Toy Run held every year for the last 30 years, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and the Marine Corps Toys for Tots. (Id. ¶ 19.) At approximately 7:58, about 31 minutes into the traffic stop, Carlini said to an unidentified trooper, “All right. Are we going to use the blue and gold are the only colors that ride these roads?” The unidentified officer agreed. (Traffic Video 19:58:41; Traffic Video Tr. 27:8–10.) Blue and gold refers to State Police uniform colors. One minute later, Carlini reiterated, We're using blue and gold are the only colors that are allowed to ride on this road.” (Traffic Video 19:59:12; Traffic Video Tr. 28:6–8.)

At around 8:01 p.m., after discovering that there was a restraining order against one of the motorcyclists, Joseph Ballinger, Carlini walked back to the motorcyclists to obtain identification for Ballinger's wife, Kelly, who was riding as Ballinger's passenger. He told the group that it would be “a couple minutes.” He asked again, “No one wants to tell me where they're going tonight?” The motorcyclists did not respond. (SMF ¶¶ 140–42; 146–48; Traffic Video 20:01:01.)

Back in the car, Carlini was informed by dispatch that Ballinger's license was suspended. Carlini said that Ballinger was not going anywhere unless his passenger has a motorcycle endorsement. Dispatch informed him that the passenger did not have a motorcycle endorsement, and Carlini instructed Manuel to write an additional ticket for Ballinger. (SMF ¶¶ 152, 154–57.)

Further conversation ensued among the troopers. An unidentified trooper asked Carlini, “When we eventually go out there, what's our game plan for turning everything inside out?” Carlini responded, “Blue and gold are the only colors that ride on this road. You guys all want to leave here, you're going to turn your—you're going to take your jackets off.” (Traffic Video 20:10:35; Traffic Video Tr. 40:15–19.) Carlini agreed to take the lead.

At approximately 8:15, or about 48 minutes into the stop, the five defendant troopers approached the motorcyclists and told them that they were all receiving tickets for not having an authorized helmet. One motorcyclist requested a complaint form, to which Carlini responded, “Yeah, sure. Hold on, all right.” (SMF ¶¶ 165–66; Traffic Video 20:15:35; Traffic Video Tr. 44:1–10.) Carlini then said to the group, “Now, you're all going to take your jackets off. On this highway, these are the only colors you wear.” (SMF ¶ 167; Traffic Video 20:15:51; Traffic Video Tr. 44:12–14.) Neither DeGailler nor any other of the motorcyclists removed their jacket. DeGailler drove off without further delay.

At deposition, when asked whether motorcycle clubs have a right to wear their colors on New Jersey highways, Carlini responded that he thought “there's a constitutional right to wear whatever you want.” (Carlini Dep. 133:13–134:11.) Carlini testified that his command was related to law enforcement safety:

We knew there were many more motorcycles in the area. We knew we were dealing with a criminal outlaw gang. We knew that—and every trooper could tell you this that in the 1980s a Trooper Jacobs was shot in the face by a Pagan. When you encompass everything in the—what we know at the time, for our safety we wanted those jackets removed.

(SMF ¶ 170; Carlini Dep.108:23–109:7.) Carlini also wanted the jackets off to prevent violence between motorcycle gangs, because he knew “there were multiple gang affiliations in the area.” (Carlini Dep. 109:17–20.) Carlini testified that motorcyclists wearing “colors” indicated that they were on “official business,” which meant that they were “up to some kind of criminal activity.” (Carlini Dep. 110:8–16.)2

Carlini told Ballinger that he was receiving a ticket for driving while suspended and said, “I got no one else for this bike. So you're going to take your jackets off and I'm going to tow this bike.” (SMF ¶¶ 168–69; Traffic Video Tr. 44:18–24.) He stated again, “You want to take your jackets off? If not, this bike's getting hooked.” (Traffic Video 20:16:22; Traffic Video Tr. 45:10–12.) The motorcyclists made no move. Another trooper repeated “inside out.” Several seconds later, Carlini said, “I can stand here all night as well.” Ballinger's passenger then asked, “I can't get somebody to pick up the bike?” Carlini responded, “Nope.” (Traffic Video 20:16:42; Traffic Video Tr. 45:17–46:2.)

Carlini went back to his car to call for a tow truck and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Estate of Roman v. City of Newark
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 29 Enero 2019
    ...analogously to ... § 1983," we consider his New Jersey Civil Rights Act claims along with his § 1983 claim. Coles v. Carlini , 162 F.Supp.3d 380, 404 (D.N.J. 2015).6 Though the Defendants and our dissenting colleague do not challenge the Star Ledger article or the press release, we note tha......
  • Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Global, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 22 Febrero 2016
  • Brown v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 5 Enero 2023
    ...“Courts in this district have previously recognized that ‘the New Jersey Civil Rights Act is interpreted analogously to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.'” Id. Martin v. Unknown U.S. Marshals, 965 F.Supp.2d 502, 548 (D.N.J. 2013)). The Court has already determined that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated Fir......
  • L.C. v. Middlesex Cnty. Prosecutor's Office
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 9 Abril 2021
    ...safeguarded from public inspection[,]" such claims are procedural in nature and not cognizable under the NJCRA. See Coles v. Carlini, 162 F. Supp. 3d 380, 402 (D.N.J. 2015) (finding NJCRA does not provide for vindication of procedural due process rights, only substantive rights); Tumpson, 2......
  • 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