DelaCruz v. Borough of Hillsdale
Decision Date | 12 April 2005 |
Parties | Alberto DELACRUZ and Lenita DelaCruz, his wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross-Petitioners, v. BOROUGH OF HILLSDALE, Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, Borough of Saddle River, Township of Washington, Police Department of the Borough of Hillsdale, Police Department of the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, Police Department of the Township of Saddle River, Police Department of the Township of Washington, Officer Robert Labianca, Officer Frank Novakowski, Sergeant Robert Breese, Officer Eugene Schultz and Sergeant Robert Orr, Defendants-Petitioners and Cross-Respondents, and John Does 1-10 (said names being fictitious), Defendants. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Christopher C. Botta, Ramsey, NE, argued the cause for appellants and cross respondents (Botta & Carver, attorneys).
Richard S. Lehrich, Cranford, argued the cause for respondents and cross appellants.
Karen L. Jordan, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, State of New Jersey (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).
These cross-appeals require that we address two discrete but related issues: (1) does the verbal threshold of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), apply to common law false arrest/false imprisonment claims against police officers, and (2) does a police officer's subjective good faith raise a defense to causes of actions for state law false arrest/false imprisonment and under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (§ 1983).
We hold that the Tort Claims Act's verbal threshold applies to common law false arrest/false imprisonment claims. We further hold that, under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3, a police officer's subjective good faith belief as to the propriety of his/her actions is irrelevant as to liability for any false arrest or false imprisonment claims. In false arrest/false imprisonment cases, the only relevant inquiry is whether, on an objective basis, the police officer's actions were proper. We also hold that a police officer's subjective good faith belief may not constitute a defense at trial to a § 1983 Federal Civil Rights Act claim when the police officer's actions are not otherwise shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Starting in early 1997, several neighboring Bergen County communities suffered from a series of burglaries that led local law enforcement officials to believe that their communities were being targeted by a band of professional burglars. Among the affected communities were the Borough of Saddle River, the Borough of Hillsdale, the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, and the Township of Washington. In an effort to stem, if not stop, this plague, the Saddle River Police Department, with the assistance of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, spearheaded a multi-jurisdictional task force designed to speed up the police response time to burglaries as well as to minimize the delays inherent in fractionalized law enforcement efforts that cross municipal boundaries. This task force was to be simple in its operation: once a burglary was reported, the police forces of the contiguous communities would form a cordon around the victimized community in an effort to catch the culprits as they tried to escape.
The early evening of October 24, 1997 brought with it two burglaries in Saddle River, the first one block away from the second. The Saddle River Police Department triggered the task force response, and officers from the surrounding communities of Waldwick, Allendale, Woodcliff Lake, Montvale, Ho-Ho-Kus, Washington Township, Hillsdale, Mahwah, and Ramsey formed a cordon around Saddle River's borders. Also brought in were the services of a helicopter from the Sheriff's Department of neighboring Rockland County.
Sergeant (later Lieutenant) Robert Breese of the Saddle River Police Department was responsible for coordinating that evening's law enforcement efforts. Immediately after responding to yet a third burglary call of that evening, Sergeant Breese was dispatched to a location approximately one-half mile away where officers of the Ho-Ho-Kus, Hillsdale, and Washington Township police departments had stopped a white van and detained its occupants. When Sergeant Breese arrived at the location of the stop, the driver of the white van, plaintiff Alberto DelaCruz, was handcuffed behind his back and face down on the ground.
Plaintiff, then a 45-year-old self-employed air conditioning, heating, ventilation and refrigeration contractor and the married father of three children, had just completed two days of work at the home of plaintiff's customer, a Saddle River physician. As plaintiff and his co-workers were leaving the worksite, the customer returned home and, pulling into the driveway, asked plaintiff, who was driving, in which direction he was heading. When plaintiff explained where he was going, the customer told plaintiff that there was a police checkpoint along that route — the flashing lights of the checkpoint were visible from the driveway — and recommended that plaintiff turn in the opposite direction to spare himself what looked like a twenty-minute delay. Plaintiff thanked his customer for the suggestion and headed in the opposite direction from the checkpoint.
Shortly after turning in the direction the customer recommended, plaintiff saw the flashing lights of a police car in his rear view mirror. Plaintiff testified at trial as follows:
After explaining that he had his driver's license, registration card and proof of insurance all in order but was never asked for them, plaintiff testified concerning his earlier experiences with law enforcement authorities:
Plaintiff described the length and conclusion of the exchange as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. City of Newark
...or dismemberment where the medical treatment expenses are in excess of $3,600.00.N.J.S.A. § 59:2-2(b); see also DelaCruz v. Borough of Hillsdale, 183 N.J. 149, 162 (N.J. 2005) (referring to this subsection as the "verbal threshold requirement"). The Complaint asserts that on the evening of ......
-
Lozano v. New Jersey
...v. Borough of Hillsdale, 365 N.J. Super. 127, 149-50, 838 A.2d 498, 511-12 (App. Div. 2004), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 183 N.J. 149, 870 A.2d 259 (2005). Although arrests may be wrongful because they fail to conform to state regulations, "[t]he false arrest cases typically deal with sit......
-
Walker v. City of Newark
...or dismemberment where the medical treatment expenses are in excess of $3,600.00.N.J.S.A. § 59:2-2(b); see also DelaCruz v. Borough of Hillsdale, 183 N.J. 149, 162 (N.J. 2005) (referring to this subsection as the "verbal threshold requirement"). The Complaint asserts that on the evening of ......
-
Nieves v. Office of the Pub. Defender
...within the TCA's limitation on recovery for pain and suffering in N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). The court relied on DelaCruz v. Borough of Hillsdale, 183 N.J. 149, 164-65, 870 A.2d 259 (2005), in which the Court applied the TCA to a claim for false imprisonment filed against arresting police officers......