Friend v. City of New Haven Police Dep't

• Decision Date: 29 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3:18-CV-1736(AVC)
• Citation: 490 F.Supp.3d 492
• Parties: Michael FRIEND, plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

490 F.Supp.3d 492

Michael FRIEND, plaintiff,

v.CITY OF NEW HAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., defendants.

Civil No. 3:18-CV-1736(AVC)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed September 29, 2020

Dan Barrett, American Civil Liberties Union, Elana Spungen Bildner, ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, Joseph Robert Sastre, The Law Office of Joseph R. Sastre, LLC, Bristol, CT, for Plaintiff.

David C. Yale, Elliot B. Spector, Hassett & George, P.C., Simsbury, CT, Barbara L. Coughlan, City of Stamford Corporation Counsel's Office, Stamford, CT, for Defendant Richard Gasparino.

Barbara L. Coughlan, City of Stamford Corporation Counsel's Office, Stamford, CT, for Defendant City of Stamford.

RULING ON THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Alfred V. Covello, United States District Judge This is an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983,¹ to redress alleged violations of the plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and for malicious prosecution, arising out of the plaintiff's arrest on April 12, 2018. The complaint also alleges claims for failure to correct a pattern of unconstitutional conduct and failure to train and supervise. The plaintiff, Michael Friend, brings this action against Stamford police sergeant Richard Gasparino and the City of Stamford (hereinafter "Stamford"). Friend, Gasparino and Stamford have filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the plaintiff's motion is denied and the defendants’ motions are granted.

FACTS

An examination of the complaint, pleadings, local rule 56 statements, exhibits accompanying the motions for summary judgment and responses thereto, discloses the following undisputed facts:

"Friend works several different jobs, including removing junk, and delivering food in the evenings for Grubhub and Uber Eats." He "has no criminal history and has lived in Stamford for his entire adult life."

At all relevant times, the defendant, Richard Gasparino was a police sergeant employed by Stamford Police Department, in Stamford, Connecticut.

The defendant, the city of Stamford is a municipality in the state of Connecticut.

"On April 2, 2018, Stamford applied to the Connecticut Department of Transportation's highway safety office for $57,600 to pay for a project entitled "FY 2018 DDHVE," standing for "Distracted Driving High Visibility Enforcement." The enforcement effort was "intended to enforce the law prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving to reduce motor vehicle collisions." Stamford "sought to stage the enforcement, in relevant part, on April 12, 2018 at the intersection of Hope and Greenway Streets," in Stamford, Connecticut. The DOT approved the request.²

On April 12, 2018, at approximately 4 p.m., Stamford police, including Gasparino, conducted the distracted driving enforcement operation. The plaintiff, Friend, saw "Gasparino standing behind a column on the side of Hope Street watching traffic coming north. While watching traffic from the side of Hope Street, Gasparino was radioing ahead to his colleagues whenever he alleged a driver to have been using a cell phone."

Friend "objected" to the manner in which police were conducting the operation and he "wanted to alert motorists to the fact that the police were up ahead." Friend made a sign that read "Cops Ahead." He "displayed the sign while standing on the sidewalk, 2 blocks from the defendants’ operation." Gasparino "approached ... Friend and took the sign from him." Gasparino told Friend that he was "interfering with our police investigation." Friend also states that Gasparino told him he should "leave the spot where he was standing." Stamford denies this fact. Both of the defendants state that Gasparino told Friend not to come back with another sign and if he did, he would be arrested. During this confrontation, Friend asked questions about Gasparino, "asked [ ] Gssparino why he was scowling at him; why he was so angry; and why he never smiles."

Friend went to his vehicle to retrieve another piece of paper so that he could make another sign. He went to a nearby convenience store where, according to Friend, he borrowed a marker and made another sign that read "Cops Ahead." He again displayed his sign in the vicinity of the defendants’ operation. Subsequently, an employee of the convenience store gave Friend a larger sign that also read "Cops Ahead." Friend displayed the larger sign.

Approximately thirty minutes later, at 4:30 p.m., Gasparino arrested Friend for "interfering" with the distracted driving investigation. "Gasparino thought that while Mr. Friend was holding up his sign on the sidewalk, ‘he was tipping off motorists and due to this officers were not observing as many violations as they should be.’ " Gasparino charged Friend with interference in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat § 53a-167a(a), a misdemeanor offense. Another officer brought Friend to the Stamford police station.

On April 12, 2018, while Friend was at the Stamford police station, sergeant Steven Perrotta was working as the desk sergeant. Only the booking officer interviewed Friend. He inquired about Friend's residence, employment, and "questions similar to the ones later asked of him by the bail commissioner," but the booking officer did not specifically inquire whether Friend could afford bail. Gasparino set Friend's bail at $25,000, without interviewing him and notified Friend orally of the amount. Although Friend states that Gasparino alone set his bail, Stamford denies this fact and states that the desk sergeant, sergeant Perrotta, "would have reviewed the bail set by Gasparino, as was his practice." At the time, Gasparino was a sergeant and was authorized to set bail and did so "several time a week." Some factors he considers are "the arrestee's criminal history, the severity of the charges, and ‘the way the person act[s].’ " Gasparino testified that in this case, he considered Friend's "actions, by his actions on scene, and his, honestly, his personality ...." The bail commissioner has modified Gasparino's decisions on bail on "several" occasions.

Friend states that he had no way to appeal this decision. Stamford denies this fact and states that Friend could have "request[ed] to speak with the [d]esk [s]ergeant or another Stamford employee about the bail ...."

Friend did not post the bail amount and was held at the police station.

In the early morning hours of April 13, 2018, at 1:30am, the bail commissioner interviewed Friend, as is required when an arrestee cannot post bail. Friend states that Stamford does not notify the bail commissioner³ if an arrestee cannot make bail. Stamford states that the commissioner "is notified when he calls and/or when he comes in." "The bail commissioner calls the police department a couple of times a night to see who is there." The commissioner questioned Friend concerning factors he considers in reviewing bail, including the severity of the crime, marital status, employment, schooling, residence, criminal history, the nature of the offense in regard to the arrestee's likelihood of appearance and the arrestee's "character and mental condition." The commissioner changed the amount of bail to zero and released Friend on a promise to appear. Friend was released at approximately 2 a.m.

While he was held at the Stamford police station on the evening of April 12 and early morning hours of April 13, 2018, Friend was not able to work his food delivery job. Additionally, because police confiscated his cell phone when he was arrested, Friend had to purchase a replacement phone after he was released.

Friend hired a criminal defense lawyer to defend him against the charges arising from the April 12, 2018 arrest. Friend attended two proceedings related to the charges. On April 26, 2018, Friend attended his arraignment in the superior court. On May 7, 2018, Friend attended a court proceeding on the charge and the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi. The court granted Friend's motion to dismiss the charges and the criminal proceeding against him concluded on that date.

The parties largely dispute the procedures and standard for setting bail in Stamford, and surrounding inquiries. Stamford's written policy provides that desk sergeants set bail for arrestees. Friend states that "by practice, Stamford has extended that designation to any employee with a job title of sergeant or above, including police officers working as sergeants in an acting capacity." Stamford denies this fact and states that "[t]he ultimate duty to set bail is with [d]esk [s]ergeants, but they may defer to others in certain situations." Stamford admits that supervisors may set bail, but states that such action is subject to review by the desk sergeant.

According to Friend, "Stamford does not require its employees to interview arrestees when setting bail" and individuals who set bail "are not required to inquire whether arrestees can afford bail." Friend also states that "[s]upervisors who set bail do not consistently review an arrestee's criminal history ...." Stamford, for its part, states that the deposition testimony Friend cites in support of his statement that interviews are not required, does not support that alleged fact. It states that "[t]he SPD processing officer(s) ask an individual arrested by Stamford police the questions set out in the Prisoner Processing Questionnaire. The questions include, among other things, where the individual lives, what his/her educational level is, whether he/she is married, and if he/she is employed, the name of his/her employer."

Stamford also denies that Friend has proper support for the contention that supervisors setting bail to do not regularly inquire about an arrestee's criminal history.

Once bail is set, Stamford police officer(s) notify an arrestee of the bail decision and "are not required to document the reasoning behind their ... decision." The parties dispute whether desk...