Halter v. Hanlon
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 7:20-cv-00193 |
| Parties | DANIEL NORBERT HALTER, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER DAVID HANLON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Plaintiff Daniel Norbert Halter (“Halter”), who is proceeding pro se, filed this civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Harrisonburg Police Officer David Hanlon (“Officer Hanlon” or “Hanlon”) in both his individual and official capacities, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as well as his Fifth and Fourteenth Amended due process rights. Halter's complaint stems from a July 10, 2019 incident during which Officer Hanlon handcuffed and detained Halter in the back seat of his police vehicle while pursuing a fleeing suspect who had entered the rear of Halter's home. Officer Hanlon has moved for summary judgment on Halter's claims. Because the record is devoid of any evidence that Officer Hanlon used excessive force during this incident or otherwise acted unreasonably in handcuffing Halter, the court will grant his summary judgment motion.
The following facts are either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to Halter. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
On July 10, 2019, Officer Hanlon-while on routine patrol alone-observed a blue car speeding and passing other vehicles in a turn lane. (Officer Hanlon Affidavit ¶ 2 [ECF No 48-1].) Officer Hanlon activated his emergency lights and made a U-turn to initiate a traffic stop (Dash Cam Video[1] and Body Cam Video 1 at 19:44:44), but the car sped up, crossing double yellow lines, weaving through traffic, and driving through stoplights. (Hanlon Aff. ¶ 2.) Officer Hanlon pursued the car into a residential neighborhood, where the car made an abrupt turn into a driveway at 914 Chestnut Drive and parked behind the house. (Id.; Dash Cam Video and Body Cam Video 1 at 19:45:39.) The male driver was later identified as Ward Smith.[2]
Within seconds, Officer Hanlon, who had parked his cruiser outside the front of the residence, immediately observed a woman-subsequently identified as Smith's mother, Brandy Harper[3]-walking up the driveway from the rear of the house where the blue car was now parked (Body Cam Video 1 at 19:45:50.) Officer Hanlon demanded that Harper tell him the name of the man he was pursuing, but Harper feigned ignorance. (Id.) Officer Hanlon then instructed Harper to sit on the sidewalk while he investigated. (Id. at 19:46:22.) At first, Harper complied, sitting on the steps between the driveway and the front porch. But Harper then abruptly stood up and walked into the house. (Id. at 19:47:15.) Officer Hanlon called out for Harper to come back outside, but she ignored him (Id. at 19:47:29.) At this point, Officer Hanlon walked to the rear of the house and radioed in the license plate on the blue car as he waited for backup to arrive. (Id. at 19:47:29-19:48:10.)
As Hanlon walked back up the driveway to the front of the residence, Harper emerged from the front door of the residence, approaching the officer with her right hand behind her back. (Id. at 19:48:20-19:48:35) Observing this, Officer Hanlon ordered her to drop what was in her hand. (Id. at 19:48:35-19:48:50.) Harper complied, dropping what Officer Hanlon described as a makeshift weapon consisting of a razor blade taped to a butter knife. Officer Hanlon placed her in handcuffs and had her sit on the curb. (Id.) Harper's daughter was watching this scene unfold from the front door, and when Officer Hanlon ordered her away from the house, she complied. (Id. at 19:48:38.)
At this point, Plaintiff Halter exited the residence and verbally engaged the officer. (Id. at 19:48:40). Officer Hanlon initially told Halter to go back inside the residence but immediately reversed course and ordered Halter out of the house because, as he explained in his affidavit, he did not know what relationship Halter had with Smith and whether there were other weapons in the house. Halter verbally challenged the officer, demanding to know what his wife had done and asserting that he had the right to stay where he was because it was “private property.” (Id. at 19:48:41-54; Officer Hanlon Aff. ¶ 2). Officer Hanlon then handcuffed Halter and then directed him to the curb next to his wife. (Body Cam Video 1 and Dash Cam Video at 19:48:58.) At about the same time, a second police vehicle arrived on scene, and three or four more police officers approached the house. (Id. at 19:48:58-19:50:26.) The officers began investigating the car and searching for the fleeing suspect. (Id.) The assisting officers went down the driveway to the rear of the house. The officers then approached the rear entrance to the house and convinced Smith to surrender without further incident. (Id. at 19:50:42.)
After Smith was safely in police custody, Halter was placed in the back seat of a police vehicle.[4] (Body Cam Video 1 at 19:51:10.) About nine minutes later, Officer Hanlon walked over to that cruiser to speak to him. When Officer Hanlon opened the door, Halter immediately said, “These are too tight, man.” (Body Cam Video 2 at 20:01:07.) Officer Hanlon briefly questioned Halter about what had transpired with Smith and Halter's possible role in it. After this brief discussion, Officer Hanlon removed the handcuffs. (Id. at 20:01:12- 20:02:17.) When Officer Hanlon uncuffed Halter, a small indentation where the cuff had been is visible on Halter's right wrist. (Id. at 20:02:19.) Halter, however, did not mention that his wrists or arms were hurting at that time, nor did he appear to be in any pain or distress. Indeed, while the officer was explaining to Halter why he had been placed in handcuffs, Halter responded, “I understand . . . I understand.” (Id. at 20:01:15-20:01:23.) By this time, there were multiple additional police officers on scene.
All told, Halter was handcuffed for about 13 minutes, and in the back of two different police vehicles for just over 11 of those 13 minutes. Halter asserts that he was handcuffed incorrectly-one wrist “to the back of his other wrist” and that “he had to sit on them and the patrol car had only hard plastic as a seat”-which Halter alleges, without any evidence to back it up, caused him long-term nerve damage that apparently has been diagnosed by a doctor at R.M.H. Hospital. Officer Hanlon stated in his affidavit that he decided to handcuff Halter and move him away from the house to “preserve [his] safety and preserve the status quo/control the scene while [he] completed his investigation and attempted to apprehend the fleeing felon” because: (1) he was alone at the time with two uncooperative and argumentative individuals; (2) there was a fleeing felon inside the home; (3) Harper had come out of the house with a weapon; (4) he was outnumbered and his backup had not yet arrived; (5) the situation was “volatile and chaotic”; and (6) it was unclear to him who the original violator was, why he fled, where he was inside the residence, and whether or not he was armed.[5] (Officer Hanlon Aff. ¶ 2.)
Halter originally commenced this action against Officer Hanlon and the City of Harrisonburg, asserting four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) excessive force, (2) retaliation, (3) malicious prosecution, and (4) violation of his right to a speedy trial. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1].) The court dismissed Halter's original complaint without prejudice and gave him 21 days to file a motion to reopen the case with an amended complaint. (Order, Mar. 31, 2021 [ECF No. 37].) Halter filed a supplemental complaint that withdrew his claims against the City of Harrisonburg and instead asserted (1) excessive force and (2) due process claims against only Officer Hanlon-in both his individual and official capacities-based on the alleged constitutional violations described in his original complaint.[6] (See generally Supp. Compl. [ECF No. 38].)
On February 1, 2022, Officer Hanlon moved for summary judgment on Halter's claims against him. (ECF No. 47.) In support of his motion, Hanlon filed his affidavit (ECF No. 481), his July 11, 2019 Case Narrative (ECF No. 48-2), photographs of Halter's arms and wrists that were taken by the police department on July 10, 2019 (ECF No. 48-3), two police Body Cam videos, and one dashboard-mounted camera video, each depicting the incident underlying Halter's complaint (see ECF No. 53). The motion was fully briefed by the parties.[7]Because the facts and arguments of the parties are adequately set forth in their written submissions, the court does not require oral argument on the motion, meaning that Officer Hanlon's motion is ripe for decision.
Under Rule 56(a), the court must “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013). When making this determination, the court should consider “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with . . . [any] affidavits” filed by the parties. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Whether a fact is material depends on the relevant substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Id. (citation omitted).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists ...
To continue reading
Request your trial