Harvard v. Cesnalis

• Decision Date: 01 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20-1012,20-1012
• Citation: 973 F.3d 190
• Parties: Dwayne HARVARD, Appellant v. Christopher J. CESNALIS; Daniel L. Beatty
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

973 F.3d 190

Dwayne HARVARD, Appellant

v.Christopher J. CESNALIS; Daniel L. Beatty

No. 20-1012

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued July 2, 2020

Opinion Filed: September 1, 2020

Massimo Terzigni (Argued), Joel S. Sansone, Law Offices of Joel Sansone, 603 Stanwix Street, Two Gateway Center, Suite 1290, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Appellant

Michael J. Scarinci (Argued), Daniel B. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, 1251 Waterfront Place, Mezzanine Level, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Appellees

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RENDELL, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a series of troubling events resulting in Appellant Dwayne Harvard being arrested and charged with six state crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to driving under the influence. Harvard brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the involved police officers in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, violation of his right to Equal Protection, reckless investigation, and civil conspiracy. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant police officers, concluding inter alia that no reasonable juror could conclude that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Harvard for the crimes charged. We disagree. We will vacate the District Court's grant of summary judgment for defendant state trooper Christopher Cesnalis as to the false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and Equal Protection claims. We will affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cesnalis as to the remaining claims. We will also affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant state trooper Daniel Beatty on all claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This incident began with an offer of a ride home. After leaving a sports bar in New Kensington, Pennsylvania where he had spent two hours watching sports, eating food, and drinking two beers, Harvard was flagged down by a stranger, Anna Mazzetti, who was standing outside a convenience store. Mazzetti asked Harvard for a ride home. She told Harvard that she was afraid of her boyfriend, who had been drinking and was physically abusive. Harvard agreed to give Mazzetti a ride home.

Upon arrival, Mazzetti's boyfriend, Steven Sutton, approached Harvard's vehicle and began yelling at Mazzetti, making threats, and trying to get Mazzetti out of the vehicle. Sutton, a White male, used racial slurs against Harvard, a Black male. Sutton attempted to enter Harvard's vehicle, but the doors were locked. Sutton then proceeded to pick up a cinder block and cocked his arm back as if to throw the cinder block through the vehicle's windshield. Sutton threatened to kill both Harvard and Mazzetti multiple times. Sutton brandished a large kitchen knife and told Mazzetti that he would "chop her up." App. 57. He also threatened to shoot Harvard. Sutton then told Harvard to "stay right there" because he "got something for [him]." App. 283. Sutton then returned to the house.

Believing Sutton to be a threat, Harvard called 911 to inform the police of the situation and ask what he should do. Harvard, afraid for both his and Mazzetti's safety, proceeded to exit the driveway while Mazzetti was still in the vehicle with Harvard. Sutton re-emerged from the house and jumped onto the hood of Harvard's moving vehicle, a Ford Explorer SUV. Harvard slowed his vehicle multiple times to allow Sutton to remove himself from the vehicle's hood. Rather than remove himself, Sutton began pounding on the hood of the vehicle and continued to threaten to kill Harvard. Sutton also continued to use racial slurs against Harvard and told Harvard that he would kill Harvard as soon as he stopped driving. Harvard noticed a bulge in Sutton's waistband, which Harvard believed to be a firearm. Sutton was still carrying the large kitchen knife. Harvard, still on the phone with 911, informed the operator that Sutton was on the hood of the vehicle and was threatening to kill him and Mazzetti.

With Sutton still on the hood, and while still on the phone with 911, Harvard drove onto the highway, where he drove around or above the speed limit. Before Harvard entered the highway, Sutton discarded his knife. Once on the highway, Sutton ripped the windshield wipers off Harvard's vehicle. Harvard remained on the phone with the 911 operator and requested assistance from law enforcement officers. The 911 operator instructed Harvard to take a specific exit from the highway, where law enforcement officers would be waiting. While exiting the highway, Harvard observed Sutton discard what he believed to be the firearm hidden in his waistband.

Following the 911 operator's instructions, Harvard exited the highway and reached the police roadblock, where the officers present had their firearms drawn. At that point, Harvard had traveled approximately ten miles with Sutton on the hood of his vehicle. The officers ordered Sutton to get on the ground and ordered Harvard and Mazzetti to exit the vehicle with their hands in the air. Sutton was handcuffed and placed into the back of a patrol car.

Defendant state trooper Cesnalis arrived on the scene shortly thereafter. Prior to arriving, Cesnalis was informed that Harvard had been driving on the highway with a man on the hood of his vehicle. Cesnalis was also informed that Harvard had contacted 911 and reported that he feared for his safety. Cesnalis first interviewed Harvard. Harvard informed Cesnalis of Sutton's violent and threatening behavior and told Cesnalis that he was afraid for his life. Harvard also said that Sutton had been holding a large knife and had continued to reach towards his waistband, where Harvard believed Sutton carried a firearm. Cesnalis did not respond to Harvard's explanation and made no effort to locate the knife or the firearm.

Instead, Cesnalis asked whether Harvard had been drinking. Harvard responded that he had consumed two beers approximately four hours earlier. Cesnalis noted that he smelled a "moderate" odor of alcohol and that Harvard was speaking rapidly and appeared sweaty. App. 384. Based on these observations, Cesnalis asked Harvard to take a Breathalyzer test, to which Harvard agreed. Harvard initially had difficulty completing the test. During his attempts, Cesnalis threatened to handcuff Harvard and said: "You understand me boy, I want you to blow into the Breathalyzer." App. 46 (emphasis omitted). After six tries, Harvard completed the Breathalyzer test, which indicated that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.064%, below the legal limit of 0.08%. Cesnalis nonetheless inferred that Harvard was under the influence of stimulants or narcotics because he was sweaty, speaking rapidly, and not directly answering questions. Harvard was handcuffed and taken to the police station for "safety reasons." App. 46.

Cesnalis interviewed Sutton next. At the time of the interview, Cesnalis was aware that Sutton had a criminal record and had prior encounters with the police. Sutton told Cesnalis that Harvard had hit him with a Ford Explorer SUV and that Sutton had then landed on the hood of the SUV. Cesnalis did not think Sutton's explanation for how he ended up on top of the SUV after being hit made sense. Cesnalis also did not observe any injuries to Sutton which would indicate that he had just been hit by an SUV. Nonetheless, Cesnalis did not ask any follow up questions to probe Sutton's explanation. Despite his incredible statement and Harvard's account of the incident, Sutton was not arrested or charged with any crimes.

Cesnalis then interviewed Mazzetti. Prior to interviewing Mazzetti, Cesnalis testified that he had already decided to arrest Harvard. Mazzetti corroborated Harvard's statements regarding Sutton's threatening and violent behavior. Specifically, Mazzetti told Cesnalis that Sutton was "crazy" and had threatened to throw a cinder block through the windshield. App. 423. She also said that she was afraid to get out of the vehicle and that Harvard slowed his vehicle to give Sutton the opportunity to remove himself from the hood, but Sutton refused to do so. She also "tried to tell [the officers] about the butcher's knife" and stated that Sutton was drunk and currently on probation. App. 258.

Cesnalis arrested Harvard and transported him to the police station for further investigation. Harvard again tried to explain that Sutton had a weapon and had been threatening Harvard and Mazzetti, but Cesnalis ignored these statements. Cesnalis then informed defendant state trooper Daniel Beatty, a Drug Recognition Expert, that Harvard had driven with a man on the hood of his vehicle. Cesnalis also told Beatty that Harvard had "admitted to drinking several beers" and that Harvard was "very talkative and sweaty." App. 540. Cesnalis further informed Beatty that Sutton had witnessed Harvard smoking crack cocaine while driving. No evidence supports this accusation.

Based on the information Cesnalis provided, Beatty ran a series of tests to determine whether Harvard was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Harvard's BAC at the time of the examination was 0.051%. Beatty completed a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE), in which he reported that Harvard was cooperative, his coordination seemed poor, his face was sweaty, he was very talkative, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, his pulse was substantially higher than normal, and there was a lack of smooth pursuit during the horizontal gaze nystagmus

. Beatty detected no distinct odors. Beatty's DRE concluded that Harvard was "under the influence of CNS Depressants and CNS Stimulants," which "impaired his ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle." App. 545-46. Beatty requested that Harvard consent to a blood test, to which Harvard agreed. The blood test later returned negative results for all tested...