Jeanty v. City of Miami, Case No. 10–20513–CV.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10–20513–CV. |
| Citation | 876 F.Supp.2d 1334 |
| Parties | Gary JEANTY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a political subdivision; Officer Carlos Antunez, in his individual and official capacity; Miami-Dade County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida; Officer Cynthia Lendore, in her individual and official capacity; and Officer Orlando Lopez, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dorothy Frances Easley, Easley Appellate Practice PLLC, Johanna G. Roth, Jon Michael Herskowitz, The Herskowitz Law Firm, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Julie Ofelia Bru, Christopher Allan Green, Miami City Attorney's Office, Johanna G. Roth, Jon Michael Herskowitz, The Herskowitz Law Firm, Marlon D. Moffett, Assistant County Attorney, Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.E. 145, 148, 169) AS TO PLAINTIFF'S SECTION 1983 CLAIMS, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATE–LAW CLAIMS, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATE–LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT, AND CLOSING CASE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (D.E. 145, 1/30/12; D.E. 148, 1/30/12; D.E. 169, 2/16/12), Plaintiffs Responses (D.E. 176, 2/27/12; D.E. 177, 2/27/12; D.E. 184, 3/1/12), and Defendants' Replies (D.E. 198, 3/22/12; D.E. 199, 3/22/12; D.E. 200, 3/26/12). Having considered the Motions, Responses, Replies, related pleadings, and the record, the Court finds as follows.
The record evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, reveals the following.
Plaintiff Gary Jeanty is the president and owner of the Security Enforcement Authority (“SEA”), a security services company. (Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, D.E. 178 at ¶ III.A.1.) SEA contracted to provide security services for the Villa de Campo Condominiums. ( Id. at ¶ III.A.2.) The Villa de Campo Condominium complex is located outside Miami in Miami–Dade County. ( Id.)
The Villa de Campo Condominium Association prohibits motorists from parking on the grass of the premises. ( Id.) SEA security guards enforce this policy by placing parking violation stickers on any improperly-parked vehicles. ( Id.)
On the morning of March 10, 2008, SEA security guard George Ristic placed a violation sticker on a car parked on the grass. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.4.) The car belonged to Defendant City of Miami Police Officer Carlos Antunez. ( Id.) Antunez approached Ristic later that morning. ( Id.) Antunez was in uniform and driving his City of Miami police cruiser. ( Id.) He was visibly angry. ( Id.) Ristic explained that it was his responsibility to place violation stickers on any cars parked on the grass. ( Id.) Antunez threatened to arrest Ristic or any other employee he caught placing violation stickers on his car. ( Id.) Antunez took out his citation book and said, “You want to put tickets, I can put tickets too.” ( Id.) Antunez wrote and issued to Ristic three traffic citations. ( Id.) Ristic called Jeanty for assistance, but Antunez forced Ristic to hang up the phone. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.5.)
Three days later, on March 13, 2008, Antunez confronted SEA security guard Oralus Agustin. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.7.) Antunez was in uniform and driving his cruiser. ( Id.) Antunez told Agustin that he was going to arrest anyone he caught driving an SEA truck. ( Id.) Agustin called Jeanty for help, and Jeanty drove to the scene in his car. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.8.)
When he arrived, Jeanty parked his car within a crosswalk and within thirty feet of a stop sign. (Defendant Antunez's Statement of Facts, D.E. 148 at ¶¶ 7, 18.) The tags on Jeanty's car were expired as of October 27, 2007. (Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, D.E. 178 at ¶ I.11.)
Jeanty exited his vehicle and proceeded toward Antunez. (Id.) Jeanty identified himself and asked Antunez what the problem was. (Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, D.E. 178 at ¶ I.8.) Antunez was yelling and threatening arrest, so Jeanty called the Miami–Dade dispatch for assistance. (Id.) At some point Jeanty ended the phone call and walked back to his car. (Id. at ¶ I.9.)
Antunez then got into his own vehicle, pulled up behind Jeanty's, and activated his cruiser lights. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.9) Antunez removed Jeanty from his car and placed him in a spread-eagle position on the back of the cruiser. ( Id.) Antunez fidgeted with his handgun and ultimately ordered Jeanty to sit down. ( Id.)
Miami–Dade County Police Officers Orlando Lopez and Cynthia Lendore arrived soon thereafter. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.10.) According to Lopez and Lendore, Antunez was behaving unprofessionally and antagonistically. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.11.) Antunez told them that Jeanty was being arrested for an expired tag. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.10.) Lopez and Lendore handcuffed Jeanty and transported him to the Miami–Dade County Jail. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.15.)
Antunez prepared an arrest affidavit listing “expired reg. for more than 6 months” as the basis of the arrest. (Arrest Affidavit, D.E. 147–4 at 1.) Miami–Dade County Police Sergeant Vince Atherley notarized the arrest affidavit. (Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, D.E. 178 at ¶ III.B.16.) Jeanty was detained for approximately twenty-eight hours. ( Id. at ¶ III.B.17.)
The City of Miami Police Internal Affairs Division later investigated the incident. ( Id. at ¶ III.C.22.) The Internal Affairs Division found no probable cause to support Jeanty's arrest. ( Id.) The Division reasoned that driving with an expired registration is arrestable only if the registration has been expired for over six months and the driver has committed a previous offense. ( Id.) Jeanty's registration was expired for only four months and eighteen days at the time of his arrest, and Antunez failed to properly verify Jeanty's registration status before arresting him. ( Id.) The Division also found that Antunez had improperly patrolled beyond his jurisdiction and that his actions toward Jeanty and Ristic were retaliatory in nature. ( Id.)
Jeanty initiated this civil rights action in February 2010. Jeanty's Complaint sets forth the following allegations against Defendants:
Defendants move for summary judgment in three separate motions. ( See D.E. 148, 169, 145.)
Antunez argues, in relevant part, that Jeanty's Section 1983 false-arrest claims fail because the arrest was supported by probable cause. Antunez argues that although there may have been insufficient probable cause to arrest Jeanty for driving with an expired registration, probable cause did exist to arrest Jeanty for other infractions—specifically, parking within a crosswalk and parking within thirty feet of a stop sign. Accordingly, Antunez argues that no unlawful arrest or constitutional deprivation occurred in the first instance.
Lopez and Lendore argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were reasonable in light of the “fellow officer rule.” They argue that they could reasonably rely on the information conveyed by Antunez in arresting Jeanty for either driving with an expired registration or other uncharged offenses. They further argue that Florida law bars civil liability of police officers for assisting arrest. In addition, Miami–Dade County argues that it is entitled to sovereign immunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoefling v. City of Miami
... ... CITY OF MIAMI, Ricardo Roque, and Jose Gonzalez, Defendants. Case No. 1122358CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. Signed May 6, 2014. 17 F.Supp.3d 1229 ... ...
-
Hoefling v. City of Miami
... ... CITY OF MIAMI, Ricardo Roque, and Jose Gonzalez, Defendants. Case No. 1122358CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. July 13, 2012 ... [876 F.Supp.2d ... ...
-
Smart v. City of Miami
...ordinance, and that officer's failure to cite ordinance, either orally or in his arrest report, was irrelevant); Jeanty v. City of Miami, 876 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1342 (S.D.Fla.2012) (finding that false arrest claim failed as a matter of law where there was probable cause to arrest for a traffic......
-
Friedson v. Shoar
...detain the plaintiff where he stopped in the middle of a crosswalk in violation of a Florida traffic law); Jeanty v. City of Miami, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1344 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ("Regardless of whether probable cause existed to arrest Jeanty for the stated offense of driving with an expired r......
-
POLICING SUSPICION: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND "CLEARLY ESTABLISHED" STANDARDS OF PROOF.
...365 F.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004). (108) District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586 (2018); Jeanty v. City of Miami, 876 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1344 (S.D. Fla. (109) United States v. Velasquez, 271 F.3d 364, 366-69, 372-74 (2d Cir. 2001). (110) Id (111) Smith v. United States, No. 09-53......