Kauffman v. Barbagello
| Decision Date | 05 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:13-cv-00659,1:13-cv-00659 |
| Parties | CARL R. KAUFFMAN, III, Plaintiff v. OFFICER DANIEL BARBAGELLO, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Kane)
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 12.) The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants' motion in part and deny in part.
On March 21, 2012, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Plaintiff Carl Kauffman was riding his motorcycle east on Route 30 after attending an evening class at the Franklin County Career and Technology Center. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 11-12.) As the car traveling in front of him made a left turn, Plaintiff "casually passed on the right hand side." (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendant Daniel Barbagello, a Patrolman First Class for the Cumberland Township Police Department, observed Plaintiff as he passed on the left side of the car and turned around to follow him. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant Barbagello signaled for Plaintiff to pull over, and Plaintiff pulled over in the parking lot at the top of a hill. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) When Defendant Barbagello approached Plaintiff, he asked: "Were you trying to runfrom me?" (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff replied in the negative and explained that he "was just looking for a safe place to pull over." (Id. ¶ 17.)
Over the next several minutes, Defendant Barbagello "interrogated Plaintiff about his drug and alcohol abuse, and seemingly tried to trick him into giving answers that would suggest his guilt." (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff complied with Defendant Barbagello's requests and explained that he neither used drugs nor was drunk. (Id. ¶ 21.) At some point, Defendant Barbagello called for back up, and Defendant John Doe I arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. (Id. ¶ 22.) Defendants Barbagello and John Doe I searched Plaintiff's pockets, but they found nothing incriminating. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.)
Defendants Barbagello and John Doe I then began asking Plaintiff to perform sobriety tests. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff attempted to comply with each request but "became nervous because of the way he was being treated." (Id. ¶ 26.) First, Defendant Barbagello asked Plaintiff "to take ten steps heel to toe." (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff complied with this request "without any problems," but Defendant Barbagello "accused Plaintiff of failing the test because he took ten steps instead of three steps, as he claims he directed him to take." (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff apologized for mishearing the instruction. (Id. ¶ 29.) During this time, Plaintiff "began to tear up from the stress of the long work day and frustration at not knowing what to do to prove his innocence." (Id. ¶ 30.) Defendants Barbagello and John Doe I "began accusing and bullying Plaintiff, stating that because he was nervous and starting to cry, 'there [was] something wrong with [him].'" (Id. ¶ 31.)
Despite passing other sobriety tests, Defendants Barbagello and John Doe I administered a pen light test because Plaintiff appeared "teary-eyed and stressed." (Id. ¶ 32.) They informed Plaintiff that he failed the test "because his eyes were red." (Id. ¶ 33.) Defendants Barbagello andJohn Doe I then told Plaintiff that he had failed a sufficient number of tests to warrant his arrest and asked Plaintiff to take a Portable Breath Test, which Plaintiff passed. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) One defendant, who was not specifically identified in Plaintiff's complaint, then commented that Plaintiff "must be on drugs." (Id. ¶ 37.) Defendants Barbagello and John Doe I then instructed Plaintiff to call someone to pick him up. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff explained that no one was available to pick him up because "[h]is wife and three children were already sleeping and he could not wake up his wife to pack up all their children to come get him." (Id. ¶ 39.)
Because Plaintiff had no one to call to pick him up, Plaintiff alleges that the officers handcuffed him and "pushed him into the back of the squad car." (Id. ¶ 41.) Defendant Barbagello, however, informed Plaintiff that he was not under arrest. (Id. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff asked if he could leave, but Defendant Barbagello said, "No." (Id. ¶ 43.) Defendants Barbagello and Doe I then drove Plaintiff to the nearest Pennsylvania State Police Barracks to conduct a drug recognition evaluation. (Id. ¶ 44.) After arriving at the barracks, one of the defendants read Plaintiff his Miranda rights, and Defendant John Doe II "subjected [him] to another hour's worth of testing, where he retook several of the same tests he had taken while pulled over . . . ." (Id. ¶ 45-46.) During this series of testing, the officers "again bullied and attempted to trick Plaintiff into failing the tests." (Id. ¶ 47.) Plaintiff, in an attempt to ensure that he complied with the officers' instructions, "began repeating their commands." (Id. ¶ 48.) This repetition angered Defendant Doe II. (Id. ¶¶ 49, 51.) "At this point, Plaintiff became scared because the Defendants were clearly angry at him and he was afraid he was going to fail the tests." (Id. ¶ 52.) Plaintiff began to cry again. (Id. ¶ 53.) Defendant Doe II told Plaintiff that "[t]here was something wrong with [him] if [he was] scared." (Id. ¶ 54.)
None of the tests indicated that Plaintiff had drugs or alcohol in his system. (Id. ¶ 55.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Barbagello, Doe I, and Doe II refused to allow him to leave the scene. (Id. ¶ 56.) Rather, they informed him that he could either go to jail or go to the hospital. (Id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiff chose to go to the hospital, where he waited approximately one hour before he was told to take a urine test, which came back negative for drug use. (Id. ¶¶ 58-60.) The officers then attempted to involuntarily commit Plaintiff under Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. (Id. ¶ 61.) A doctor interviewed Plaintiff but refused to involuntarily commit him under Section 302. (Id. ¶ 62.)
At this point, "Plaintiff had been held for about [five] hours," and it was approximately 3:00 a.m. (Id. ¶ 63.) At some point, the officers left the scene and an unnamed defendant issued Plaintiff a citation for passing in a "No Passing Zone." (Id. ¶ 77; Doc. No. 3.) The doctor informed Plaintiff that the officers had instructed him not to allow Plaintiff to ride his motorcycle. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 64.) Plaintiff then called the Pennsylvania State Police to obtain more information, and Defendant Barbagello returned his call. (Id. ¶¶ 65-66.) Defendant Barbagello "still seemed irritated and [was] unwilling to answer Plaintiff's questions." (Id. ¶ 66.) Plaintiff asked him for the location of his keys and helmet, but Defendant Barbagello refused to answer this question, and instead told him, "I wouldn't ride for about a day." (Id. ¶¶ 67-68.) Plaintiff then asked: "If I walk up and get my bike and ride it home, will you arrest me?" (Id. ¶ 69.) Defendant Barbagello told him he could not answer that question. (Id. ¶ 70.) After Plaintiff again asked for the location of his keys, Defendant Barbagello told him that he put them in his helmet. (Id. ¶ 71.)
Before leaving, Plaintiff again attempted to call the Pennsylvania State Police Barracks to inquire whether he could drive his motorcycle. (Id. ¶ 72.) The police, however, would not answerhis question. (Id. ¶ 73.) Plaintiff then drove his motorcycle home. (Id. ¶ 74.) After spending most of his night held in police custody, Plaintiff was unable to go to work the next morning, and instead was forced to call off work. (Id. ¶ 75.)
The next day, Plaintiff contacted Defendant Cumberland Township to speak to someone about his treatment and spoke with the on-duty supervisor. (Id. ¶ 78.) The supervisor informed Plaintiff that he would need to speak to Defendant Timothy Biggins, a Sergeant for the Township Police Department, who would be in the office on March 23, 2012. (Id. ¶ 79.) Plaintiff called back on March 23, 2012 but was unable to speak to Defendant Biggins. (Id. ¶ 80.) The next day, Plaintiff called and left another message for Defendant Biggins. (Id. ¶ 81.) After not hearing back, Plaintiff then contacted Defendant Don Boehs, the Chief of Police. (Id. ¶ 82.) Defendant Boehs did not answer the call or subsequently return Plaintiff's call. (Id. ¶ 83.)
On April 2, 2012, Defendant Biggins called Plaintiff back and "became irritated and told Plaintiff that he already knew what happened from speaking to Defendant Barbagello." (Id. ¶ 84.) Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint with the Police Department, but Defendant Biggins refused to accept any complaint. (Id. ¶ 85.) Defendant Biggins informed Plaintiff that Defendant Barbagello did nothing wrong and that he would have handled the situation the same way. (Id. ¶ 87.)
Approximately one year later, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint against Defendants Barbagello, Biggins, Boehs, Cumberland Township, John Doe I, and John Doe II. (Doc. No. 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) that Defendants Barbagello, Doe I, and Doe II violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment; (2) that all defendants violated his right to substantive due process under theFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) that Defendants Biggins, Doe I and Doe II failed to intervene when Defendant Barbagello violated his right to be free from excessive force; (4) that Defendants Biggins, Boehs, and Cumberland Township failed to train officers; (5) false arrest and false imprisonment against all individual defendants under Pennsylvania law; (6) abuse of process against all individual defendants under Pennsylvania law; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all individual defendants under Pennsylvania law.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency...
To continue reading
Request your trial