Kauffman v. Daniel Bar Bargello
| Decision Date | 16 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-659 |
| Parties | CARL KAUFFMAN, III, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL BAR BARGELLO, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
For approximately five hours on the evening of March 21, 2012, two Cumberland Township Police Officers, Daniel Barbagello and Ryan Eiker, were confronted by a conundrum. A routine traffic stop of the plaintiff, Carl Kauffman, had become a riddle, a riddle of Kauffman's own making as Kauffman displayed what the officers perceived to be inexplicably odd behavior.
For Barbagello, Eiker and Kauffman this odd conduct, which included highly overwrought behavior, inappropriate anxiety, crying, and a failure to follow simple instructions, created an intractable dilemma. The objective facts gave the officers misgivings regarding whether Kauffman was in a state where he could safely operate a motorcycle, and the police were unable to determine the root cause of this agitated behavior, which potentially jeopardized Kauffman's safety and the safety of other motorists.
Presented with this riddle, conundrum and dilemma, the essentially undisputed facts show that police acted prudently, systematically addressing, and eliminating potential chemical, medical and mental causes for Kauffman's odd behavior before releasing him to return to his motorcycle. Thus, on March 21, 2012, these police officers found themselves navigating that " ' " hazy border between excessive and acceptable [conduct under the Fourth Amendment], " ' Brosseau, supra, at 201, 125 S.Ct. 596 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S., at 206, 121 S.Ct. 2151; some internal quotation marks omitted)." Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 312, 193 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2015). They were compelled to navigate this course due to the behavior of Mr. Kauffman, which by all measures was objectively disturbing and inexplicable.
Having navigated this course in a way designed to protect the safety of both Mr. Kauffman and others, the defendants are now accused of having failed to adequately protect Mr. Kauffman's rights during this law enforcement encounter. However, recognizing, as we do, that the doctrine of qualified immunity is specifically designed and intended to protect police officers from individual civil liability for conduct which falls along the "hazy border between excessive and acceptable [conduct under the Fourth Amendment], " Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 312, 193 L. Ed. 2d 255(2015), for the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, and this case be dismissed.
This case comes before us for consideration of a motion for summary judgment filed by the remaining defendants in this lawsuit, Officers Daniel Barbagello and Ryan Eiker, of the Cumberland Township Police Department, (Doc. 64.), and presents legal questions concerning the reasonableness of the detention of the plaintiff, Carl Kauffman, following a police traffic stop. The essentially uncontested factual background of this case can be simply stated: On the evening of March 21, 2012, the plaintiff, Carl Kauffman, was attending night classes at the Harrisburg Area Community College. Following his night classes, Kauffman left the campus, riding on his motorcycle. As Kauffman rode the motorcycle, Officer Barbagello, a Cumberland Township Police Officer, who was on patrol, observed Kauffman illegally passing two vehicles in a no-passing zone. Specifically, Kauffman passed the vehicles on the right shoulder of the roadway. As he followed Kauffman and attempted to pull him over, Officer Barbagello observed Kauffman driving behind the fog line and in the traffic way, continually teetering back and forth. Officer Barbagello followed Kauffman for approximately a quarter mile with his lights flashing before Kauffmanpulled over. When Kauffman finally stopped his motorcycle he pulled the wrong way into a one-way parking lot.
A traffic stop then ensued between Officer Barbagello, who was later joined by Officer Eiker, and Mr. Kauffman. In the course of this traffic stop, the police officers were confronted by what they perceived to be bizarre behavior on Kauffman's part. Kauffman appeared distraught and nervous, and his eyes were bloodshot, a potential indication of drug and alcohol use. Moreover, Kauffman was breathing heavily as the officers approached him, and exuded a thick flowery odor, which the officers suspected could be a masking agent used to conceal some other scent. Kauffman also struggled with simple questions, and it took several attempts for Kauffman to understand, and comply with, the police officer's request for his license and registration.
It is also essentially undisputed that Kauffman was emotionally overwrought and began weeping as the officer conducted this traffic stop. This behavior led the officers to ask Kauffman to submit to a field sobriety test, which he agreed to do. As part of this test Kauffman was provided simple instructions regarding tasks he was asked to perform. The officers found, however, that Kauffman's mental state was such that he could not comply with their instructions. Accordingly, police informedKauffman that he failed portions of the test due to his inability to understand and follow these instructions.
Presented with the enigma of Kauffman's confused and confusing conduct, police were confronted with a public safety dilemma. It is undisputed that the officers had a subjective concern that Kauffman could not safely operate a motorcycle in his agitated state of mind. The objective evidence regarding the state of Kauffman's apparent agitation throughout the evening of March 21, 2012 , which includes medical reports of Kauffman's presenting behavior as well as the accounts of the parties themselves, reveals that these subjective concerns were well-founded.
Confronted with this dilemma, the evidence discloses that the police proceeded in a prudent and systematic way to try to address these public safety concerns. First, the officers asked Kauffman if he could obtain a ride home from a friend or family member. Despite several entreaties by police to have a family member or friend assist Kauffman, the plaintiff consistently declined requests to reach out to others for assistance.1
Police also began a careful effort to ascertain what might be the root cause of Kauffman's behavior. First, at the scene police administered a Breathalyzer test administered to Kauffman. While this test showed no signs of alcohol intoxication, Officer Barbagello remained concerned that Kauffman was impaired in some fashion and was unsafe to operate a motorcycle late at night. Police also offered Kauffman and opportunity to contact someone to get a ride home, but he declined this offer.2 After consulting with his superiors, and speaking with Kauffman, Officer Barbagello offered Kauffman an opportunity to meet with a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, Trooper Bivens, who was trained as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to perform evaluations on subjects following a twelve (12) step scientific systematic process to determine whether an individual in impaired by drugs. Kauffman was then transported by police the State Police Barracks for this evaluation.
Trooper Bivens began this DRE evaluation by interviewing the arresting officer, Officer Barbagello, who explained that he had stopped Kauffman for passing two vehicles while riding on the right shoulder. Officer Barbagello further explained that after being stopped Kauffman was upset, forgot why he was stopped and where he was going, and gave signs of being under the influence during a field sobrietytest, but that no alcohol was detected in a Breathalyzer examination. Barbagello told Trooper Bivens that he believed that Kauffman was laboring under some impairment and feared injury of Plaintiff or others if he was permitted to operate his motorcycle. Trooper Bivens then performed a DRE evaluation on Kauffman at the request of Officer Barbagello. At the conclusion of this evaluation, Trooper Bivens concluded that Kauffman was not chemically impaired, but expressed a concern that he was suffering from some emotional or mental health issue.
Having now excluded both alcohol and drug use as root causes for Kauffman's troubling and agitated behavior, but harboring a continued concern that Kauffman was not fit to drive, Officer Barbagallo provided Kauffman the opportunity to call his wife, or the choice between being transported to the jail or the hospital. Kauffman declined to contact his wife, and instead chose to be transported to the hospital where he underwent a mental health evaluation. Staff who assessed Kauffman at the hospital characterized his behavior as very bizarre, noting that Kauffman was tearful, emotionally inappropriate and extremely anxious throughout the assessment. Ultimately Kauffman was diagnosed as suffering from anxiety and a stress reaction, but it was determined that Kauffman's condition did not meet the exacting standards for involuntary mental health commitment under state law, and he was released.
Following this episode, Kauffman filed the instant lawsuit which named Officers Eiker and Barbagello as defendants, and alleged that the police conduct violated Kauffman's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as constituting common law torts under Pennsylvania law. (Doc. 1.) Following discovery, these remaining defendants have now moved for summary judgment on these claims, arguing in part that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability in this case because Kauffman has not shown that their conduct violated clearly established constitutional norms. (Doc. 64.) This motion is fully briefed by the parties and is, therefore, ripe for resolution.
For the reasons set forth below, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial