Pierner-Lytge v. Hobbs
| Decision Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-CV-567-JPS |
| Citation | 601 F.Supp.3d 404 |
| Parties | Amanda L. PIERNER-LYTGE, Plaintiff, v. Montrell E. HOBBS and Fredrick Gladney, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
John R. Monroe, John Monroe Law PC, Dawsonville, GA, for Plaintiff.
Jonathan E. Sacks, Ronald S. Stadler, Kopka Pinkus Dolin PC, Waukesha, WI, for Defendants.
On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff Amanda L. Pierner-Lytge ("Plaintiff") filed the present civil rights action, alleging that Defendants violated her First and Fourth Amendment rights during her arrest. ECF No. 1. On March 15, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 18. That motion is fully briefed, and the Court will grant it.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the "court shall 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." Id. ; Boss v. Castro , 816 F.3d 910, 916 (7th Cir. 2016). A "genuine" dispute of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court construes all facts and reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Inc. , 815 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2016). In assessing the parties’ proposed facts, the Court must not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility; the Seventh Circuit instructs that "we leave those tasks to factfinders." Berry v. Chi. Transit Auth. , 618 F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff is an adult female who resides in the City of West Allis and is employed as a private security officer. Plaintiff sometimes openly carries firearms in public. She believes that by openly carrying firearms she will bring attention to the Second Amendment. When Plaintiff openly carries firearms, she also carries a portable police scanner because people frequently call the police to report that she is carrying a firearm in public. People call 911 when Plaintiff is openly carrying because they are concerned about somebody walking down the road openly carrying a gun. Plaintiff admits that when she openly carries firearms it causes a disturbance in her neighborhood. For example, on October 29, 2019, Plaintiff had contact with the West Allis Police Department after they were called about her openly carrying an AR-15 rifle in Rainbow Park in the City of West Allis. On February 23, 2020, Plaintiff had contact with the Wauwatosa police department when she was openly carrying a rifle.
At issue in this case is Plaintiff's contact with the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office (the "Sheriff's Office") on Sunday, April 1, 2020. That afternoon, Plaintiff walked from her home to Rainbow Park with a rifle with a spike bayonet affixed to it strapped to her back. She also had a black semiautomatic handgun on her right hip, and a duty belt with pepper spray, a baton, and two pair of handcuffs on her person. Her duty belt was similar to those used by Sheriff's Office deputies, with the exception of a taser and radio holster. Plaintiff testified that she armed herself because she had heard reports of coyotes in the area, did not feel safe without a firearm, and wanted to draw attention to open-carry rights.
Montrell Hobbs ("Deputy Hobbs") is a deputy sheriff for the Sheriff's Office; Frederick Gladney ("Sergeant Gladney") is a Sergeant for the Sheriff's Office. At approximately 6:57 p.m., Deputy Hobbs was dispatched to Rainbow Park on reports of a person with firearms and other weapons sitting near the park's baseball field. Rainbow Park is close to Walker Elementary School. The witness who called the Sheriff's Office dispatch reported that there were "lots of kids and families around" at the time. There had been two other calls to West Allis dispatch regarding Plaintiff.
When Deputy Hobbs arrived on the scene, he spoke with one of the witnesses who had called 911 to report Plaintiff's activities. The witness informed Deputy Hobbs that Plaintiff was sitting on the bleachers near the baseball field and had been sitting there for approximately ten minutes, watching families walk by. The witness stated that Plaintiff was sitting on the bleachers and had a rifle, which made the witness and her family feel uncomfortable. She said that she had observed multiple families walk past Plaintiff.
Deputy Hobbs observed Plaintiff sitting on the bleachers near the baseball diamond, smoking a cigarette. He saw that she had a rifle with a bayonet. Deputy Hobbs waited for backup to arrive before approaching Plaintiff because he could see that she had a rifle with a spike bayonet strapped to her back. Once backup arrived, the officers approached Plaintiff, identified themselves, and explained the reason for the contact. Plaintiff recorded her interactions with the Sheriff's Office on her cell phone. Deputy Hobbs did not know that Plaintiff was recording, did not tell Plaintiff to stop recording, and did not interfere with the recording of the encounter. Plaintiff verbally identified herself to Deputy Hobbs.
The officers asked Plaintiff what she was doing in the park and whether she had a concealed carry license (a "CCW"). Plaintiff stated that she did have a CCW but that she was not sure if she had it with her. Plaintiff did not have any identification or a CCW on her at that time. The officers were able to confirm with dispatch that Plaintiff was issued a valid CCW. Plaintiff informed Deputy Hobbs that she was in the park exercising her Second Amendment rights and playing Pokémon Go (although Plaintiff admitted that she could not record her interactions and play Pokémon Go at the same time). Deputies told Plaintiff that they had received several 911 calls from people concerned about Plaintiff being in the park with a rifle.
Sergeant Gladney arrived on the scene as the supervising officer. When he arrived, other deputies were already interacting with Plaintiff. He was able to see Plaintiff's rifle with a spike bayonet affixed to it. Sergeant Gladney stated that it is "unusual" to see a person in the park with a spike bayonet affixed to a rifle.
At some point during the contact, but prior to an arrest being made, at Plaintiff's request, Deputy Hobbs and Sergeant Gladney consulted with the West Allis Police Department. The West Allis Police Department told the officers that Plaintiff had multiple similar contacts with that agency while openly carrying firearms, was "very into her [S]econd [A]mendment rights," and had been the subject of "Chapter 51" (mental health detention) proceedings on six different occasions. The West Allis Police Department informed Hobbs and Gladney that, in the past, Plaintiff had resisted arrest and made threats to officers.
Plaintiff was instructed to slowly remove the rifle with the bayonet from her back and place it on the ground. She complied. Plaintiff asked if she was being detained; officers told her that she was being detained but that she was not being placed in handcuffs at that point. Officers collected Plaintiff's rifle, bayonet, handgun, and duty belt and turned them over to Deputy Hobbs. The handgun was a loaded Glock 17 9mm. The rifle was a Mosin Nagant, with a spike bayonet affixed to it. According to the parties, Mosin Nagants draw a lot of attention because they are very large rifles. The spike bayonet was sold to Plaintiff along with the rifle.
A spike bayonet bolts on to the end of the barrel of a Mosin Nagant. The bayonet bolts on through a hollow piece of pipe that allows one to mount it to the barrel but still shoot the weapon. The spike bayonet that was affixed to Plaintiff's rifle does not have a handle. Plaintiff's bayonet is described as a "spike" or "cross" bayonet, meaning it has four flutes and is designed for impaling as opposed to cutting. Plaintiff's bayonet is not like a sword or a machete; it is more pointed, or diamond shaped, as it goes to a point. The apex resembles a triangular type of weapon. The parties state that bayonets are used for hand-to-hand combat or other close-quarter combat and that they are designed to penetrate the human body to cause injury or death. Plaintiff's bayonet is approximately 14 to 21 inches long, and, when attached to the rifle, it totals five feet long.
Officers secured all of these items into evidence. The officers on the scene held Plaintiff's firearms for safekeeping—standard procedure for any arrest. Deputy Hobbs requested another deputy transport the secured weapons to the Sheriff's Office's Wauwatosa substation. There, the property was inventoried as it was part of the arrest.
Plaintiff was arrested for disorderly conduct while armed. Deputy Hobbs recommended that they arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct, and Sergeant Gladney and Captain Paul Thompson agreed. Deputy Hobbs was the arresting officer. The officers discussed and believed that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct while armed. They believed that she violated the last part of the disorderly conduct statute that prohibits "otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Deputy Hobbs considered that the otherwise disorderly conduct that tended to cause or provoke a disturbance was the presence of the bayonet. Sergeant Gladney believed that Plaintiff had engaged in disorderly conduct because they had received several 911 calls about her causing a disturbance in the park by her actions of walking around with a gun and bayonet and, as people put it, acting strange and bizarre. Sergeant Gladney was concerned about the bayonet because he had never encountered anybody open carrying with a bayonet before. In his estimation, there was no reason to carry the bayonet as opposed to just a gun. Sergeant...
To continue reading
Request your trial