Rice v. Dist. of D.C.

• Decision Date: 24 February 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 09–310 (RMC).
• Citation: 774 F.Supp.2d 18
• Parties: Larry D. RICE, Jr., Plaintiff,v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

774 F.Supp.2d 18

Larry D. RICE, Jr., Plaintiff,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 09–310 (RMC).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Feb. 24, 2011.

Louis Fireison, Patricia H. Ley, Louis Fireison & Associates, P.A., Bethesda, MD, for Plaintiff.

Martha J. Mullen, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.

Police officers John Stathers and Derek Starliper entered an abandoned house in Northeast Washington, D.C. with their guns drawn and told everyone to “freeze.” When Plaintiff Larry Rice heard “freeze,” he was in a back room and he attempted to flee out the window. Officer Stathers entered the back room and stopped Mr. Rice from leaving. A struggle ensued, and Officer Stathers shot Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice was arrested and charged, but later the charges were dismissed by the prosecutor. As a result, Mr. Rice filed suit asserting constitutional violations, including the claim of arrest without probable cause, and tort claims including claims of false arrest. On the eve of trial, Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment with regard to the false arrest claims. Mr. Rice opposes. As explained below, the motion will be granted.

I. FACTS

Mr. Rice alleges that on April 23, 2008, he was in the back room of a house located at 5827 Fields Place, NE, Washington, D.C. He heard a police officer say “freeze” to Joseph Maxwell who was in the front room of the house. At that time, Mr. Rice opened the window in the back room and began climbing out. When he had managed to get his head and one leg out of the window, Officer Stathers entered the back room with his gun drawn. With his gun in one hand, Officer Stathers grabbed Mr. Rice's leg with his other hand. Officer Stathers shot Mr. Rice in the abdomen. Subsequently, the officers arrested Mr. Rice.

Detective Ali Roberts signed a criminal complaint against Mr. Rice on May 2, 2008, charging Mr. Rice with a violation of D.C.Code § 22–851(b) (intimidating, impeding, interfering with and retaliating against a government official engaged in the performance of his duties).¹ See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 35], Ex. A. at 1. On January 21, 2009, the Superior Court dismissed the felony charge at the request of the prosecutor. See id., Ex. B (Dismissal Praecipe).

As a result of the gunshot wound, Mr. Rice sustained severe injuries including a lacerated liver and diaphragm. He underwent emergency surgery and remained in the hospital for more than one month. He developed pneumonia while in the hospital.

As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Rice filed this suit against the District of Columbia, Officer Stathers, and Officer Starliper. The Amended Complaint includes three counts alleging false arrest:

Count VI—False Arrest (against Officer Stathers); Count VII—False Arrest (against Officer Starliper); and

Count VIII—False Arrest (against the District of Columbia).

Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 29]. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the Officers violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by arresting Mr. Rice without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See id., Counts XIX & XX. Defendants seek summary judgment on these claims.²

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Moreover, summary judgment is properly granted against a party who “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor and accept the nonmoving party's evidence as true. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In addition, the nonmoving party may not rely solely on allegations or conclusory statements. Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.Cir.1999). Rather, the nonmoving party must present specific facts that would enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor. Id. at 675. If the evidence “is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

The elements of a common law false arrest claim and a claim for an unreasonable arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment ³ are “practically identical.” Barnhardt v. District of Columbia, 723 F.Supp.2d 197, 214 (D.D.C.2010). The requisite elements in both claims are that the plaintiff was arrested against his will and that the arrest was unlawful. McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1413 (D.C.Cir.1984). While unlawfulness is “presumed” where the arrest was without a warrant,⁴ the presumption is rebutted if the defendant can show that there was probable cause for the arrest. Id.; see also Magwood v. Giddings, 672 A.2d 1083, 1086 (D.C.1996) (probable cause is a valid defense to a claim of false arrest).

Two key exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement are at issue in this case: (1) police may briefly detain a suspect upon reasonable suspicion and (2) police may make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

First, police can stop and briefly detain an individual if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person was involved in or is wanted in connection with a crime or if the officer believes that “criminal activity is afoot” even if the officer lacks probable cause. United States v. Bailey, 622 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C.Cir.2010) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)); United States v. Jones, 584 F.3d 1083, 1086 (D.C.Cir.2009). This type of brief detention, called a “ Terry stop,” takes place only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a person. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 627–28, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) (a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, if under the circumstances a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave).

Another exception to the warrant requirement exists where an officer has probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004). Probable cause to arrest exists if the arresting officer had sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed or at that time was committing an offense. United States v. Catlett, 97 F.3d 565, 573 (D.C.Cir.1996) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)).

“The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). To determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop or probable cause to make an arrest, a court must examine the totality of the circumstances viewed from the perspective of a reasonably prudent office in light of the officer's training and experience. Catlett, 97 F.3d at 573 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230–32, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)) (probable cause); see also Jones, 584 F.3d at 1086 (reasonable suspicion). The officers' subjective intentions and actual motives are not relevant to a determination of probable cause, so long as their actions were objectively reasonable. United States v. Brown, 334 F.3d 1161, 1172 n. 8 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)).

Determining whether probable cause exists is a common sense determination, which turns on the “practical considerations of everyday life.” United States v. Gilliam, 167 F.3d 628, 633 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). Thus, “while each fact standing alone may be insufficient, the combination of all the facts can establish probable cause, and certain conduct that may appear innocent to a lay person may have entirely different significance to an experienced law enforcement officer.” Gilliam, 167 F.3d at 633 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Probable cause may emanate from the collective knowledge of the police. United States v. Hawkins, 595 F.2d 751, 752–53 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1978); Milline v. United States, 856 A.2d 616, 620 (D.C.2004); see Tetaz v. District of Columbia, 976 A.2d 907, 914 n. 7 (D.C.2009) (court should apply collective knowledge doctrine to determine if police action was justified in a case concerning fast moving events involving a number of police officers in different locations); In re M.E.B., 638 A.2d 1123, 1129 (D.C.1993) (police knowledge is aggregated where officers were cooperating in an investigation, as shown by the fact they communicated directly with one another or through a dispatcher). Where the material facts are undisputed, the question of probable cause is a legal question. Ornelas, 517...