Smith v. Dist. of Columbia
| Decision Date | 29 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-00737-RCL |
| Parties | Maggie SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Joseph A. Scrofano, Scrofano Law PC, William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, ClaiborneLaw, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Maggie Smith, Gerard Cassagnol, Frederick Rouse.
William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, ClaiborneLaw, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Delontay Davis, Kimberly Buffaloe, Carl Atkinson, All Plaintiffs.
Andrew J. Saindon, Brendan Russell Heath, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant Government of the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia is no stranger to challenges to its gun laws. After the Supreme Court struck down a District law banning all handgun possession, see District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), the District has been stuck in a back-and-forth with residents and non-residents alike who seek to register and carry firearms. Important to this case are a trio of the District's laws: D.C. Code § 22-4504, the ban on carrying a weapon, which a judge of this Court struck down in 2014, see Palmer v. District of Columbia , 59 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014), appeal withdrawn , No 14-7180, 2015 WL 1607711 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2015) ; D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 (2012) (repealed 2015), which criminalized the possession of non-D.C. registered firearms; and D.C. Code § 7-2506.01 (2013), which criminalized the possession of ammunition by one who does not have a D.C. registered firearm. When combined with a provision that essentially limited handgun registration to D.C. residents, D.C. Code § 7-2502.02 (2012) (repealed 2015) and a District policy of refusing to entertain non-resident gun registration applications, see ECF No. 133-1 ¶ 109, these provisions effectively banned non-residents from possessing a firearm. And all people, resident and non-resident alike, were prevented from carrying a weapon in public.
The six plaintiffs in this case, four non-residents and two District residents, were all arrested and charged with some combination of §§ 22-4504 (carrying ban), 7-2502.01 (unregistered firearm), and 7-2506.01 (unregistered ammunition). They bring a putative class action challenging their arrests and ultimately aborted prosecutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting claims under the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment regarding liability, requesting the expungement of their arrest records and a declaration of nullity as to their arrests. ECF No. 121. The District filed a cross-motion for summary judgment regarding liability. ECF No. 134. Upon consideration of these motions, the respective oppositions and replies, and the record, the Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Counts I and III, DENY plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Count VI, DENY the District's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and III, and GRANT the District's motion for summary judgment as to Count VI.
The material facts of this case are undisputed. Plaintiffs are four non-residents and two residents of the District of Columbia who, over the course of time between May 15, 2012, and October 10, 2014, were arrested by the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") on gun-related charges. See ECF No. 121-1 ¶1.
The MPD pulled over Maggie Smith, a nurse from North Carolina and the first plaintiff in this case, on June 29, 2014, for a routine traffic stop. ECF No. 133-1 ¶ 3, 8. At the time, Smith had no criminal record. Id. ¶ 4. During the stop, Smith promptly informed the MPD officers that she was carrying a pistol licensed in her home state of North Carolina. Id. ¶ 5. The police, in response, arrested Smith for § 22-4504(a), carrying a pistol, seized her gun, and held her overnight in the D.C. Jail until her presentation in court the next day. Id. ¶ 6-8, 15. The U.S. Attorney's Office first charged her with § 22-4504(a)1 by complaint, then obtained an indictment which added additional charges under § 7-2502.012 and § 7-2506.01.3 Id. ¶ 10–11. Though the U.S. Attorney's Office dismissed the indictment, the D.C. Attorney General ("OAG") recharged Smith under § 7-2502.01 and § 7-2506.01 on September 12, 2014, before ultimately dropping the charges seven months later. Id. ¶ 12–15. Smith's gun remains in police custody. Id. ¶ 17.
Gerard Cassagnol, a resident of Maryland, was driving home from his office in Northern Virginia when he was pulled over by MPD police officers. Id. ¶ 24–26. While searching his truck, the police officers asked Cassagnol whether he had a gun in his vehicle. Id. As "he had been taught," Cassagnol informed the police officers that he had a firearm locked in a safe in his trunk and gave the officers the combination. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. Like Smith, Cassagnol was arrested and held in D.C. jail for two nights. Id. ¶ 31–34. The U.S. Attorney charged him with § 22-4504(a), § 7-2502.01, and § 7-2506.01 before dropping the charges after the District Court's decision in Palmer v. District of Columbia , 59 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. Cir. 2014). Id. ¶ 38–39. Undeterred, the OAG refiled charges under § 7-2502.01, and § 7-2506.01 against Cassagnol. Id. ¶ 40. Those charges were ultimately not prosecuted. Id. ¶ 41. Cassagnol was fired from his job after his arrest. Id. at ¶ 37. Cassagnol's gun remains in police custody. Id. ¶ 42–44. Though he reached out to the Evidence Control Branch at MPD to request the return of his gun after all charges were dropped, they informed him that he would have to contact his lawyer and the prosecutor to get his property returned. Id. ¶ 45–48.
Corporal Frederick "Cornelius" Rouse, a veteran and resident of Maryland, was staying in a hotel in downtown D.C. when police searched his hotel room for guns. Id. ¶ 50–57. When the police discovered two handguns and a scope, Rouse admitted they were his and were lawfully registered in Maryland. Id. ¶ 51. Rouse was arrested, his guns were seized, and he was charged by the OAG with § 7-2502.01 and § 7-2506.01. Id. ¶ 61–63. The OAG ultimately nolle presse ’d the charges against Rouse. Id. ¶ 62. Rouse secured the return of his guns and scope in July 2017 after multiple attempts. Id. ¶ 64–65. After his arrest, his Top Secret Security Clearance was placed under review. Id. ¶ 54.
The next plaintiff, Delontay Davis, was a resident of Virginia who was arrested on March 23, 2014, after police spotted his pistol during a traffic stop. Id. ¶ 66. Virginia at the time did not require any license or registration for the open carry of pistols outside the home. Id. ¶ 68. After his arrest, Davis's gun was seized and he was held in D.C. jail for four nights. Id. ¶ 73, 80. The U.S. Attorney first charged Davis with § 7-2502.01 and § 72506.01 before dismissing the charges on January 16, 2015. Id. ¶ 77. The OAG promptly refiled the same charges the same day before ultimately dismissing them two months later. Id. ¶ 78–79.
The plaintiffs’ most recent Amended Complaint, ECF No. 114, added Kimberly Buffaloe and Carl Atkinson as plaintiffs. Buffaloe and Atkinson are unique from the other plaintiffs in that, at the time of their arrests, they were both residents of the District of Columbia. ECF No. 133 ¶ 85, 97. Buffaloe was arrested on July 21, 2012, when MPD officers approached the car she was sitting in with her then-boyfriend. Id. ¶ 84. Buffaloe was held in D.C. jail overnight and then released to a halfway house. Id. ¶ 91. The U.S. Attorney charged Buffaloe with § 22-4504(a), § 7-2502.01, § 7-2506.01, and § 22-2511. Id. ¶ 94. Nearly eight months later all charges against Buffaloe were dismissed. Id. ¶ 95.
Atkinson, the final plaintiff, was arrested after a traffic stop by MPD on January 28, 2014. Id. ¶ 96. Officers arrested Atkinson after finding a loaded pistol in the backseat during a search. Id. ¶ 100. He was held overnight in D.C. jail and charged with § 22-4504(a) at presentment in court the next day, but the U.S. Attorney ultimately dismissed the charges three months later. Id. ¶ 102–105.
Both parties agree that when the arrests occurred, no person in the District of Columbia, resident and non-resident alike, could carry either a handgun or ammunition outside the home. Id. ¶ 108. And at the time of these arrests, the District of Columbia refused to even entertain gun registration applications by individuals who were not residents of the District of Columbia. Id. ¶ 109. Gun registration applicants were required to submit "[p]roof of residency in the District of Columbia (e.g., a valid [D.C.] operator's permit, [D.C.] vehicle registration card, lease agreement for a residence in the District, the deed to your home or other legal document showing [D.C.] residency)." Id. ¶ 110. Non-residents without such proof of residency had no recourse to seek a District of Columbia gun registration. Id. It is also undisputed that during the time of these arrests the MPD seized handguns and other evidence from people arrested on gun offenses. Id. at ¶ 127.
On July 24, 2014, the District Court struck down § 22-2404(a), the prohibition against open carry, and § 7-2502.02(a), which prohibited persons from registering a handgun unless it was "for use in self-defense within that person's home." Palmer v. District of Columbia , 59 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court in Palmer enjoined the District from enforcing those two statutes against individuals "based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District of Columbia." Id. at 184.
As in the examples above, when a suspect was arrested on a District gun offense, the MPD would seize handguns and other evidence. ECF No. 133-1 ¶ 127. Handguns and ammunition were initially classified as "evidence" in these situations. Id. ¶ 128. To obtain release of these seized firearms, there is a set procedure....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millard v. Gov't of Dist. of Columbia
...of seizing and keeping guns after arrests. Smith v. D.C. (“Smith I”), 387 F.Supp.3d 8, 15-16 (D.D.C. 2019); Smith v. D.C. (“Smith II”), 568 F.Supp.3d 55, 58-61 (D.D.C. 2021). Specifically, Smith involved challenges to arrest and post-arrest procedures for guns, along with public carry, ammu......