Smith v. Gonzales

• Decision Date: 15 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 80-3968,80-3968
• Parties: 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 162 James Martin SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas M. GONZALES, et al., Defendant, Thomas P. Lane, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 522

670 F.2d 522

10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 162

James Martin SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas M. GONZALES, et al., Defendant Thomas P. Lane, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-3968.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 15, 1982.

Andrew J. Ruzicho, Columbus, Ohio, Jeff C. Calmes, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

William H. Cooper, Baton Rouge, La., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN and TATE, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff, James Martin Smith, appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Baton Rouge Parish police officer Thomas P. Lane. In this section 1983 action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Smith alleged that his arrest and commitment to a psychiatric ward violated his constitutional rights, as did his arrest on separate charges of incest and carnal knowledge with a minor. He also alleged that Lane's role in the raising of his bail requirement violated his right to due process. Based on Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1047, 98 S.Ct. 894, 54 L.Ed.2d 799 (1978), we hold that the district court should have dismissed the claims relating to the commitment, incest and bail. We affirm the jury's verdict that Smith's constitutional rights were not violated by the arrest for carnal knowledge.

The following facts are stated most favorably to plaintiff's position. Smith is the father of four children, including a daughter, Shirley. Shirley, age seventeen at the time of these events, was dating a young man named Steve McDowell. In March, 1977 she informed her father that she wanted to marry Steve. Smith apparently gave his consent, and thereafter hired Steve to work for his company.

On Thursday, May 26, 1977, Smith received a telephone call from the manager of an apartment building where Steve was working informing him that Steve and a co-worker were smoking marijuana on the job. Smith informed Shirley of this incident and told her that Steve was fired. Shirley left home that evening without returning.

The following day Smith learned that Shirley was at the home of Steve's parents, and so he proceeded to the McDowell residence. He encountered Steve when he arrived there, and the two exchanged angry words. Smith demanded to see Shirley, but was denied permission by Mr. McDowell. The heated exchange continued between Steve and Smith. Smith threatened to kill Steve, and subsequently as Smith returned to his car, Steve got a rifle from his house and threatened to kill Smith.

Smith drove away from the McDowell residence and was stopped one block away by police officers responding to a call made from the McDowell house while Smith was there. During the ensuing discussion with the police officers, Sergeant Thomas P. Lane of the Baton Rouge Parish Police appeared at the scene. After becoming aware of the particulars of the matter, Lane proceeded to the McDowell residence. While at the McDowell residence, Lane was informed by Mrs. McDowell of her suspicions that something was awry in the relationship between Smith and his daughter Shirley.

Lane returned to where Smith was being detained, and the other officers turned the matter over to him. Smith was then released. However, he proceeded to a precinct station of the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's department and by radio informed Lane that he wished to file a complaint against Steve McDowell for aggravated assault. Lane told Smith he could not handle the matter until the following Tuesday, and so Smith proceeded to the district attorney's office where he discussed the matter with assistant district attorney Michael Ponder, who in turn sent him to Chief Reeves of the Sheriff's Department.

Soon thereafter Shirley went to the precinct station to retrieve some of her personal items which were taken from Smith by the police officers. Acting solely on a hunch, Lane inquired of Shirley whether she had had sexual relations with her father. Shirley initially denied any such thing, but after repeated questioning, and an untrue admonition from Lane that she could be prosecuted for incest, Shirley stated she had an incestuous relationship with her father during the past two years.

During this meeting, Shirley's mother arrived. She was told by Shirley for the first time of the incestuous relationship. Mrs. Smith and Shirley then informed Lane of their fear for their own safety, particularly in light of Smith's behavior the day before. In answer to their question concerning protection, Lane informed them that they could try to get a coroner's warrant committing Smith to a secured psychiatric facility.

Mrs. Smith proceeded to see the coroner, Dr. Hypolite Landry, who issued a warrant after hearing her version of the events related above. Lane executed the warrant which resulted in Smith's commitment to an institution.

On Tuesday May 31, 1977, Lane and Shirley met with Ponder, the assistant district attorney, at which time Shirley informed Ponder of her incestuous relationship with her father. Ponder prepared an affidavit and arrest warrant for Smith. The affidavit was then presented to and the warrant was issued by state Judge Parker. Immediately upon Smith's release from the psychiatric institution he was arrested by Lane on the incest charge pursuant to the warrant. Bond was initially set at $100,000, but was raised to $250,000 by Judge Gonzales when Lane informed the judge that the jailer, Willie Wax, had witnessed Smith making vehement threats to kill Lane and that Smith was a dangerous man. Smith was unable to post this much bond, but ten days later it was reduced to $50,000, which he was able to post.

Shirley and Steve were married on June 10, 1977, the day Smith was released. Sergeant Lane served as best man. Lane's explanation for this is that on learning of Smith's release just prior to the wedding, Mrs. Smith summoned him for protection. He asserts that he was best man by default, since no one else was present to witness the ceremony.

Prior to a second preliminary hearing set for October 21, 1977, Sergeant Lane interviewed a young friend of Shirley's, Debbie Edwards, concerning a report that Smith had asked Edwards to "plant" marijuana in Shirley and Steve's car in order to have them arrested. Lane taped the interview with Edwards, during the course of which Edwards finally admitted to having had sexual relations with Smith on two occasions. On October 9, 1977, Lane arrested Smith on a carnal knowledge charge.

A few months later the district attorney requested a polygraph test on Shirley Smith McDowell concerning the incest charge. In the opinion of the polygraph consultant, Shirley was being truthful in her allegations of incest. The incest charge was then submitted to a grand jury and a true bill was rendered. Smith was tried and acquitted on the incest charge. The district attorney dismissed the carnal knowledge charge.

Smith brought this section 1983 action in United States District Court. After dismissal of defendants District Attorney Ossie Brown and Judge Gonzales, Smith's action continued against Lane for deprivation of his constitutional rights alleging that Lane's involvement in the arrest on the coroner's warrant, the arrest on the incest charge, the setting of the $250,000 bond, and the arrest on the carnal knowledge charge was malicious, harassing and done in bad faith. The jury returned a verdict for Lane. On appeal Smith cites as error two evidentiary rulings by the district court. These relate to the admission of the polygraph results, and the tape recording of the Edwards interview. He also cites two procedural points: the failure of the court to instruct the jury on subjective bad faith, and Lane's failure to plead good faith affirmatively.

Under our en banc decision in Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1047, 98 S.Ct. 894, 54 L.Ed.2d 799 (1978), the jury should never have considered the alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from the initial arrest on the coroner's warrant, the arrest on the incest charge, and the setting of bond. "The first inquiry in any section 1983 suit is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right 'secured by the Constitution and laws.' " Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 139, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2692, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979). "If there has been no such deprivation, the state of mind of the defendant is wholly immaterial." Id. As this court has stated, "it is distinctly different to say that the conduct of the defendant did not violate a constitutional right of the plaintiff, than to say that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right but the defendant is immunized from liability by virtue of a qualified official immunity." Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1124 (5th Cir. 1981).

The constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested, Baker v. McCollan, 99 S.Ct. at 2695. If it did, section 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted-indeed for every suspect released. Id. Where an arrest is made under authority of a properly issued warrant, the arrest is simply not a false arrest. Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1977). Such an arrest is not unconstitutional, and a complaint based on such an arrest is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id.; Simon v. United States, 644 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Rodriguez ); see Walker v. United States, 471 F.Supp. 38, 40 (M.D.Fla.1978).

Rodriguez controls the claims arising out of Smith's arrests pursuant to the coroner's warrant and the incest charge. These claims should have been dismissed. See Simon v. United States, 644 F.2d at 496. Arguably, the allegation that Lane acted in bad faith fits the category of cases which Judge Hill's concurrence urged be excepted from the holding in Rodriguez: i.e. where an officer maliciously procures a...