La v. Hayducka
| Decision Date | 24 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.00-03045 AMW.,CIV.00-03045 AMW. |
| Citation | 269 F.Supp.2d 566 |
| Parties | Vak LA, individually and as Administrator Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Kyung-Ho La, and Myung-Ok La, Plaintiffs, v. Raymond HAYDUCKA, Scott Williams, Kenneth Drost, Leonard Hibbitts, Pat O'Brien, Jeff Karpiscak, Richard Schwarz, South Brunswick Police Department, South Brunswick Police Chief Michael Paquette, John Does 1-20, and ABC Corporations 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Adam M. Slater, Nagel, Rice, Dreifuss & Mazie, Livingston, NJ, for Plaintiff.
Lori A. Dvorak, Lynch Martin, North Brunswick, NJ, for Defendant South Brunswick Police Department.
Jack Venturi, New Brunswick, NJ, for Defendant Raymond Hayducka, Jr.
David J. MacMain, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Individual Officers.
This case highlights the tension that sometimes exists between police and citizens when the aggressive actions of an emotionally disturbed resident obscure the line between lawful and unlawful conduct, and result in the tragic loss of life. It is cases such as this that fragment communities and heighten the rhetoric of discrimination particularly when the victim is a non-Caucasian.
The heated emotions that emanate from Kyung-Ho La's death have been translated into the current legal discourse between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Notwithstanding, it is the role of this Court to objectively evaluate the issues in an atmosphere of judicial calm. Towards that end, the Court will consider the motions and cross-motions presented through the moving papers of respective counsel. Counsel for defendants, Raymond Hayduka, Scott Williams, Jeffrey Karpiscak, Richard Schwarz and the South Brunswick Police Chief, Michael Paquette have moved for summary judgment on all of the claims against them. Defendant, South Brunswick Police ("SBPD"), subsequently filed its own motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, Vak La ("Vak") and Myung-Ok La ("Myung-Ok"), responded to defendants' motions and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The Court has decided this matter based on the written submissions pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 78.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the application of defendants Hayduka, Williams, Karpiscak and Schwarz for summary judgment based on the claims of unreasonable search and seizure. The motion for summary judgment for Karpiscak and Schwarz based on excessive force, conspiracy and false arrest is granted. Summary judgment is granted to Williams regarding the excessive force claim. The application of defendant Paquette for dismissal is denied because Paquette's liability is considered in conjunction with that of the SBPD. The SBPD's application for summary judgment based on failure to train and racial animus is granted. Individual defendant officers are also granted summary judgment regarding the allegations of racial animus. The cross-motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs is denied for all claims. Finally, the Court reserves its ruling on whether Hayduka should be granted summary judgment for the excessive force claim pending a Daubert hearing with the intention of more thoroughly evaluating the qualifications of plaintiffs' medical expert.
Plaintiffs have filed this suit on behalf of their deceased son, Kyung-Ho La ("Kyung-Ho") who died as a result of a bullet wound. While on duty, SBPD Officer Hayduka fired his gun once at Kyung-Ho when Kyung-Ho allegedly lunged at him with a long sword. The shooting incident was the third time that Kyung-Ho came into contact with the SBPD in an eight-month period.1 Prior to April 24, 1999, Kyung-Ho had one minor brush with the law, but he had no prior record with the SBPD.2
The Court views the evidence presented and facts of this case in a light most favorable to plaintiff because the bulk of this Opinion addresses the summary judgment motions of defendants. For the rtions of the Opinion where the Court considers plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, the Court will consider the facts in a light most favorable to defendants.
Kyung-Ho was an American citizen of Korean descent. He was a thirty-year old graduate of the University of Pittsburgh who was unemployed and lived at home with his parents in Kendall Park, New Jersey. Kyung-Ho had a spotty employment history since his graduation. The record shows that he irregularly performed handyman-type jobs until December 1998, when he ceased employment altogether.
On April 24, 1999, defendant SBPD Officer Karpiscak was dispatched to investigate "someone having a mental breakdown." (Karpiscak Dep. at 8). Karpiscak arrived at the Sisco residence, which is across the street from the La residence and met with SBPD Officer Schwarz, who came to the Sisco residence moments earlier. (Karpiscak Dep. at 11). There were several neighborhood residents in the Sisco home, all of whom had signed a petition that complained about the behavior of Kyung-Ho which they described as bizarre and potentially dangerous.
Mrs. Sisco recited examples of Kyung-Ho's strange and threatening behavior to Karpiscak and Schwarz. Mrs. Sisco explained that Kyung-Ho was seen jumping off the roof of his house; he would chop wood all day and night wearing a sheet on his head; he would perform strange dances in the front yard; and he threatened the neighbors and their children.3 (Karpiscak Dep. at 13; Schwarz Dep. at 10). Mrs. Sisco was most concerned that Kyung-Ho spent a great deal of time chopping wood in the front of his house with a "sword."4 Mrs Sisco was also unnerved because Vak allegedly told her that he was afraid of his son and warned her to keep the neighborhood children away from Kyung-Ho.5 After their discussion with the neighbors, Karpiscak and Schwarz decided to speak immediately to Kyung-Ho, who was in front of his house chopping wood.
As Officers Karpiscak and Schwarz approached the La's home, Kyung-Ho shouted "get off my property" and "get a search warrant."6 (Myung-Ok Dep. at 49). Kyung-Ho was standing at the side of the house with an axe in his hand, which he dropped when the Officers told him to do so. He continued to shout, however, and walked toward Karpiscak and Schwarz as they approached the front of the La's house. As Karpiscak and Schwarz walked onto the La's front yard, Kyung-Ho stopped in front of them and took off two layers of clothing, which left him wearing an undershirt. (Myung-Ok Dep. at 49; Schwarz Dep. at 17). Myung-Ok stated that one of the officers told Kyung-Ho "don't even think of going back to get that axe." (Myung-Ok Dep. at 51). In response, Kyung-Ho said "why do I need a weapon" as he took off one of his shirts. (Myung-Ok Dep. at 50-51).
Kyung-Ho was standing in front of the Officers, in close proximity when defendant Schwarz told Kyung-Ho not to take another step toward him. Against Schwarz's command, Kyung-Ho took another step toward the Officers then "stopped in a defiant move." (Schwarz Dep. at 18-19). Karpiscak immediately sprayed Kyung-Ho with pepper spray. Myung-Ok testified that Kyung-Ho was pepper sprayed as he was taking off one of his shirts and in response to the spray, he waved his arms in front of his eyes. (Myung-Ok Dep. at 52, 54).7
Seconds after the first blast, Karpiscak sprayed Kyung-Ho a second time. After the second blast of pepper spray, Schwarz maneuvered behind Kyung-Ho, grabbed him by the waist, lifted him, and tried to wrestle him to the ground. (Schwarz Dep. at 27). Kyung-Ho vigorously resisted the attempts of Karpiscak and Schwarz to restrain and arrest him. During the tussle, the three men fell together to the ground and rolled down the front yard. (Myung-Ok Dep. at 54). Myung-Ok did not see Kyung-Ho strike either of the Officers, nor did she see either of the Officers strike Kyung-Ho. (Myung-Ok Dep. at 55, 58).8 Only minor injuries resulted from the altercation, Karpiscak suffered a scratched cornea and Kyung-Ho sustained some scratches and bruises. (Karpiscak Dep. at 39).
After a few minutes of struggle, Karpiscak and Schwarz secured Kyung-Ho into the back of the police cruiser. Within an hour, an ambulance arrived and transported Kyung-Ho to the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. (Vak Dep. at 101). Kyung-Ho stayed overnight in the hospital and the next morning he was transferred to Memorial Hospital where he underwent a psychiatric evaluation. (Vak Dep. at 102). Vak picked up Kyung-Ho from Memorial Hospital later that afternoon and was told that no further psychiatric assistance was necessary for his son. (Vak Dep. at 103). Pursuant to the events of April 24, 1999, the SBPD charged Kyung-Ho with the offenses of disorderly conduct and simple assault.
In the afternoon of December 17, 1999, three plain-clothed SBPD officers approached Kyung-Ho who was chopping wood in his front yard.9 (Myung-Ok Dep. at 81). The officers talked with Kyung-Ho for a short period of time without incident. They questioned Kyung-Ho about the vandalism that they were investigating.10 (Vak Dep. at 82). The officers then spoke with Kyung-Ho's parents who were also standing outside. (Myung-Ok Dep. at 83).
On December 20, 1999, the SBPD initiated an on-site psychological examination of Kyung-Ho by calling the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey ("UMDNJ") and asking for health screeners to perform an on-site mental evaluation. The SBPD decided to evaluate Kyung-Ho because Mr. and Mrs. Sisco lodged another complaint expressing concern that Kyung-Ho's bizarre and threatening behavior had increased alarmingly.
At around three that afternoon, SBPD Officer Hayduka telephoned the La residence and asked Vak if some officers could come over with an examiner from UMDNJ to evaluate Kyung-Ho's mental health. (Vak Dep. at 106). Vak did not protest their arrival, nor did he tell Hayduka that according to a previous mental health examination taken at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Town of East Haven
...discrimination identified by the plaintiff was that the State of Delaware had participated in the slave trade. In La v. Hayducka, et al., 269 F.Supp.2d 566, 586 (D.N.J.2003), the plaintiff alleged that the police department "`adopted an unconstitutional policy, custom, practice, and usage o......
-
Williams v. Vanderud, Civil Action No. 16-1245-BRM-DEA
...Probable cause "is a factual analysis from which the officers on the scene must make an immediate determination." La v. Hayducka, 269 F. Supp. 2d 566, 576 (D.N.J. 2003). Although probable cause "requires more than mere suspicion, the law recognizes that probable cause determinations have to......
-
Meza v. Jackson Twp.
...would have been some real immediate action" as the punch happened "instantaneously." (Id. at 45:23-25, 46:1-6); see La v. Hayducka, 269 F. Supp. 2d 566, 581-82 (D.N.J. 2003) (granting summary judgment on failure to intervene claim because "it is unrealistic" to charge the defendant-officer ......
-
Lane v. City of Camden
...Probable cause "is a factual analysis from which the officers on the scene must make an immediate determination." La v. Hayducka, 269 F.Supp.2d 566, 576 (D.N.J. 2003). Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances are "sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defen......