Vanderklok v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 September 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00370
• Citation: 140 F.Supp.3d 373
• Parties: Roger Vanderklok, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

140 F.Supp.3d 373

Roger Vanderklok, Plaintiff,

v.United States of America, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00370

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed September 29, 2015

Filed September 30, 2015

Thomas B. Malone, The Malone Firm LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Robyn Lori Goldenberg, Robyn L. Goldenberg, Marlton, NJ, for Plaintiff.

Anne B. Taylor, United States Attorney's Office, Camden, NJ, Colin Michael F.X. Cherico, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jeffrey M. Scott, Archer & Greiner, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

PAPPERT

, District Judge

Plaintiff Roger Vanderklok ("Vanderklok") attempted to pass through an airport security checkpoint with a carry-on bag containing, among other things, a type of watch encased in a section of plastic pipe. Not surprisingly, agents of the Transportation Safety Administration ("TSA") noticed the "anomaly" in the x-ray screening and asked Vanderklok to wait while the bag was searched and its contents examined. Vanderklok was detained by the TSA, arrested by the Philadelphia Police and subsequently charged with three crimes. He was acquitted at trial of all charges filed against him.

Vanderklok then sued the United States of America ("United States"), the TSA, TSA Agent Charles Kieser ("Kieser"), the City of Philadelphia ("City"), Philadelphia Police Officers Raymond Pinkney ("Pinkney"), Michael Wojciechowski ("Wojciechowski"), and Kenneth Flaville ("Flaville") (collectively, the "Individual Officers"), Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson ("Johnson"), and former TSA Administrator John S. Pistole ("Pistole"). Before the Court are two separate motions to dismiss Vanderklok's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

: one filed on behalf of the City; the other filed on behalf of the Individual Officers. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.)¹ The Court grants both Motions.

I.

On January 26, 2013, Vanderklok arrived at Philadelphia International Airport for a flight to Miami, Florida where he was scheduled to run a marathon the following day. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 25, ECF No. 22.) Vanderklok proceeded to the TSA security checkpoint and placed his carry-on bag through the x-ray screening device. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Though Vanderklok walked through the metal detector without incident, a TSA official asked Vanderklok to step aside for additional examination of his bag. The Amended Complaint describes Vanderklok's bag and contents as a carry on bag containing a heart monitoring watch, some Power Bars,² running gear and his laptop computer. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 25.) The TSA official then asked Vanderklok to submit to additional screening because "apparently [the TSA] saw the heart monitoring watch and the Power Bars and thought they looked like the components of an explosive device." (Id. at ¶ 27.)

Vanderklok then alleges that "the TSA officials viewing the screen and handling his bag were talking about the watch and the case it was in." (Id. ) The "case" it was in is not described or defined anywhere in the Amended Complaint, though it is described in Wojciechowski's Arrest Report (the "Arrest Report"), attached as Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint. The Arrest Report mentions the "anomalies which appeared to be components of a pipe bomb." (Id. at Ex. A.) Pinkney's handwritten "75-48" Report (the "Complaint Report"), also included as part of Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint, describes the "case" as a "PCP [sic] pipe w/ watch inside."³ (Id. )

During the course of the inspection, TSA officials asked Vanderklok about "organic material" contained inside his bag. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Not knowing that the TSA officials were referring to the Power Bars, Vanderklok told them that he did not believe he had any "organic material" inside his bag. (Id. at ¶ 29.) After finding the Power Bars, the TSA officials ran an "explosive trace detection test" on them, which came back negative. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Throughout the interaction with the TSA officials, Vanderklok assured them that he was not a threat and that his bag contained "just [his] running stuff." (Id. at ¶ 28.)

Kieser was one of the TSA officials at the scene who interacted with Vanderklok about the search of the bag. According to the Amended Complaint, Kieser grew "agitated" with Vanderklok during the course of this discussion for not knowing that the Power Bars were "organic material." (Id. at ¶ 31.)

After the TSA had finished inspecting the bag, Vanderklok, who "did not appreciate the way he was spoken to [by Kieser]," told Kieser that he wanted to file a complaint and asked for a form so that he could document what he believed to be Kieser's inappropriate and aggressive behavior. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 34.) Vanderklok alleges that as a result of this request, Kieser called the Philadelphia Police and "made a string of untrue statements claiming Plaintiff made comments that he did not, knowing that it would result in an illegal seizure and arrest of Mr. Vanderklok." (Id. at ¶ 36.) Vanderklok further alleges that Kieser then directed another TSA agent to "watch" him until the Philadelphia Police arrived. (Id. ¶ 36.)

Pinkney was the first police officer to respond to Kieser's call. When Pinkney arrived, Kieser told him that Vanderklok had "angrily said to [Kieser] that 'anybody can bring a bomb and you wouldn't even know it."' (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 35.) Pinkney then "without any investigation" placed Vanderklok under arrest and took him into police custody. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Pinkney handcuffed Vanderklok and walked him to an elevator in the airport, which they rode to a basement "cell-room." (Id. at ¶ 64.)

Pinkney took Vanderklok's belongings and placed him in a cell until he was transported by vehicle to another cell at the Philadelphia Police District for additional processing by Wojciechowski. (Id. at ¶¶ 64, 66.) Once there, Vanderklok overheard a conversation among Wojciechowski and other police personnel about making sure to get "the right A.D.A." to review the case and approve the charges. (Id. at ¶ 66.) Vanderklok also alleges that he heard statements about being sent to "Guantanamo." (Id. ) The Police released Vanderklok from custody after almost 24 hours, and after taking his fingerprints and photograph. (Id. at ¶ 67.)

At some point on the day of the arrest, Pinkney prepared two documents, the Complaint Report and a "Uniform Police Memo to S.W.D.D." (the "Memo").⁴ (Id. at ¶ 61, Ex. A.) The Complaint Report recounts the facts as relayed to Pinkney:

R/C Threats. Below passenger's carry on bag was being checked by TSA because he had a PCP [sic] pipe w/ watch inside. Passenger became frustrated and said anybody can bring a bomb in here and nobody would know. Police was called and passenger was taken into custody for investigation. TSA Supervisor Kieser heard the comment.

(Id. at Ex. A (underlining in original).) The Memo reflects a similar recitation of events.⁵ (Id. ) Vanderklok alleges that Pinkney relayed to Wojciechowski that Vanderklok told Kieser: "I could bring a bomb through here any day of the week and you would never find it." (Id. at ¶ 7, Ex. A.)

Wojciechowski's Arrest Report, dated February 12, 2013, reflects a summary of interviews he conducted with Kieser and Pinkney after the incident took place. In the "Interview Summary" from his discussion with Kieser, Wojciechowski transcribed Kieser's complaint as follows:

After the passenger became loud towards the screening officer, the Complainant went to try and calm the situation, the Complainant explained what they were looking for and why the bag had to be checked. The passenger (the defendant) then stated, "I could bring a bomb through here any day of the week, and you would never know it."...The comment was made in a public area with several other passengers nearby.

(Id. at Ex. A.) Wojciechowski wrote in the "Interview Summary" section from his discussion with Pinkney that Pinkney "responded to the checkpoint and was met by the Complainant. After the facts were related to the Officer, Officer Pinkney took the Defendant to the Airport Unit HQ for further investigation." (Id. ) Flaville approved Wojciechowski's Arrest Report. (Id. )

Vanderklok was charged with threatening the placement of a bomb, terroristic threats, and disorderly conduct. (Id. at ¶ 8.) During the course of Vanderklok's arrest and detainment, Pinkney, Wojciechowski, and Flaville never watched the videotape of the incident as captured by the security cameras at the checkpoint. (Id. at ¶ 38.) At his criminal trial on April 8, 2013, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge granted a defense motion for judgment of acquittal. (Id. at ¶ 12, Ex. E.)

Vanderklok filed this lawsuit on January 23, 2015.⁶ (ECF No. 1.) On May 27, 2015, Vanderklok filed an Amended Complaint against the same nine defendants. (ECF No. 22.) Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges claims against Pinkney, Wojciechowski, Flaville, and the City pursuant to: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983

("Section 1983") for unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (2) Section 1983 for infringement of his freedom of speech in violation of his First Amendment rights; (3) Pennsylvania state law for false arrest, false imprisonment, and battery and assault; (4) Pennsylvania state law and Section 1983 for Malicious Prosecution and Retaliatory Prosecution; and (5) Monell claims against the City. (Id. ) The parties stipulated to a dismissal of all state-law tort claims against the City.⁷ (ECF No. 41.) At the heart of Vanderklok's claims is that the Individual Officers violated his constitutional rights for arresting and detaining him without probable cause, and that the City failed to implement policies and procedures that encourage its officers to make a determination of probable cause for arrest upon the referral of a TSA agent.

The Individual Officers contend that the claims against them should be dismissed because they did not violate any of Vanderklok's constitutional rights and, in any event, are entitled to qualified immunity. (Officers' Mot. Dismiss ¶ 3,...