Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

MILESTONE v. CITY OF MONROE (November 21, 2011)

The city of Monroe, Wisconsin (the "Swiss Cheese Capital of the U.S.A.") operates a Senior Center for its older residents. Nine volunteers sit on the Monroe Senior Citizens Board, which promulgated a Code of Conduct for the center. Edith Milestone used the center frequently, but not without incident. She was a frequent disruptive influence at the center and was warned about her failure to behave reasonably. In late 2008, she got into a heated discussion with the center's Director and threatened to sue her. The next day, the Center sent Milestone a letter advising her that she was no longer welcome. The letter listed the various alleged violations of the Center's Code. At Milestones request, the Senior Citizens Board held an evidentiary hearing and affirmed the ban. The Board also advised Milestone that she could appeal the finding to the Monroe Common Council. Instead of appealing, Milestone brought a § 1983 suit against Monroe, alleging violations of her due process and free speech rights. Magistrate Judge Crocker (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that neither the Director nor the Board were final policymakers for Monell purposes. Milestone appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court agreed with the magistrate, at least as far as he went. In order to establish liability against the city, there must be (in this case) a decision by a municipal agent with final policymaking authority. It is clear that neither the Director nor the Board had that authority. The Director's decisions are all subject to review by the Board. Under state and local law, the Board did not have final policymaking authority. The Monroe Common Council retained ultimate authority over the Board's activity in this area. Although the city cannot be liable for the actions of the Director or the Board under Monell, Milestone also brought a claim based on the Code of Conduct itself. The code is municipal policy and can subject the city to liability if it, as Milestone alleged, violates the First Amendment. Because the Code is content neutral, it's restrictions are acceptable if they are: a) narrowly tailored, b) to achieve a significant governmental interest, and c) allow for ample alternative communication channels. The Court concluded that the Code met each of these requirements. First, the rules only require visitors to treat each other with respect and to refrain from abusive language. Second, the Center's goal was to create a pleasant and upbeat environment for its older citizens. Third, the Code does not restrict a visitor's right to express herself, as long as she does so respectfully. The Code is a content-neutral reasonable time, place, and manner restriction and does not violate the First Amendment. Finally, the Court rejected Milestone's void for vagueness claim. Any person of reasonable intelligence would understand what conduct is prohibited.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

VODAK v. CHICAGO (March 17, 2011)

In early 2003, a group of people in Chicago opposed to the United States' anticipated invasion of Iraq wanted to express their opposition. They wanted to hold a march at the same time as the invasion, but they did not know when that would happen. A Chicago ordinance requires a permit for a demonstration and typically requires five days notice of the march's date and route. For "good compelling cause," the City will act within two days. When, as here, the two-day requirement cannot be met, the City has an informal practice of waiving the permit requirement. Although non-permitted demonstrations typically use the same standard route, the police and demonstrators never agreed on a route. The invasion took place on March 19. The protesters gathered on March 20. Part of the way along their announced route, thousands of the protesters detoured. They marched toward Michigan Avenue, a major commercial thoroughfare in Chicago. The police blocked access to the street and told the march organizers to return to their starting point or disperse. They threatened to arrest anyone entering Michigan Avenue. The police claim they also shouted these warnings through bullhorns. Most of the marchers either dispersed or began to return to their starting point. Along the way, hundreds of marchers started approaching Michigan Avenue again on a different cross street. There is a dispute in the record regarding the marchers' presence on that street -- there is some evidence that at least some of the marchers thought they were directed there by the police. The police again blocked Michigan Avenue. This time, however, they also sealed off the marchers in the other direction. They started arresting the marchers and any other person who happened to be on that one block stretch of Chicago Avenue. Most of those arrested were released without being charged -- others had their charges dismissed. Two lawsuits were filed against the City and several police officers pursuant to § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourth amendments, as well as state law. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) dismissed both suits against the officers on qualified immunity grounds and against the City because no policymaker had been responsible for the officers' conduct. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Wood and District Judge Adelman reversed and remanded. The Court first noted that the police were well within their rights in blocking Michigan Avenue. A large protest march was getting out of control. They could, and did, order the crowd to disperse or return to their starting point. But, on the undisputed record, they only communicated their orders to the organizers. According to hundreds of affidavit filed in the record, many of the marchers were unaware of any order to disperse or return. The Court emphasized this point because the only reason the police gave for the arrests several blocks away from where they gave the orders is the marchers' defiance of these orders. At the time of the arrest, the police had no good reason to believe that the people they were arresting knew they were violating a valid police order. Of course, the police only needed probable cause to make the arrests. But because there was no permit, no agreed-upon route, and no effective means of communicating an order to the thousands of marchers, a police officer on Chicago Avenue could not have a reasonable belief that the hundreds of marchers there knew of the orders. The Court rejected the District Court's conclusion that the right allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time. Decades before the march, the Supreme Court held that, if police revoke permission to march, they must give notice of the revocation before arresting alleged violators. In fact, the Court even stated that this is one situation that is so obvious that precedent is not required. The police cannot give permission to march, then withdraw the permission without telling anyone, and arrest the marchers. With respect to the dismissal of the City, the Court also disagreed with the district court. In order to hold the city liable, plaintiffs must show that the conduct was authorized or directed by a policymaker. But that does not mean only the City Council. Here the City Council defers to the Superintendent of Police as the sole policymaker with respect to demonstrations. In addition to his sole policymaking role, the Superintendent monitored and approved the very police conduct at issue. That satisfies Monell.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SOW v. FORTVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (February 11, 2011)

Mouhamadou Sow, a Senegal native, traveled all over the United States selling African items at fairs and festivals. In November 2007, Sow tried to cash a $1000 money order at the Fortville, Indiana Post Office. He had purchased the money order at a United States Post Office in Columbus, Ohio. The postal clerk suspected that the money order was counterfeit and told Sow as much. After conferring with her supervisor, she told Sow that she did not have enough money to cash the money order and directed him to the nearby McCordsville Post Office. Once Sow left, a postal employee reported the suspected forgery incident to the Fortville police. The Fortville police notified the McCordsville police, who stopped Sow before he reached the post office. Fortville Officer Michael Fuller arrived at the scene. The police interrogated Sow for over an hour. Sow produced the money order but was unable to produce a receipt. He did produce other receipts and money orders. Both officers examined the money order and also believed that it was counterfeit. They called post office headquarters and a local postal inspector and described the money order and its serial numbers. Both postal employees told the officers that the money order was counterfeit. The officers did not call the Columbus Post Office where Sow told them he purchased the money order, even though they had its phone number. The police arrested Smith. The charges were ultimately dismissed. Smith brought suit under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against the Fortville postal employees, the two police departments, and Officer Fuller. He alleged that he was unlawfully arrested, that he was physically mistreated, and that his handcuffs were too tight. Judge Young (S.D. Ind.) dismissed the postal employees and granted summary judgment to the police departments and Fuller. Sow appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Evans and District Judge McCuskey affirmed. The Court first affirmed the dismissal of the two police departments. Section 1983 liability for local governments depends on state law. Indiana law does not allow municipal police departments to sue or be sued. Next, the Court rejected Sow's argument that the statements made to Fuller by the postal employees were inadmissible hearsay. Since the statements were offered not for their truth but because they constituted part of the facts and circumstances known to Fuller when he decided to arrest Sow, they were properly admitted. Third, the Court addressed Sow's unlawful arrest claim. That claim rests on the existence of probable cause. Here, although Fuller did not call the post office where Sow claimed to have purchased the money order, he received information from several third parties that supported the conclusion that the money order was a forgery. He had no reason to believe that the information he received was anything but truthful. Based on that information, the Court concluded that a reasonable person would believe that a crime had been committed -- probable cause therefore existed. Finally, the Court affirmed with respect to the racial profiling, excessive force, and conspiracy allegations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SALLENGER v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD (December 17, 2010)

In early 2002, Andrew Sallenger was living with his mother, his sister, and his sister's four children at his mother's house in Springfield, Illinois. Sallenger suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. In the middle of the night on April 30, Sallenger experienced a psychotic episode. He was screaming, breaking things, and running around the house naked. His sister called 911. She warned the police of his condition and his strength (6 feet tall, 262 pounds). Three officers responded and eventually, although not without great difficulty, were able to subdue him. They used a hobble, a device that limits movement by strapping one's lower legs to one's hands. A few minutes after the officers subdued Sallenger with a hobble, he stopped breathing. The officers removed the hobble and administered CPR, without success. Sallenger’s Estate brought several claims against the officers and the City, including a § 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for failing to adequately respond to Sallenger’s medical needs and a Monell claim against the City for failure to train in the use of the hobble. They also brought excessive force claims against the three officers. Those claims were tried to a jury and resolved in the officers' favor. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment against the Estate on the medical needs and Monell claims. The Estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court applied an objective reasonableness standard to the medical needs claim and considered four criteria: the need for medical attention, the severity of the need, the nature of the required treatment, and any police interests. The Estate's case rests on the timing of two police calls and the inferences that can be drawn from them. One call came in at 2:15 a.m. In that call, one of the officers reported that Sallenger was unconscious. The second call, which came in at 2:22 a.m., was from a police lieutenant reporting that he was at the scene. Combined with the fact that the lieutenant was present when efforts to resuscitate began, the Estate argues that it is entitled to an inference that the officers waited seven minutes after knowing Sallenger was unconscious before they tried to resuscitate him. The Court rejected this inference. All inferences must be drawn in the Estate’s favor on summary judgment, but those inferences must be reasonable. Here, the officers and Sallenger's sister all testified that resuscitation efforts began as soon as they knew that he was unconscious. The lieutenant also testified that his call did not necessarily take place immediately upon his arrival. In light of that testimony, and without more support, the inference requested by the Estate is unreasonable. The Court also agreed with the district court's summary judgment ruling on the Monell claim. A municipality cannot be liable unless there is an underlying constitutional violation by an employee. Here, a jury found that none of the officers was liable for a constitutional violation on the excessive force claim and the Court affirmed summary judgment for the officers on the medical needs claim. Therefore, there can be no municipal liability. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WATERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (September 2, 2009)

Daniel Waters was a painter in the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT). In 2000, he refused a request by his supervisor to participate in a political campaign. At about the same time, he twice contacted local investigative journalists. On one occasion, he complained about a bridge that he thought was in such a state of disrepair that it was a danger to the public. On the other occasion, he complained that the City was making some improvements to a piece of property and that it did not own. Several of his superiors were unhappy with his conduct. He was transferred into a job working for a supervisor for whom he had worked before several times. Their relationship was strained, at best. Within a matter of weeks, Waters had several run-ins with his supervisor and was reported multiple times for violent behavior. A deputy commissioner recommended his firing. The department did not act on the recommendation. Department policy required that Waters be given an opportunity to respond to the charges of violence before any discipline was handed out. Waters provided his side of the story -- but the department ruled that his conduct amounted to violence in the workplace. The deputy commissioner resubmitted his recommendation. A pre-termination hearing was held. Commissioner Rice, who held the only authority to fire, terminated Waters. Waters sued the City under § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation. A jury awarded Waters $225,000 in damages and the court awarded more than $1 million in back pay, front pay and pension benefits. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Tinder vacated, reversed and remanded. The Court stated that, under Monell, a city can be liable for a constitutional deprivation but only if it resulted from a policy or practice, or that the injury was caused by someone with final policymaking authority. Waters relied on the latter prong. Final policymaking authority comes from state and local law, though. Here, said the Court, local law gives policymaking authority to the City Council, which has delegated it to the Commissioner of Human Resources. Although the Court recognized that department commissioners do have some authority to execute existing policy, they do not have policymaking authority. Since Commissioner Rice had no such authority, municipal liability cannot be based on her actions. The Court went on to note that Waters presented no evidence that Rice’s termination was in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Even if she had policymaking authority, the absence of that evidence would have defeated his claim.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HOLLINS v. MILWAUKEE (July 31, 2009)

David Hollins is a freelance photographer. One June day in 2002, he was walking down a Milwaukee street. He came upon a scene where the Milwaukee Police were conducting a search of a home across the street. Hollins began taking pictures. A police officer noticed Hollins and asked him to move away from the area. Although he moved a short distance, Hollins eventually stopped and refused to move further. Police officers arrested Hollins and cited him for resisting an officer. The parties' versions of the events differ greatly with respect to the amount of force used by the officers and the attitude and language of the participants. Hollins was convicted and paid a fine. He later sued the city and the officers for violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brought a § 1983 claim against the City of Milwaukee for failure to train police officers properly. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 claim and dismissed the free speech and due process claims as well. A jury found for the defendants on the unlawful arrest and excessive force claims. Hollins appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court first addressed the § 1983 claim for failure to properly train the police. The Court agreed that a failure to train police can lead to § 1983 liability if it amounts to a deliberate indifference of public rights. The Court further stated that Hollins had to present allegations of a specific pattern of incidents to prove that the constitutional deprivation resulted from an official policy or custom. Hollins, however, failed to offer any evidence that the city's failure to train amounted to the requisite deliberate indifference. The city, on the other hand, presented unrebutted evidence that it did offer significant training in the areas cited by Hollins. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the free-speech claims, concluding that Hollins' allegations that he was arrested for taking pictures totally unsupported. With respect to the alleged trial errors, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it: a) refused to ask a voir dire question on racial prejudice that had nothing to do with the law or facts, b) disallowed questioning on cross-examination that one of the defendants had been investigated for falsifying police reports when it had limited probative value, and c) refused to tender Hollins' jury instruction interpreting the ordinance under which he was cited when he offered no authority to support his interpretation and when the jury was not being asked to determine whether the ordinance had been violated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link