ANTHONY PACE, SR. VS. TOWNSHIP OF NUTLEY(L-5518-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5310-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- On Oct. 18, 2012 Nutley police responded to a 9-1-1 report of a violent domestic dispute at the Pace home; dispatcher warned officers it involved assaults and multiple family members.
- The Pace family had a long history of police contacts (≈55 incidents, many domestic), and officers were familiar with the family.
- At the scene Mrs. Pace told officers her husband (Anthony Pace, Sr.) was "out of control" and she wanted him removed; noise and yelling inside suggested a chaotic, potentially violent scene.
- Officers attempted to investigate and enter; as they approached the doorway Pace Jr. pushed Lt. Watts, and Pace Sr. moved menacingly and attempted to push Watts; Watts pepper-sprayed both men.
- Both Pace Sr. and Pace Jr. resisted; both were charged (Pace Sr. pled to improper behavior; Pace Jr. pled to resisting arrest).
- Pace Sr. sued asserting excessive force (pepper spray), negligent hiring/supervision, NJ Civil Rights Act violations, and battery; defendants moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for officers | Watts’ second warrantless entry and use of pepper spray violated clearly established rights; immunity should not apply | Officers acted with probable cause and reasonably under the circumstances; qualified immunity applies | Affirmed: officers entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed and a reasonable officer could believe force was lawful |
| Specific immunity under the PDVA | Incident was not a domestic violence event, so PDVA immunity inapplicable | Officers had probable cause to believe domestic violence/harassment occurred; PDVA protects good‑faith arrests | Affirmed: specific immunity applies because probable cause for domestic‑violence/harassment arrest existed |
| Excessive force (use of pepper spray) | Use of pepper spray to force entry was unreasonable and excessive | Use of pepper spray was objectively reasonable given officers were pushed/attacked and the scene was volatile | Affirmed: under the totality of circumstances use of pepper spray was not excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213 N.J. 573 (2013) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in light most favorable to non‑movant)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for reviewing evidentiary materials on summary judgment)
- Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (2014) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Morillo v. Torres, 222 N.J. 104 (2015) (qualified immunity framework in New Jersey)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (federal qualified immunity standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two‑prong qualified immunity test)
- Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375 (2000) (PDVA and probable cause discussion)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (definition of probable cause)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir.) (totality of circumstances for Fourth Amendment force analysis)