964 F. Supp. 2d 120
D. Mass.2013Background
- Plaintiff Eli Damon, bicycle rider on Route 9 in Hadley, challenges police stops and a later weaponization of criminal charges.
- Defendants include Hadley Police Department, Chief Hukowicz, Officer Kuc, and Sergeant Mason, sued in individual and official capacities.
- Plaintiff’s bicycle was confiscated and his helmet camera retained; later criminal charges for disorderly conduct and unlawful wiretapping were filed but eventually dismissed in part.
- Kuc filed the criminal complaint; Mason advised but did not file the complaint; MTCA 10(c) immunity applies to the department and official-capacity claims.
- Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, but the court finds it premature and unfocused; summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part on several claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution against Kuc in his individual capacity | Kuc instigated charges without probable cause for harassment | Kuc had probable cause or insufficient basis to challenge; prosecutor consulted | Genuine issues of material fact remain; denied for Kuc; others granted summary judgment |
| Unlawful arrest/prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Stop resembled an arrest and violated rights | Stop was a routine traffic stop with reasonable suspicion | Plaintiff's §1983 claim dismissed; no constitutional violation found at this stage |
| Unreasonable seizure of bicycle and camera | Confiscation and retention violated Fourth Amendment | Camera seizure tied to evidence; bicycle seizure under community caretaking; qualified immunity | Camera seizure not clearly supported by probable cause; bicycle seizure qualifiedly privileged; genuine issues remain as to camera; qualified immunity applies to bicycle seizure but not conclusively for camera |
| Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA) claims against Kuc and Mason | Threats to arrest in Hadley infringed rights under MCRA | No clear right infringed or qualified immunity applies | MCRA claim against Kuc and Mason in their individual capacities survives in part; others dismissed |
| Monell and official-capacity claims | Town liable for supervision failures | Monell claim not properly pleaded; untimely to amend | Monell claim untimely; official-capacity/municipal claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Goddard v. Kelley, 629 F.Supp.2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009) (MCRA and threats/coercion analysis in Massachusetts)
- Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (plain-view recording and probable-cause analyses under wiretap law)
- Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 543, 666 N.E.2d 152 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (disorderly conduct elements and public-inconvenience standards)
- Hyde v. Commonwealth, 434 Mass. 594, 750 N.E.2d 963 (2001) (statutory interpretation of recording device notice under wiretapping statute)
- Chervin v. Travelers Ins. Co., 448 Mass. 95, 858 N.E.2d 746 (Mass. 2006) (elements and proper termination for malicious prosecution)
- Beecy v. Pucciarelli, 387 Mass. 589, 441 N.E.2d 1035 (Mass. 1982) (malice/ulterior purpose concepts in abuse-of-process context)
- Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (instituting criminal proceedings standard for malicious-prosecution analysis)
- Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2004) (prosecutor consultation as factor in false-arrest/qualified-immunity analysis)