DeNucci v. Henningsen
248 Or. App. 59
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff arrived first at a May 14, 2005 bicycle-accident scene and assisted EMTs.
- Plaintiff argued with the father who arrived in a van; Henningsen arrived and instructed her to step back.
- Plaintiff was arrested by Henningsen for interfering with an emergency medical services provider and detained 30–45 minutes.
- Charges were dismissed on September 29, 2005; plaintiff later filed OTCA notice on March 24, 2006.
- Plaintiff sued Henningsen—claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for unlawful seizure—and Washington County for false arrest; county asserted OTCA notice was untimely.
- Trial court admitted evidence and instructions largely favoring defendants; verdict for defendants.
- Court reversed in part: held qualified immunity for Henningsen; but instructed new trial on false arrest against Washington County due to improper jury instruction; affirmed other parts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of OTCA notice | Discovery rule tolls 180-day window | Notice untimely; 180 days from arrest | Fact question precluded law ruling; remand for trial on notice timing |
| Qualified immunity for Henningsen regarding §1983 claim | Arrest lacked probable cause under ORS 162.257 | Speech alone cannot violate ORS 162.257; qualified immunity applies if law unclear | Qualified immunity applicable; trial court erred in denying directed verdict on §1983 |
| Probable cause under ORS 162.257 | Arrest based on speech; no conduct violating statute | Arrest supported by conduct near EMTs | Speech alone not sufficient; no probable cause; remand for trial on factual causation |
| Jury instruction on ORS 162.257 | Statute ambiguous; required clarifying instruction (Lam) | Paraphrase of statute ok | Error in omitting clarification; remand for new trial on false arrest against Washington County |
| Exclusion of DA dismissal evidence (motion in limine) | DA dismissal relevant to damages/tactual findings | Evidence of dismissal irrelevant/unduly prejudicial | Not addressed on remand; no impact due to remand for other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Lam v. State, 176 Or.App. 149, 29 P.3d 1206 (Or. App. 2001) (ambiguous scope of ORS 162.247; speech not covered)
- Adams v. Oregon State Police, 289 Or. 233, 611 P.2d 1153 (Or. 1980) (discovery rule for OTCA notice)
- Benson v. State of Oregon, 196 Or.App. 211, 100 P.3d 1097 (Or. App. 2004) (what plaintiff should know to trigger OTCA clock)
- Hiber v. Creditors Collection Service, 154 Or.App. 408, 961 P.2d 898 (Or. App. 1998) (elements of false arrest)
- Lam v. State (Lam, State v. Lam), State v. Lam, 176 Or.App. 149, 29 P.3d 1206 (Or. App. 2001) (speech vs. conduct under ORS 162.247; interpretation of ‘acts’)
- Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or. 634, 20 P.3d 180 (Or. 2001) (qualified immunity framework in Oregon context)
- Picray v. Sealock, 138 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1998) (probable cause standard in Fourth Amendment context)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (two-prong qualified immunity test (historical context))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (retains flexible order for §1983 immunity analysis)
- Lam, State v. Lam, Lam, 176 Or.App. 149 (Or. App. 2001) (statutory interpretation guiding qualified immunity)