Dwayne Harvard v. Christopher Cesnalis
973 F.3d 190
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- Harvard (Black) gave a stranger, Mazzetti, a ride after she feared her boyfriend, Sutton (White); Sutton threatened them, brandished a knife, jumped on Harvard’s SUV hood, and allegedly had a gun. Harvard called 911 and drove to a police roadblock following operator instructions.
- At the scene Trooper Cesnalis interviewed Harvard (who reported threats and weapons), smelled alcohol, observed sweating and rapid speech, and had Harvard take a breath test (BAC below legal limit). Cesnalis nevertheless arrested Harvard and prepared an affidavit heavily crediting Sutton and omitting exculpatory facts. Cesnalis allegedly used racially charged language toward Harvard.
- Trooper Beatty (a Drug Recognition Expert) later performed a DRE based on information from Cesnalis and concluded impairment; a subsequent blood test was negative for drugs and showed a very low BAC.
- Criminal proceedings: DUI dismissed at preliminary hearing; bench trial resulted in acquittals on remaining charges.
- District Court granted summary judgment for both officers on all § 1983 claims; Third Circuit vacated summary judgment as to Cesnalis on false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and Equal Protection, and affirmed summary judgment for Beatty on all claims; affirmed summary judgment for Cesnalis on reckless-investigation and conspiracy claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / False imprisonment | Cesnalis arrested and detained Harvard without probable cause; exculpatory facts (911 call, following operator, slowing to remove hood passenger, low BAC) were ignored | Officers had probable cause from observed signs (odor of alcohol, sweating, rapid speech) and victim’s account | Vacated as to Cesnalis — a juror could find lack of probable cause for multiple charged crimes (including DUI); affirmed for Beatty on false arrest |
| Malicious prosecution | Cesnalis initiated charges via an affidavit that omitted exculpatory facts, credited Sutton, and acted with malice; proceedings ended in Harvard’s favor | Defendants contend proceedings were initiated with probable cause | Vacated as to Cesnalis — a juror could find lack of probable cause and malicious purpose; affirmed for Beatty (no participation/malice shown) |
| Equal Protection (selective enforcement) | Harvard was treated differently because of race: Sutton (White aggressor) not charged while Harvard (Black) was arrested and charged; officer’s language and insinuations suggest racial animus | Defendants say no similarly situated comparator and no evidence of race-based discriminatory intent | Vacated as to Cesnalis — material disputes (comparator, racial slur, omissions) could permit a jury to find selective enforcement; Beatty not implicated |
| Reckless investigation / Civil conspiracy | Officers recklessly failed to investigate Sutton’s conduct and conspired to deprive Harvard’s rights | No recognized constitutional right to be free from reckless investigation; no evidence of an agreement between officers to violate rights; qualified immunity | Affirmed as to both officers on reckless-investigation (not a recognized independent due‑process claim and not clearly established) and on conspiracy (no showing of concerted agreement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (plenary review of summary judgment; view facts for non‑movant)
- Dempsey v. Bucknell Univ., 834 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2016) (probable‑cause totality‑of‑circumstances and jury role)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (officer must consider plainly exculpatory evidence when assessing probable cause)
- James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements of false arrest claim)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (probable cause based on facts known at time of arrest)
- Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003) (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)
- Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628 (3d Cir. 1995) (false imprisonment claim follows unlawful arrest)
- Bennun v. Rutgers State Univ., 941 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1991) (similarly situated standard for equal protection)