150 F. Supp. 3d 457
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Kia Gaymon, her daughter Sanshuray Purnell, and husband Michael Gaymon allege that Collingdale police responded to a neighbor’s petty parking/spitting complaint, confronted the family, and acted aggressively.
- Mrs. Gaymon began videotaping the encounter from her home; Officer White ordered her to stop, claimed the recording violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act, threatened arrest, and allegedly forced his way into the home.
- Officer White handcuffed and arrested Sanshuray at the doorway, then arrested Mrs. Gaymon inside the home; both women were later released and charged with disorderly conduct, charges that were dismissed by a Magisterial District Justice.
- Plaintiffs allege Fourth Amendment claims (false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful search) and a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers and the Borough.
- Defendants moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity, arguing (1) uncertainty about whether the Wiretap Act barred videotaping and (2) that a clearly established First Amendment right to record police did not exist.
- The court denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage, finding that, on the allegations, no reasonable officer would have believed probable cause existed for disorderly conduct or that entry/arrest inside the home was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for disorderly conduct arrest | Videotaping from inside private property and verbal objections are not public disorderly conduct; no intent to alarm | Officers reasonably believed the statute or circumstances justified arrest | Court: No reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed under the statute on these facts; qualified immunity denied |
| Entry into home and warrantless search/arrest | Officers entered without consent or exigency; Fourth Amendment bars warrantless home entry | Officers claim lawful basis (probable cause/exceptions) | Court: Allegations show no exigency or consent; entry/unlawful arrest not protected by qualified immunity |
| Wiretap Act application to open videotaping | Gaymon: open, non-covert recording from private property is not a Wiretap Act violation | Defendants: law was unsettled in 2014 whether recording officers could violate the Act | Court: Controlling precedent pre-2014 required a reasonable expectation of privacy for Wiretap Act liability; open recording here not covered — defense fails |
| First Amendment right to record / retaliation claim | Plaintiffs: verbal objections and recording are protected speech; arrests were retaliatory | Defendants: no clearly established right to record officers (or uncertainty), so qualified immunity applies | Court: Even if a right to record were unsettled, First Amendment protection for verbal criticism was clearly established; on allegations retaliation occurred, qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes pleading standard for constitutional claims)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (articulates modern qualified immunity standard)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (officers must have "fair warning" their conduct is unconstitutional)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (clarifies that exact prior precedent not required to clearly establish a right)
- Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (Third Circuit: Wiretap Act requires reasonable expectation of privacy)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (First Amendment protects verbal criticism of police)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (warrantless entry into a home impermissible absent consent or exigency)
- Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14 (cannot punish nonprovocative verbal objection to police)
- Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg, 736 F.2d 903 (retaliatory prosecution for exercising First Amendment rights cognizable under § 1983)