9 F.4th 239
3rd Cir.2021Background
- Lozano, a disabled veteran with handicapped parking and tinted-window permits, parked at a Wawa late at night; Sergeant Dorilus investigated because he could not see the placard and suspected intoxication.
- Dorilus said Lozano "reeked of alcohol," asked him to perform field sobriety tests, and arrested him after Lozano refused, citing physical inability; Hernandez was present during questioning and handcuffing and later transported Lozano to the police station.
- At the station Lozano attempted breath tests but could not provide sufficient samples due to asthma, suffered an asthma attack, was hospitalized, and never completed a breathalyzer; charges (DWI and refusal) were filed the next day and later dismissed after medical records were produced.
- Lozano sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA), and New Jersey common law (TCA prerequisites) for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution; Dorilus and Hernandez moved for summary judgment.
- The District Court denied summary judgment, finding factual disputes and ruling Hernandez was "integral" to the arrest because he transported Lozano to headquarters; Hernandez appealed qualified immunity and jurisdictional issues for CRA claims.
- The Third Circuit held it has collateral-order jurisdiction to review denials of CRA qualified immunity (treating CRA immunity as immunity from suit), reversed denial of qualified immunity for Hernandez on § 1983 and CRA claims, and dismissed the TCA-related appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has collateral-order jurisdiction over denial of CRA qualified immunity | CRA immunity is not an immunity from suit; appeal should be allowed? | CRA qualified immunity is analogous to § 1983 qualified immunity and is immunity from suit, permitting immediate appeal | Court holds CRA qualified immunity is immunity from suit; collateral-order jurisdiction exists for legal questions about CRA qualified immunity |
| Whether Hernandez is liable for false arrest | Hernandez’s presence and transportation of Lozano were integral to the arrest and make him liable | Hernandez did not place handcuffs, did not effect the arrest, and merely transported detainee (administrative step) | Reversed: transporting and mere presence are not part of the arrest; Hernandez entitled to qualified immunity for false arrest |
| Whether Hernandez is liable for false imprisonment | Transportation and detention by Hernandez are sufficient to deny immunity because probable cause was lacking | Even taking disputed facts favorably, Hernandez reasonably believed probable cause existed based on Dorilus’s observations and Lozano’s refusal to cooperate | Held: objectively reasonable for Hernandez to believe probable cause existed; qualified immunity applies to false imprisonment claim |
| Whether Hernandez is liable for malicious prosecution | Hernandez participated in initiating and pursuing criminal charges | No evidence Hernandez initiated or caused filing of charges; charging was done by Dorilus/prosecutor | Held: no evidence Hernandez initiated prosecution; qualified immunity applies to malicious prosecution claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (collateral-order doctrine permits interlocutory appeal of immunity that is immunity from suit)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step may be applied in either order)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (first articulation of two-prong qualified immunity test)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (officers entitled to immunity when they reasonably but mistakenly conclude probable cause exists)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (distinguishes arrest from administrative steps incident to arrest)
- Harvard v. Cesnalis, 973 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2020) (elements of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution)
- Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 772 F.3d 979 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment denials of qualified immunity)
- Grabowski v. Brown, 922 F.2d 1097 (3d Cir. 1990) (TCA immunities as defense to liability, not immunity from suit)
- Morillo v. Torres, 117 A.3d 1206 (N.J. 2015) (CRA qualified immunity assessed with federal case law)
- Brown v. State, 165 A.3d 735 (N.J. 2017) (CRA qualified immunity relieves eligible defendants from the burden of trial)