Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia
719 F.3d 295
3rd Cir.2013Background
- On Dec. 15, 2009, Officers Gwynn and Ryan stopped and frisked suspected drug suspects; one suspect, Keyshawn Artis, later complained that the officers stole money.
- Gwynn and Ryan were ordered by supervisory officers to wait in Captain Singleton’s office pending Internal Affairs (IA) inquiry; they complied because they feared employment consequences. They were asked to remove outer clothing, show pockets, socks, wallets, and later discovered their lockers appeared searched.
- Plaintiffs sued departmental supervisors, the City, and the Police Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment search/seizure), state false imprisonment and due process claims, and wage claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act; summary judgment was entered for defendants and appealed.
- District Court initially deemed certain requests for admission admitted due to late responses but permitted withdrawal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); discovery was extended and summary judgment followed for defendants.
- On the merits, the district court held (and the Third Circuit affirmed) that plaintiffs were not Fourth Amendment–seized and that the searches were reasonable under the ‘‘special needs’’/O’Connor framework; wage and false-imprisonment claims also failed for lack of evidence/unlawful detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by permitting withdrawal of deemed admissions | Withdrawal prejudiced Gwynn/Ryan and deprived them of conclusive admissions supporting summary judgment | Withdrawal promoted adjudication on the merits and caused no unfair prejudice; discovery extended | Court affirmed withdrawal as within Rule 36(b) discretion; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether officers were ‘‘seized’’ in violation of Fourth Amendment when ordered to wait in captain’s office | Orders and employment coercion rendered them not free to leave — constituting a seizure | Orders were supervisory/employment-related; reasonable officer would not have believed they were detained as citizens | No seizure; supervisory context and working-relationships distinguish employment commands from custodial detentions |
| Whether requests to remove outer clothing, show pockets/socks/wallets, and locker checks were unreasonable searches | Such searches required warrant/probable cause and were unlawful | Searches were non-criminal, work-related, and fell under the special government needs/O’Connor standard; reasonably related and not excessively intrusive | Searches were reasonable under O’Connor/special-needs analysis; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether plaintiffs proved unpaid overtime / false imprisonment / due-process liberty claim | Plaintiffs claimed unpaid overtime and unlawful detention; alleged liberty interest violation | Defendants produced evidence of payment; plaintiffs produced no contrary admissible evidence; no unlawful detention found | Summary judgment for defendants: plaintiffs failed to rebut payment evidence; false imprisonment fails because no unlawful detention; due-process claim not meaningfully argued |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of seizure: restraint by physical force or show of authority)
- O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (Sup. Ct.) (work-related searches reasonable if reasonable grounds and not excessively intrusive)
- Driebel v. City of Milwaukee, 298 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.) (internal-investigation orders to officers not necessarily a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Pennington v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 511 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing supervisory employment orders from custodial seizure)
- Aguilera v. Baca, 510 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.) (holding post-shift IA interviews and waiting not a seizure; weighed supervisory context)
- Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F.3d 194 (2d Cir.) (example of conduct constituting seizure during internal investigation)
- Wilcher v. City of Wilmington, 139 F.3d 366 (3d Cir.) (special government needs standard for work-related searches)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (Sup. Ct.) (plaintiff bears burden to present evidence of unpaid work hours)