490 F. App'x 447
3rd Cir.2012Background
- In December 2001 Haagensen had verbal incidents with hunters on or near her Lawrence County farm; police concluded hunters acted lawfully and Haagensen violated the Hunter Harassment Statute (HHS) and Criminal Harassment Statute.
- A state judge convicted Haagensen on five HHS counts; Commonwealth Court reversed for lack of evidence of intent to interfere with lawful wildlife taking, not addressing constitutional challenges.
- Haagensen filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations by state officers, the Game Commission, the game warden, and hunters; she claimed HHS unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and alleged retaliatory prosecution, false arrest, and related claims; she also asserted state-law claims.
- District Court dismissed some claims; granted partial summary judgment; a jury trial on First Amendment retaliation proceeded but hunters prevailed on JMOL after Haagensen presented her case.
- On appeal, Haagensen challenges the HHS facially and as applied, and the District Court’s handling of accrual/timeliness for § 1983 claims, among other issues; the court reviews constitutional challenges de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the HHS facially valid under the First Amendment? | Haagensen argues HHS is overbroad and chills protected speech. | Commonwealth Defendants contend HHS is content-neutral and narrowly tailored to substantial interests. | HHS facially valid; content-neutral, intermediate scrutiny applied. |
| Is the HHS as applied to Haagensen vague or unconstitutionally vague? | Haagensen asserts failure to define 'harass' violates due process and chills speech. | Defendants argue statute includes specific intent and conduct limitations, avoiding vagueness. | Not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Is Haagensen's as-applied challenge to § 2709 (criminal harassment) time-barred or timely after accrual? | Haagensen contends accrual was after June 2, 2006; timely under § 5524. | Haagensen's claims accrued by June 2, 2006; filed May 27, 2008; untimely. | As-applied challenge time-barred; affirmed dismissal on timeliness. |
| Did the district court err in dismissing Haagensen's malicious prosecution claim or treat others’ actions properly under § 1983? | Haagensen alleges false arrest/prosecution by state actors; seeks relief. | Attending trial does not constitute seizure; no conspiracy proven with hunters. | Malicious prosecution claim properly dismissed; no seizure or conspiracy shown. |
| Was the admission of state-officer hearsay as to hunters' statements proper? | Officers’ out-of-court statements were unfair hearsay and prejudicial. | Testimony was non-hearsay, reflecting officers’ state of mind, not truth of assertions. | Hearsay ruling correct; not hearsay as state-of-mind evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 677 F.3d 519 (3d Cir. 2012) (facial challenges disfavored; content-neutral scrutiny applies)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (facial challenges require careful limits; overbreadth caution)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (limits on facial challenges; avoid hypotheticals)
- Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2009) (content-neutral restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time/place/manner restrictions; ample channels; substantial interest)
- Melrose, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 613 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2010) (tests for content-neutral restrictions and tailoring)
- DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008) (overbreadth/vagueness considerations)
- United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2010) (overbreadth standard for First Amendment scrutiny)
- Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1992) (vagueness analysis in Third Circuit)
- Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981) (cognizable interest in prosecutions; standing concepts)
- DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood, 407 F.3d 599 (3d Cir. 2005) (seizure and personal involvement standards for § 1983)
- Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2005) (personal involvement required for liability)