James A. Conrad v. New Hampshire Department of Safety & a.
104 A.3d 1029
N.H.2014Background
- Trooper James Conrad, a long‑time state trooper, had marital problems and prior incidents (September speeding, October administrative leave) culminating in a November 28, 2007 internal‑affairs interview at state police HQ.
- After being given Garrity warnings, Conrad repeatedly sought union representation; during a third encounter (≈2:45–3:00 p.m.) he became enraged, attempted to resign, displayed suicidal statements and threats, punched a door, and was restrained after a scuffle.
- Conrad was disarmed, held in an office for about two hours while officers assessed safety concerns, then arrested by Concord police and transported to hospital for psychiatric evaluation.
- Conrad sued the New Hampshire Department of Safety (NHDS) and Lt. Mark Myrdek for false imprisonment, and sued Myrdek under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure; a jury found for Conrad on false imprisonment and awarded $1.5 million.
- The trial court granted defendants’ post‑verdict directed verdict on immunity grounds: sovereign immunity for NHDS, official immunity for Myrdek on the state tort claim, and qualified immunity for Myrdek on the § 1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Myrdek is entitled to qualified immunity on Conrad’s § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) unlawful‑seizure claim | Conrad: jury verdict requires deferring to jury fact findings; detention after 2:45 p.m. was unreasonable and aimed solely to compel an interview without his chosen union counsel | Myrdek: evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor still shows objectively reasonable belief his conduct was lawful given threats, prior incidents, and safety concerns | Court: Qualified immunity applies — an objectively reasonable officer could (even mistakenly) believe detention and refusal to delay interview/resignation were lawful |
| Whether NHDS is entitled to sovereign immunity for intentional tort (false imprisonment) under RSA 541‑B:19, I(d) | Conrad: two‑hour detention was unreasonable; officers should have used IEA process and cannot create then disclaim a ‘‘caretaker’’ role | NHDS: officers acted within scope and reasonably believed detention lawful based on Conrad’s behavior and threats; protective custody statute permits temporary custodial transport for assessment | Court: Sovereign immunity applies — officers reasonably believed conduct lawful and acts were within scope of duties |
| Proper standard of review for immunity after a jury verdict | Conrad: court must honor jury’s factual findings and construe facts most favorable to plaintiff when resolving post‑verdict immunity | Defendants: immunity is for the court to decide; court may consider record in plaintiff’s favor and resolve legal immunity questions | Court: No error — court reviewed record in light most favorable to plaintiff and correctly applied legal standards de novo where appropriate |
| Whether Conrad had an absolute right to his chosen union attorney or to immediate resignation preventing detention | Conrad: entitled to union attorney (Donchess) and to resign immediately | Defendants: policy grants right to association/union representation but not a right to a specific individual and forbids unreasonable delay of investigation; Conrad’s resignation was likely irrational given his state | Court: No absolute right to specific attorney; investigation policy and Conrad’s conduct made refusal to delay and rejection of resignation objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (recognition of Garrity warnings in compelled public‑employee interviews)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two‑prong framework; courts may choose order of prongs)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (objective reasonableness governs qualified immunity even where conduct violates Fourth Amendment)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity protects reasonable mistakes of law or fact)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity shields all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
- Everitt v. Gen. Elec. Co., 156 N.H. 202 (discussion of sovereign and official immunity policy and purposes)