McMullen Ex Rel. Obchinetz v. Maple Shade Township Ex Rel. New Jersey Municipal
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13084
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- McMullen was arrested in Maple Shade, NJ, in Oct 2007 for violating Maple Shade Code § 142-2 (public intoxication).
- ATRA prohibits municipalities from enacting or maintaining public intoxication offenses and may repeal existing ones.
- A Maple Shade municipal judge dismissed the charge based on ATRA's preemption argument.
- McMullen sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the ordinance as preempted by ATRA and seeking § 1983 relief for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations plus state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding no cognizable § 1983 claim where the ordinance’s invalidity under state law was not unambiguously established and abstaining from deciding unresolved state-law questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest under an allegedly invalid local ordinance can support a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim. | McMullen argues the ordinance is preempted by ATRA and cannot provide probable cause. | Maple Shade contends the arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute is not unambiguously invalid. | Not cognizable; claim fails as ordinance not shown unambiguously invalid. |
| Whether § 1983 provides a remedy for violations when state-law validity is at issue. | McMullen asserts federal relief for unlawful arrest based on state-law invalidity. | Defendant maintains § 1983 protects federal rights, not state-law questions. | Yes, but not here because the state-law validity dispute is unresolved. |
| Whether ATRA preempts the Maple Shade ordinance, creating federal-rights basis for relief. | McMullen relies on ATRA preemption to challenge the ordinance. | Township argues ambiguity exists about preemption given Home Rule Act and state law. | Ambiguity remains; not unambiguously preempted on this record. |
| Should federal courts abstain from ruling on unresolved state-law issues | The court notes abstention concerns but dispositive result rests on lack of unambiguous invalidity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (establishes § 1983 as remedy for federal rights; imposes favorable termination rule)
- Amore v. Novarro, 624 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 2010) (assumes arrest under unconstitutional statute can violate Fourth Amendment)
- Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (arrest under statute later deemed unconstitutional can affect probable cause)
- Cooper v. Dillon, 403 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (statutory invalidity may support § 1983 claim; distinct from this record)
- Doe v. Metro. Police Dep't, 445 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (unambiguous state-law invalidity cannot support proper arrest)
- City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619 (Supreme Court 2010) (Fourth Amendment analysis not per se based on statutory violation)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (state-law validity does not automatically render Fourth Amendment claim)