Nicole Haberle v. Daniel Troxell
885 F.3d 170
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Timothy Nixon, who suffered from mental illness and had threatened suicide, stole a handgun and was located at his cousin's apartment. His partner, Nicole Haberle, notified the Borough of Nazareth police.
- Officer Daniel Troxell obtained an arrest warrant, traveled to the apartment with other officers, rejected suggestions to wait for crisis negotiators or form a perimeter, knocked on the door, identified himself, and Nixon immediately shot himself.
- Haberle sued Troxell, other officers, Borough officials, and the Borough under § 1983, the ADA, and various Pennsylvania tort claims; the District Court dismissed all claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and denied leave to further amend.
- On appeal Haberle argued (1) Troxell’s conduct was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure, (2) Troxell created a state-created danger in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) the Borough violated Title II of the ADA by failing to modify policies and train officers to accommodate disabled persons.
- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims (no seizure; no constitutionally cognizable state-created danger because conduct did not shock the conscience) but vacated and remanded the ADA claim to permit narrow amendment to plead deliberate indifference by the Borough.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Troxell’s knock-and-talk was a Fourth Amendment seizure | Haberle: Troxell’s conduct effectively seized Nixon by creating coercive police presence that restricted liberty | Troxell: Simply knocking and announcing presence is not a seizure; no intimidating conduct or awareness of warrant/perimeter alleged | Court: Not a seizure — knock-and-talk alone insufficient; no facts showing Nixon was not free to leave |
| Whether Troxell’s conduct created a Fourteenth Amendment state-created danger | Haberle: Troxell increased Nixon’s vulnerability and his suicide was a foreseeable, direct harm caused by Troxell | Troxell: Conduct was at most negligent or a reasonable tactical choice under time pressure; not conscience-shocking | Court: No state-created danger — application of intermediate (hurried deliberation) standard; conduct did not shock the conscience |
| Whether Title II of the ADA applies to arrests / police conduct | Haberle: Borough’s failure to modify policies/training violated ADA when interacting with disabled persons during arrests | Borough: (argued implicitly) ADA not shown to be violated here; no deliberate indifference pleaded | Court: ADA can apply to arrests (including via ‘‘subjected to discrimination’’); however, damages require deliberate indifference, which Haberle failed to plead; remand allowed to amend ADA claim narrowly |
| Whether municipal liability for training/policy failures supports ADA damages | Haberle: Borough’s failure to adopt/implement policies and alleged history of rights violations show deliberate indifference | Borough: Mere consideration of policies or falling below national standards does not establish deliberate indifference | Court: Pleading insufficient — must allege pattern of similar past violations or that risk was so obvious; failure to adopt drafts alone not enough; leave to amend ADA allegations permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003) (knock-and-talk is not a seizure absent coercive conduct)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (factors that transform police contact into a seizure)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (no affirmative due-process duty to protect from private actors absent state creation or custody)
- Bright v. Westmoreland Cty., 443 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of state-created danger claim)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (only conscience-shocking official conduct violates substantive due process)
- Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2006) (application of conscience-shocking standard under time pressure)
- Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference pattern-or-obvious-risk framework)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (municipal liability requires proof that policymakers were on notice from prior similar incidents)
- Yeskey v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 524 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1998) (broad application of Title II to state institutions)
- Sheehan v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (Title II applies to arrests)