Panarello v. City of Vineland
160 F. Supp. 3d 734
D.N.J.2016Background
- Neighbors Panarello and Ramos had repeated disputes; on July 7, 2010 a confrontation occurred when John Panarello smacked a board on a privacy fence and Ramos (a Vineland officer) grabbed the other end. Ramos’ wife called police reporting an attempted strike.
- Officers Laielli and Shaw approached the Panarello property via the driveway, saw John in the backyard, called to him, and followed him into the backyard and toward the back door; a physical struggle resulted and officers arrested Panarello. Accounts diverge as to whether Panarello resisted or was subdued while restrained.
- Panarello was transported to the station (Officer Armstrong the transporter) and later sprayed with OC by Officer Day; criminal charges were filed and Panarello was convicted of resisting arrest and assault on an EMT; some charges were downgraded/remanded.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, NJCRA, and state tort law against the Ramoses, several Vineland officers, Sergeant Riggione, Chief Codispotti, and the City. Defendants moved for summary judgment; Plaintiffs cross-moved on certain Fourth Amendment and spoliation issues.
- The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Surviving federal claims: (a) Fourth Amendment unlawful entry/arrest in the backyard by Officers Laielli and Shaw; (b) excessive force in transport (Armstrong); (c) excessive force (OC spray) by Officer Day at booking; (d) retaliatory complaint claims by Laielli, Shaw, Armstrong and Riggione; plus certain state-law claims against the Ramoses. City and Chief, and many state tort claims, were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry onto driveway | Any entry onto property was unlawful | Driveway is part of access to front door; officers may approach to investigate | Entry onto driveway lawful; summary judgment for officers on driveway entry only |
| Warrantless entry into backyard and warrantless arrest | Backyard entry and arrest were unconstitutional; no exigency or public-view basis | Officers had probable cause to arrest for obstruction after Panarello retreated; if visible to public, pursuit and entry permitted | Genuine factual dispute whether Panarello was in public view; summary judgment denied on backyard entry and arrest (claims survive) |
| Excessive force at time of arrest | Force used during arrest was excessive and some blows occurred after restraint | Force was reasonable given resistance; Heck bars claims inconsistent with resisting-arrest conviction | Excessive-force claims about force used during arrest are Heck-barred and dismissed |
| Excessive force in transport and at booking (OC spray) | Armstrong drove recklessly to worsen injuries; Day used OC while Panarello was restrained | Defendants say transport was legitimate and OC used to obtain compliance | Disputed facts exist as to both transport and OC use; these claims survive summary judgment |
| Malicious prosecution / abuse of process / conspiracy | Criminal complaints were retaliatory, evidence of spoliation and a conspiracy to prosecute | Probable cause existed for the complaints; no evidence of conspiracy; some claims time-barred for lack of NJTCA notice | Malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims dismissed (no favorable termination/probable cause); conspiracy claims dismissed for lack of evidence |
| Municipal liability (Monell) – policy/custom/failure to train/ordinance | City had custom/failed to train; old ordinance encourages arrests on "suspicious circumstances" | No evidence of relevant pattern, training deficits, or reliance on the antiquated ordinance | Monell claims dismissed for failure to prove municipal policy/custom, deliberate indifference, or causal link |
| State-law torts & NJTCA notice | Plaintiffs assert assault/battery, false arrest, spoliation, negligent supervision etc. | Many claims untimely under NJTCA notice requirement; City immune from vicarious liability for intentional torts | Most state tort claims dismissed for failure to provide NJTCA notice, immunity, or Heck effect; assault/battery claim against Ramos only survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and allocation of burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on collateral attack via § 1983 that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into home presumptively unreasonable)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (curtilage and heightened privacy expectations)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (deliberate indifference and pattern requirement for failure-to-train claims)
- Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (elements and favorable-termination analysis for § 1983 malicious prosecution)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (pursuit into home after public-view conduct)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (limitations on warrantless entry for minor offenses)