PANTERMOLLER v. TOWN OF FAIRFIELD
1:17-cv-00223
| D. Me. | Mar 20, 2018Background
- In June 2016 Mark Pantermoller entered the Fairfield Town Hall, remained in the Town Manager Michelle Flewelling’s office after she asked to speak in the hallway, and was warned twice by Officer Casey Dugas to leave or be arrested for criminal trespass; he refused and was arrested.
- Officer Dugas wore a body camera; footage corroborates that Pantermoller was asked to leave, warned of arrest, said “arrest me,” and was handcuffed and transported to jail.
- Prior interactions: Pantermoller had repeatedly accused Town employees and police of involvement with a series of Facebook pages called “Purge of Maine,” disrupted a Town Council meeting, and had been asked to leave the police station the day before the arrest.
- Pantermoller sued the Town of Fairfield, Town Manager Flewelling, Chief Gould, Sergeant Wilcox, and Officer Dugas asserting federal constitutional claims (due process, equal protection) and multiple state tort claims (false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation/false light, negligence, emotional distress, invasion of privacy, negligent hiring/supervision/training).
- The Town moved for summary judgment; Pantermoller did not oppose the motion and voluntarily dismissed two counts and the police department as a defendant.
- The court found the arrest supported by probable cause, granted summary judgment to the Town and individual defendants on all federal and state-law claims, and held the Town immune under the Maine Tort Claims Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest violated due process/Fourteenth Amendment (lack of probable cause) | Pantermoller contends police lacked probable cause to arrest him for criminal trespass | Police argue Pantermoller refused a lawful order to leave after warnings, committing misdemeanor criminal trespass in officers’ presence | Held for defendants: probable cause existed; Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim unavailable for arrest unsupported by probable cause; summary judgment granted |
| Whether Fifth Amendment due process claim is viable | Pantermoller asserted federal due process violations | Defendants: Fifth Amendment applies only to federal actors; no federal actors here | Held for defendants: Fifth Amendment inapplicable; summary judgment granted |
| Whether equal protection claim survives | Pantermoller alleged denial of equal protection | Defendants: no evidence plaintiff is in a protected class or was intentionally discriminated against | Held for defendants: claim fails for lack of protected-class allegation or proof; summary judgment granted |
| Whether state tort claims and defamation/false light survive given MTCA immunity | Pantermoller asserted various torts and that Chief Gould defamed/misrepresented arrest to press | Defendants: individual employees immune under MTCA absent bad faith or conduct so egregious it exceeded discretion; municipality immune except where statute waives immunity; Gould’s statements were truthful | Held for defendants: MTCA bars the tort claims; no bad faith or egregious conduct shown; Gould’s statements truthful; Town immune; summary judgment granted on all counts |
Key Cases Cited
- NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (treating Rule 7(b) waiver in light of summary judgment standards)
- Jaroma v. Massey, 873 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1989) (summary judgment standards)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (officer may arrest for minor offense committed in presence)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1994) (substantive due process not proper vehicle when specific constitutional amendment applies)
- Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (Fourteenth Amendment does not provide substantive right against criminal prosecutions unsupported by probable cause)
- Ramos v. Sánchez-Ramos, 498 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (Fifth Amendment due process applies only to federal actors)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (arrest constitutionally reasonable when officer has probable cause for minor crime)
- Berube v. Conley, 506 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2007) (conduct that is not constitutionally unreasonable will generally not be sufficiently egregious to overcome MTCA immunity)
- State v. Sanchez, 89 A.3d 1084 (Me. 2014) (order to leave public place lawful when authorized person has justification)
- State v. Gordon, 437 A.2d 855 (Me. 1981) (police treated as authorized persons when delegated authority to remove someone)