Richardson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 2:13-cv-01481

Background

On Sept. 4, 2012, Richardson was at a smoke shop (a known high-crime location) and began filming officers detaining suspects; one suspect told Richardson “Keep on recording.”
Officers Kvam and Jacobitz responded to a disturbance; Jacobitz recognized a suspect (Kelly) from prior narcotics activity and observed drugs on Kelly.
Based on the suspect’s interaction with Richardson and Jacobitz’s experience with “lookouts,” Jacobitz detained Richardson, who resisted, lay on the ground, and had to be moved into a patrol car after yelling and struggling.
While detained in the patrol car, Richardson became agitated, kicked, was hobble-restrained, and broke the rear passenger window with his head.
Richardson was criminally convicted in municipal court of obstructing a public officer for the same incident; he then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliatory arrest and Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure.
The court granted summary judgment for Officer Jacobitz, holding Richardson’s § 1983 claims are barred by Heck and, alternatively, that Richardson failed to raise a triable dispute that the detention was motivated by retaliation for filming.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 claims (First and Fourth Amendment) are barred by Heck v. Humphrey	Richardson contends his arrest/detention violated his First Amendment right to film police and his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure	Jacobitz argues a ruling for Richardson would invalidate his municipal conviction for obstructing a public officer and is thus barred by Heck	Heck bars both claims because success would imply invalidity of the conviction; summary judgment for defendant
Whether plaintiff has evidence that detention was retaliatory (First Amendment)	Richardson asserts he was detained for filming the arrests (retaliation for speech)	Jacobitz presents evidence detention was based on reasonable suspicion that Richardson acted as a lookout and on Richardson’s disruptive conduct	Richardson produced no evidence creating a genuine dispute that the detention was motivated by retaliation; claim fails
Whether there was probable cause/reasonable suspicion for the detention (Fourth Amendment)	Richardson argues officers lacked probable cause to detain him	Jacobitz contends his observations and familiarity with the suspect provided reasonable suspicion for detention; further criminal conviction supports lawfulness	Court finds prevailing on the § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim would invalidate the conviction and is barred by Heck; summary judgment for defendant
Whether summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 56 standards	Richardson relied on his pleadings and assertions of filming as protected speech	Jacobitz supplied evidence of facts supporting detention and conviction; plaintiff did not present competent evidence raising a triable issue	The court applied Rule 56 standards and found no genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment granted

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (§ 1983 claim barred if success would invalidate conviction)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for evaluating evidence at summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine factual dispute)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (summary judgment burden when movant bears trial burden)
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626 (Ninth Circuit on drawing inferences for nonmovant)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment excessive force and seizure standards)
Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008 (conviction bars related § 1983 claim until invalidated)
Smith v. Ball, [citation="278 F. App'x 739"] (First Amendment arrest claim likely barred by Heck)