2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159544
M.D. Pa.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Randy and Janete Shrey sued Officer Raymond Kontz III under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure, due process, privacy, and related claims arising from Kontz’s seizure of over 600 Little League and Williamsport Police Department pins from the Shreys’ home.
- Judge Caldwell previously dismissed Counts II and III and the Shreys withdrew Count IV; case reassigned to Judge Brann in 2013.
- Trial: three days in 2013; eight jurors, unanimous verdict for the Shreys on all counts; jury found no qualified immunity and held Kontz liable for unlawful seizure and conversion.
- Kontz argued qualified immunity and other defenses; trial record showed lack of probable cause, no valid warrant exception, and disputed evidence about Osokow’s advice.
- Kontz sought judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and remittitur; Brann denied the motions in full.
- The court discussed evidence on Osokow’s advice, reliance on prosecutors, and absence of exigent circumstances or plain view justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kontz is entitled to qualified immunity | Shreys rely on Fourth Amendment violation; no valid probable cause | Kontz relied on prosecutor’s advice and believed he acted lawfully | No qualified immunity; jury found no reasonable reliance on prosecutor’s advice; no exigent circumstances or plain view support. |
| Whether probable cause and exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure | Seizure without warrant violated Fourth Amendment; no probable cause | There were exigent circumstances and probable cause | Neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances supported seizure. |
| Whether there was valid consent to seize the pins | Consent not freely and voluntarily given | Consent was voluntary | Consent not freely given; jury verdict stands against Kontz on Count I. |
| Whether the plain view doctrine applied | Pins were in plain view during lawful seizure | Pins in question were not in plain view; appearance of plain view manipulated | Plain view not established; not applicable. |
| Whether remittitur or new trial were warranted | Jury award reasonable | Damages and punitive award excessive or misapplied | Denies remittitur and new trial; verdict and damages upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir.1993) (standard for Rule 50 judgments; evidence viewed in non-movant’s favor)
- Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966 (3d Cir.1996) (sixty-s strong standard for sufficiency of evidence in JML analysis)
- McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446 (3d Cir.1995) (evidence sufficiency; avoid weighing credibility on JML)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework (predominant initial approach))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permissible to address prongs in arbitrary order)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (clear Fourth Amendment home seizure doctrine)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (qualified immunity not based on mere officer consensus)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (probable cause and warrant requirement for seizures; exigency caveat)
- Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir.2010) (prosecutor’s advice can support qualified immunity when reasonable)