*1 judg- portion affirm that We directs Court which the District

ment of the owners to reimburse

the Government post-forfeiture de- the value

preciation in- the eases with but remand be also Government

structions for the the owners directed reimburse occurring depreciation between

value of and the date of the seizures date judgments en- forfeiture which the

tered. corporation, FILMS, INC., a

CAMBIST Appellant, et

Kobert W. DUGGAN al. 72-1205.

No. Appeals, States Court

United Third Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 1973. March

Decided the owners In the eases later declared void. We understand 2465, but under seek not “costs” Section 2465 to include “costs” Section property at the time itself value costs and costs to the sei incident seized. United States v. One zure. Truck, (E.D.Va. G.M.C. *2 THE

OPINION OF COURT PER CURIAM: appeal This is taken from the dismis- sal as to all defendants of a damages sought against dis- attorney trict and the chief detectives County, (Robert Duggan Allegheny Crone, respectively) and Edward G. and detectives, by certain for the seizure they detectives of films which consid- ered to be “obscene”. Plaintiff Cambist here was the owner of distribution rights picture to a motion “The called The film cer- Female”. was seized from showing tain movie theaters that were it. The film was taken fol- under the lowing circumstances. Detectives were to sent view the film at different loca- One, superiors, tions. sent minutes, viewed all but 15 it vi- believed Pennsylvania statutes, olated criminal manager of arrested the the theater and custody Another, took of the film. act- ing under orders of an assistant district attorney, viewed the film decided violated criminal statutes Pennsylvania. He also arrested manager custody theater and took A third detective in re- film. sponse acted police.

to a from local viewing portion After substantial film, he too concluded that it violat- ed criminal statutes. He placed custody took of the film and manager under arrest. Plaintiff insti- alleging illegal tuted an sei- court, zure of the film. The district Dug- ordered defendants gan prints to return the film Crone holding plaintiff, to that the after facts presented not deter- sufficient films as order mine the obscene. This complied then insti- with. Cambist tuted this dam- common law action for Alpern, Alpern Alpern, David F. & ages which it claimed from the resulted Pittsburgh, Pa., appellant. illegal film. search seizure Pittsburgh, Pa., Cowie, Norman J. generally princi It is settled appellees; Thomson, Grigsby, Rhodes & ple attorney law that a district is a Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel. officer”, Commonwealth, “quasi-judicial Before Specter Martin, McLAUGHLIN and VAN DU- ex rel. 426 Pa. SEN, Judges, GREEN, (1967), per Circuit Dis- 232 A.2d and in the Judge. trict imposed of duties on him formance 2d, 1, ap personal subjected ment of Torts Comment law, he be cannot necessary. peace pears “A That through states law action. liability common making general prin without war has, officer an arrest aas law every protected in case when he cannot rant is quasi-judicial officers ciple, that liability, under a reasonable mistake as subjected civil or crimi acts be nal, acts, which, under the any judicial no of facts *3 the existence their of justify Section, long they in ar erroneous, as rule stated this an so how matter Petition, the other good rest without a warrant. On hand, faith. McNair’s act in given police protection a (1936). no 48, dis is See 187 A. 498 Pa. 324 reasonably, who, however acts Federal officer 289. Am.Jur.2d § cussion 63 similarly of than a under a mistake law other Bauers held. See have courts 1966). validity or (3 to the a statute as of Heisel, mistake F.2d 581 Cir. 361 v. language determine in ordinance.” must then We here refers to the Cambist justify without a implied not what facts an arrest v. Heisel which Bauers attorney is rule in should be warrant. The a acts of district all may that “an officer make an arrest That case immune. “ ** * prosecu proba immunity without a where he of a warrant limitation; tor, however, a misdemeanor ble believe that not without is being presence.” immunity in of is committed The it not absolute. prose immunity v. Gar judges, of of from Commonwealth rick, which derivative, 126, Pa.Super. 124, 8 232 A.2d does not extend to 210 cutors is us, ju (1967). the de clearly their In the matter before which are outside acts entering the film in Heisel tectives watched after risdiction.” This discussion pertains alleged premises visitors, involving business as to eases viola they Rights Act, viewed not decided that the facts as tions of the com Civil them, in viola mon In eases the film was obscene and law tort actions. such Therefore,- they recognized of 18 Heisel distinction that tion P.S. ju the theater seized the films arrested needs be observed between excess of though managers. Even was later risdiction, it would circumstance which Duggan, Films, liability, opposed v. found in Cambist Inc. not allow as to the (3 1969) these jurisdiction 420 F.2d 687 Cir. clear of all over the absence classify subject matter, facts not sufficient this in lia which could result film, goes ques bility judicial an without in obscene for the official Civil Rights tion that the facts and circumstances circumstances. Robichaud v. (9 Ronan, 1965); at the time available to the officers 351 F.2d 533 Cir. Brautigam, provide Lewis (5 v. 227 F.2d 124 an ordi were such as to seizure 1955). considering possi Cir. Even nary person reasonable belief with a rights problem here, liability civil ble no being offense was committed. an prosecutor can be attributed was, most, fact a mistake of It at present our he case because was not act actions, this does in their but officers ing clearly jurisdiction. he where had no any not liable tort make them investigating alleged He was an viola Ray, U.S. v. 386 standard. See Pierson Pennsylvania, tion of the laws of which Po L.Ed.2d 288. 87 18 S.Ct. powers duties, was within his expected to not have lice officers are proscribed the actions which he in this knowledge complete of the intricacies necessary he instance were such as felt might try appellant to have ease law as to the enforcement of those laws. Ob Crumlish, he viously, way hold when cites Smith approaches us no case jurisdiction” (1966). Pa.Super. “clear absence of A.2d 218 596 required possible liability standard only expected in ac to act The officer is part prosecutor. on the of the circumstances facts and cord with the given he is con situation with part liability

As to on the officers, a consideration Restate fronted. County.2 Finally, previously plaintiff for reasons dis- The in that com respect attorney’s plaint only sought equitable relief; cussed in quasi-judicial status, a district an injunction against un- he is not liable the defendants and agents der prints these facts for actions of his return film. its previously, Inc., and detectives. As noted Films, Duggan Cambist Inc. v. et liability prosecutor al., there is no for the or (W.D.Pa.1969), detectives, and there is no part, basis for rev’d in 420 F.2d 687 attempting liability merely to create be- agent party cause one here 2, 1969, June On after the decision in other. court, plaintiffs brought district district among against, oth- will be affirmed. ers, Allegheny County Crone and named *4 case, detectives.3 In the instant the DUSEN, (con- Judge VAN Circuit plaintiff damages. now claims curring) . plaintiff by Where a I in concur the has had an result reached the opportunity foregoing damages opinion, seek in its ear but differ in the rea action, soning lier support judg its failure to to be used to combine all of the claims, legal equitable, its as ment for the gheny County1 well Chief of Alle as Detectives of which could been have asserted and the work and con detectives ing cluded in action, the under him. earlier is fatal and county detectives were entitled to a Films, Inc., plaintiff, The Cambist judgment in their favor on the basis of previously (Civil instituted suit No. a judicata.4 For, the doctrine of res is as 69-300) in the District Court for the by Professor Moore: Western District of on “ against 17, 1969, Dug- equity . . . March gan, where Robert law W. litigant Attorney Allegheny have been united District and a for can grounds County, Crone, relief, all his for Edward Chief of De- G. legal Allegheny equitable, County, Joseph whether or tectives of Loughran, inconsist- M. ent, hypothetical, Attorney alternative or in District West- a single County, Gordon, action he moreland should be held to have and Edward but one of Chief of cause action and of Westmoreland final Detectives judgment transcript pre-trial 1. earlier of res The doctrine confer- judicata County “depends upon extent ence clear makes the Chief of legal equitable during hospital have was ill in the remedies Detectives merged subject judg in all been the state where the which are the mat- events Paper Hennepin ment ter rendered.” Co. of this action. Wayne Corrugated Paper Co., Fort v. 153 Paragraph plaintiff’s complaint 2. 6 of the 822, (7th 1946); F.2d 826 Cir. Restate alleged in Action 69-300 Civil No. Judgments, (1942). ment of § 66 How “through duly Crone, authorized [his] ever, quite it is clear that in the federal servants, employees officers,” agents, or system equity in law actions have acting color of state law in viola- been united “one form action to into of tion 42 of U.S.C. 1983 “seized and con- § 2, be known as ‘civil action’.” Rule F.R. print fiscated a of said film Fe- [‘The Civ.P.; g., Wright, e. see of Fed Law contrary requirements male’]” of Courts, (2d 1970). And, eral ed. § 67 First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amend- law, if even one looks ments. equity may, jur court once it assumes Daily, isdiction, grant complete including 3. Detectives Joller and Kumer were relief money. suit, judgment in re- not named but are v. Ameri first Lafean paragraph complaint 276, 622, in Co., ferred to 6 can Caramel 271 Pa. A. 114 (1921) ; Helmig 2 in Civil Action No. 69-300. See note 624 see also Rockwell v. supra. Co., Manufacturing 21, 131 A.2d 389 Pa. (1957). 622 is, course, recognized It whether precluded plaintiff should be

891 the instant stant Two arose out IB Gambocz Cir. [1], ble, as The cause of action. One fair previous Moore’s, 1972). at 1156-57 enough.” to all action. in plaintiff four support matters, Yelencsics, on the merits complaint. suit were Federal principal (2d same factual context or legal ed., previous had its fair Practice, 468 named in the defense defendants 1965); and/or Compare com- is res F.2d day judicata see 837 equita- 0.410 from day. also (3d in- Goodrich’s Corp., supra, S.Ct. (emphasis ond suit. tion. tion such a determined Lawlor eral gardless court, 211 F.2d ^[865] same of issues estoppel, Under judgment precludes v. National Screen Service of whether supplied). opinion at 349 U.S. [322] the doctrine actually [, action as prior 99 L.Ed. 1122] Lawlor, litigated other also at of collat- suit, based on relitiga- the sec- before Judge hand, re- 69-300, Appel- plaint No. in Civil Action lb, App. filed

lees’ at with previously determined that “We 69-665, Action No. (Civil June allegations essential second W.D.Pa.), App. Appellant’s at As 7a. complaint parallel those of first. *5 recently by Judge Aldisert Moreover, what averred the was Gambocz, supra, at 841-842: original conspiracy par- action was a individuals, ticipated named adjective ‘collateral’ “Use change material in the later sole estoppel form of this characterize de- of certain suit was the addition grows the bar out of fact that fendants, of whom had been some adjudication prior inter- is not original named in the prior directly, parties posed conspiracy participating in the but suit, indirectly, by new defend- but parties defend- not been named as had strangers ants, the earlier action. ant at time. We conclude However, conceptual of such basis par- relationship the additional estoppel pure that of an is closer to complaint was so ties the second judicata pure ‘collateral res than es- parties to the first close to interposed toppel,’ bar because the repeti- merely second theory on the second and, of action tion of the first cause relitigate attempt the same but an by application therefore, is barred although action, names States, Bruszewski United [v. may be different. defendants 1950)] doc- 181 F.2d distinction this of es- between form trine.” toppel, ‘pure’ judicata, res collat- estoppel frequently em- eral been Consequently, I affirm would phasized : judgment court as to the district Crone, Daily, Kumer on Joller and Thus, under the doctrine of res judicata principles of res basis of the judicata, ‘on merits’ estoppel. and collateral involving prior in a suit the same parties Judge privies opin- or their a second bars concurs in GREEN suit same cause ac- based ion.