Beverly Hills Suites LLC v. Town of Windsor Locks

136 F.Supp.3d 167

Beverly Hills Suites LLC, et al, Plaintiff,

v.Town of Windsor Locks, et al., Defendant.

No. 3:12-cv-00871 (MPS)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed September 30, 2015

David N. Neusner, Groton, CT, Simon Schwarz, New York, NY, for Plaintiff

James G. Williams, Ryan James McKone, Scott Roland Ouellette, North Haven, CT, for Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

From 2007 to 2010, the plaintiffs, a hotel and its principal, Sharok Jacobi, hosted parties, rap music concerts, gatherings of "swingers," and other events at their facility in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, in addition to renting rooms to guests. Some of these events attracted boisterous crowds, and the Windsor Locks police were summoned several times in response to noise complaints and reports of criminal activity, including fights and, on at least one occasion, a shooting. The police also referred the hotel to the Liquor Control Division of the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, as well as the Windsor Locks Fire Marshal, for alleged liquor and fire code violations—reports that prompted investigations by those authorities and led to temporary shut-downs of the hotel and its bar, as well as the arrest of Jacobi.

In this action, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants—a police officer, the police chief, and the Town of Windsor Locks—targeted them for enforcement activities based on animus against the plaintiffs' customers and entertainers—young, African-American and Hispanic people—and members of the swingers' groups who congregated for parties at the hotel and its bar. The hotel claims that the defendants harmed its business and asserts violations of First Amendment rights of free expression and association, selective enforcement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, deprivation of due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and "warrantless searches" by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Jacobi sues for false arrest and malicious prosecution.

I grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The First Amendment claims fail because the swingers' activity documented in the record—namely, participating in sexual encounters with others in the hotel's bar—is not protected by the First Amendment, and because the record does not contain any evidence that the defendants prevented or "chilled" any concerts. The selective enforcement claim fails because the plaintiffs have introduced no evidence that any other hotels in Windsor Locks demanded as much police attention or were otherwise similarly situated. The procedural due process claim fails because there is no evidence that the defendants improperly influenced the independent decisions by the Liquor Control Division and the Fire Marshal to shut down the bar and hotel, respectively, and thus no evidence that the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of property or liberty interests. The Fourth Amendment claim fails because the only evidence in the record about police visits to the hotel to which either side has pointed shows that the police were either summoned by hotel staff or were present in areas of the hotel—such as the bar and front desk—to which the hotel invited the public and in which it thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Finally, Jacobi's false arrest claim fails because the police had probable cause to arrest him, and the statements he contends were omitted from the arrest warrant affidavit were either immaterial or unknown to the police.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Amended Complaint

Sharok Jacobi is the sole trustee of the Windsor Locks Family Trust, and the Trust is the sole member of Beverly Hills Suites, LLC, which owns the Beverly Hills Suites (hereafter referred to as the "Hotel").¹ The Hotel and Jacobi have brought an eight-count complaint against the Town of Winsor Locks (the "Town"), John T. Suchocki, Jr., the chief of the Windsor Locks Police Department ("WLPD"), and Detective Sergeant Richardo Rachele (together, the "Defendants"). (Am. Compl., ECF No. 69-2.) Plaintiffs are suing Suchocki and Rachele in both their individual and official capacities. (Id . ¶ 10-11.) Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Hotel brings claims against all Defendants for violations of its free speech and free association rights under the First Amendment (Count One), the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Two), the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count Three), and its right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (Count Four). The Hotel also brings a claim against all Defendants for attorney's fees (Count Six) and against the Town for municipal liability for Rachele's alleged constitutional violations (Count Five). Jacobi brings claims against all Defendants for false arrest and malicious prosecution (Count Seven). Finally, Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut (Count Eight).

B. Complaints and Disturbances at the Hotel—Generally

The following facts are taken from the parties' statements of material fact pursuant to Local Rule 56(a) and their supporting exhibits. (See Defendants' L.R. 56(a)(1) Statement, ECF No. 32-4 ("Defs.' SMF"); Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's L.R. 56(a)(1) Statement, ECF No. 41-1 ("Pls.' SMF").)

The Hotel purchased the premises in Windsor Locks in 2004, and was generally not operational until 2006, when it had a "soft opening," while it was still undergoing renovations. (Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 1, 4; Pls.' SMF ¶¶ 1, 4.) The Hotel's grand opening occurred in April of 2007. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 5; Pls.' SMF ¶ 5.) The Hotel contained a club/lounge that served alcohol, which was known as "Club 91" (Defs.' SMF ¶ 2; Pls.' SMF ¶ 2) prior to December 2008, after which it was renamed "Windsor Lounge." (Pls.' SMF ¶ 7.) A single road served as the only access road for both the Hotel and an adjacent residential condominium association. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 3; Pls.' SMF ¶ 3.) In September, 2010, a receiver was appointed to operate the Hotel. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 6; Pls.' SMF ¶ 6.)

The parties agree that between 2007 and September 2010 there were no other venues in the Town "that held nighttime parties/events with a comparable volume of people." (Defs.' SMF ¶ 24; Pls.' SMF ¶ 24.) The Plaintiffs, however, dispute Defendants' evidence that there was no other venue in the Town "that contacted the police for assistance with anywhere near the frequency as" the Hotel, and that the WLPD "had to request mutual aid from other police departments" to serve the Hotel on numerous occasions. (Defs.' SMF ¶ 24 (citing Rachele Aff. ¶ 28-29); Pls.' SMF ¶ 24 (citing Jacobi Decl. ¶ 5).)² Defendants, relying on Rachele's affidavit, assert that between 2007 through 2010, the WLPD received "multiple loud noise complaints pertaining to the hotel." (Defs.' SMF ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs do not dispute this statement, but assert that most of the loud noise complaints "came from one lady that lived in the condominium complex next to the hotel." (Pls.' SMF ¶ 8.) According to the testimony of one of the Hotel's managers, Jennifer Feigenbaum, "[t]he same woman" made such calls, and called the police to complain about noise even when the Hotel did not have events. (Pls.' Ex 1, ECF 89-1, Feigenbaum Tr. at 84.)

According to Rachele's affidavit (based on his personal knowledge and his review of police incident reports prepared by WLPD officers) and several of his police reports, the following incidents at the Hotel required police attention from 2007 to 2010³ :

• On June 6 and June 9, 2007, the WLPD responded to the Hotel on noise complaints of loud music from area residents. (Pls.' Ex. B, Narrative Police Report 07-4992, ECF No. 91 at 12.)

• On August 25, 2007, a manager at the Hotel called the WLPD to complain about a large group of 15-20 people arguing and throwing bottles, and requested police assistance. (Defs.' Ex. C, Rachele Aff. ¶ 6.)

• One week later, the WLPD was "again contacted concerning a report of a large fight involving 25 people." (Id . ¶ 7.)

• On September 29, 2007, there was a disturbance at Club 91 with possible shots fired. (Id . ¶ 8.)

• On December 9, 2007, Hotel staff requested extra police attention "because of a large crowd." On the same day, a manager at the Hotel called the WLPD about a large, out-of-control crowd in the parking lot. Police were dispatched at approximately 3:00 a.m. "Upon arrival police observed complete chaos taking place in the parking lot, with approximately 100 people outside, some running and screaming through the parking lot. Initially the police were unable to enter the lot due to a large crowd of people and grid lock of vehicles attempting to exit the establishment. There were multiple fights involving numerous individuals." (Id . ¶ 9.)

• On December 23, 2007, two Enfield police officers, who were on "private duty assignment" at the Hotel, radioed the WLPD concerning a fight in the Hotel lobby. (Id . ¶ 10.)

• On December 30, 2007, several fights broke out among the approximately 50 people in line for Club 91 in the Hotel lobby. One person was arrested for assault. Later that night, the police "received reports of numerous fights occurring" inside Club 91, including one person who pulled "a 4x4x36 inch metal cigarette disposal post out of its base," swung it around, and "eventually threw it into the crowd despite an order from the police to put it down." Because of these issues, the Hotel closed the club and told the patrons to leave.⁴ (Id . ¶ 11.)

• On January 1, 2008, "a call for police was made from the front lobby vestibule where it was reported that two females were arguing and that one female had assaulted another." (Pls.' Ex. C, Narrative Police Report 08-32, ECF No. 91 at 16.)

• On November 1, 2008, a female, later identified as a security officer at the Hotel, called the WLPD to report that there was going to be a "possible shooting." The caller reported that there were over 20 people claiming to have

...