Marchand v. Hartman

395 F.Supp.3d 202

Gregg MARCHAND, Plaintiff

v.Amy HARTMAN and Matthew Solak, Defendants

No. 3:17-cv-116

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed June 5, 2019

James O. Craven, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.

Joseph Bree Burns, Nathan C. Favreau, Thomas Plotkin, Rome McGuigan, P.C., Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

When you are arrested during a traffic stop for what – according to the arresting officer's query of computerized records of the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") – is a suspended driver's license, and you try to show the officer a letter on DMV letterhead stating that your license was recently reinstated, can the officer refuse to look at the letter and arrest you on the basis of the computerized DMV records alone? The answer, under clear Second Circuit precedent, is no. The letter is "plainly exculpatory" evidence and ignoring such evidence when it is immediately available exposes the officer to liability for false arrest and false imprisonment. This rule requires me to deny summary judgment as to the false arrest and false imprisonment claims brought by the Plaintiff, Gregg Marchand ("Marchand"), because, under his version of events, Defendant Officer Amy Hartman ("Hartman") refused to look at a DMV letter reinstating his license after she pulled him over and proceeded to arrest him for driving with a suspended license based solely on her computer inquiry to the DMV.

In addition, there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the lawfulness of the initial motor vehicle stop that prevents summary judgment as to Marchand's unlawful seizure claim. But Marchand's remaining claims – for excessive detention and for supervisory liability against Defendant Officer Matthew Solak ("Solak," together with Hartman, "the Defendants") – fail as a matter of law based on the undisputed evidence in the record.

As more fully explained below, I DENY summary judgment to Hartman on the unlawful seizure, false arrest, and false imprisonment claims, GRANT summary judgment to Hartman on the excessive detention claim, and GRANT summary judgment to Solak.

FACTS

The following facts, which are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56(a) statements, supporting exhibits, and briefs, are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

On February 1, 2014, Marchand and an acquaintance drove to the Willimantic Police Department ("WPD") in Marchand's parents' car to retrieve certain documents that Marchand had requested via a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. ECF No. 52-1 at ¶ 31. At the time, he was a plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against a Willimantic police officer, the City of Willimantic, and the Town of Windham. Id. at ¶ 22. After picking up the documents he had requested from the WPD, Marchand began driving home. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 33. Shortly after he left the police department, Hartman pulled him over. ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 4; ECF No. 52-1 at ¶ 4. The parties disagree about the events surrounding the stop.

According to Hartman, she was on routine patrol when she saw Marchand's car and conducted a query on its license plate on the mobile data terminal ("MDT") in her cruiser, which allowed her to access computerized DMV records. ECF No. 51-1 at ¶¶ 1-2. The query indicated that the car's registration had expired two and a half months earlier.¹ Id. at ¶ 3. According to Defendants, there is no record of this query; Solak testified that the system retains records of queries through the MDTs in police cruisers only for up to one year. ECF No. 55 at 43-45. Upon seeing the results of her query, Hartman initiated the motor vehicle stop. ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 4. After telling Marchand he had been pulled over because of an expired registration, and asking for his driver's license, she conducted a DMV query on his license through dispatch. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. The data on her terminal indicated that DMV records showed that Marchand's license was suspended as of September 26, 2013, over three months earlier. Id. at ¶ 5.

According to Marchand, the stop was improper because Hartman initiated it without first running his license plate. ECF No. 52-1 at ¶¶ 2, 38. He notes that just before he was pulled over, he was at the WPD to pick up documents he had requested via a FOIA request and that WPD officers saw him there. Id. at ¶¶ 31-33. He further notes that the records of DMV computer queries that the Defendants produced in discovery show an initial query on "858Bad," which is not the license plate on the vehicle Marchand was driving, instead of "852Bad," which is the correct plate.² Id. at ¶¶ 2-3, 38. He asserts that these records show that it was only after he was pulled over based on the inquiry with the incorrect plate that Hartman ran a computer inquiry on Marchand's driver's license and then, finally, an inquiry on the vehicle using the correct plate. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 38-39, 41, 43. He also suggests that, based on the proximity of his trip to WPD to pick up the documents and the pendency of his civil rights lawsuit against another WPD officer, Hartman pulled him over for improper reasons. ECF No. 52 at 9. Defendants state that the records of DMV queries produced do not reflect Hartman's initial query, of which, Solak testified, there is no record, but show only the queries made through dispatch after she pulled Marchand over. ECF No. 55 at 2-4.

The parties also disagree about what happened during the motor vehicle stop. Hartman states that she asked for Marchand's driver's license, registration, and insurance. ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 4. She explains that when Marchand asked why he had been pulled over, she told him that it was because of the expired registration; when he asked why she ran his plate, she told him that random checks were routine. Id. The parties agree that at some point during the stop, Hartman conducted a query on Marchand's license and that the electronic DMV information at that time showed that his license had been suspended as of September 26, 2013. Id. at ¶ 5; ECF No. 52-1 at ¶ 5. Marchand states that after Hartman saw the query results indicating that his license was suspended, he told her that his license had been reinstated and that he had a restoration letter from the DMV and he offered to show it to her. ECF No. 52-1 at ¶¶ 5, 41-42. The letter explained that Marchand's license was restored after an administrative hearing held at the DMV on January 30, 2014—two days before Hartman pulled him over. ECF No. 51-1 at ¶ 11; ECF No. 52-1 at ¶¶ 6, 11, 25; ECF No. 51-7 at 1-2 (Exhibit G). The letter is dated January 31, 2014, bears the seal of the State of Connecticut, and is on DMV letterhead. ECF No. 51-7 at 1-2 (Exhibit G). It also bears a case number and states that it is a decision following a hearing. Id. I have reproduced an image of the letter here:

                                   State of Connecticut
                              Department of Motor Vehicles
               ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE UNIT — TELEPHONE (860) 263-5204
              P. O. BOX 290861, WETHERSFIELD, CONNECTICUT 06129-0861
                        On The Web at HTTP://st.gov/dmy
                                   Case No. 13005426
                                       DECISION
    GREGG A MARCHAND                                                 01/31/2014
    36 Echo Drive
    Willimantic CT 06226

Re: Hearing, Thursday, January 30, 2014, WETHERSFIELD DMV, 170B

Refusing to take a Chemical Alcohol Test Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-227b

Dear GREGG A MARCHAND:

As a result of a hearing held as above indicated, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby made:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

1. The operator was placed under arrest.

2. The operator refused to submit to such test or analysis.

3. Said person was operating the motor vehicle.

4. The police officer did not have probable cause to arrest the above-named operator for a violation specified in Section (b) of C.G.S. 14-227b.

Subordinate Findings, if any:

The record reveals conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances of the Respondent's arrest. The record also shows that the Respondent made a timely request for preservation of video evidence to support his defense. The video that was preserved was without audio, and not conclusive on issue of probable cause. No field tests were performed and Respondent repeatedly denied drinking.

BASED UPON THE ABOVE, IT IS ORDERED:

The operator's Connecticut license or non-resident operating privilege is hereby: RESTORED If your license is not already suspended or subject to suspension for another reason, you will receive a Restoration Notice within 7-10 days.

DECISION RENDERED THIS 30 day of January, 2014

                                    Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
                                    By: Quinn, James
                                    Hearing Officer

Marchand states that Hartman refused to look at the letter. ECF No. 52-1 at ¶¶ 41-42. During his deposition, he explained the interaction as follows:

A. So she said basically: You just gave me a Motor Vehicle Department paper saying your car is registered and it's not registered. And now you're going to give me a paper – another letter from the Motor Vehicle Department saying that your license is reinstated? She goes no, I don't want to see that.

ECF No. 52-4 at 4.

A. But I know I offered her the letter, and she said she wasn't – she didn't want to look at it because I already handed her motor vehicle paperwork that wasn't true, so what's – she didn't want – she – she didn't want to waste her time basically to look at that one because why – why would that be true and this would not.

Q. So after – after she rejected the paperwork you offered to show her what happened next?

A. Then another officer came and I got arrested.

ECF No. 52-4 at 5.

A. Well, the only thing I didn't like was that she didn't want to look at the other piece of paper that was this --

Q. Uh-huh. Bear with me a

...