Patrick v. McGuire

1

LANA PATRICK, Plaintiff, v. LISA MCGUIRE, SERGEANT SHIREMAN, and CAPTAIN ROWE, Defendants.

No. 8:24-cv-999-MSS-NHA

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

November 15, 2024

ORDER

MARY S. SCRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Sergeant Robert Shireman and Captain William Rowe, (Dkt. 15), Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto, (Dkt. 19), the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Lisa McGuire, (Dkt. 16), and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto. (Dkt. 20) Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court GRANTS the Motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on April 24, 2024. (Dkt. 1) In the Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Shireman, Rowe, and McGuire in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. (Dkt. 1-2 at 3)

Plaintiff also sues Defendants Shireman and Rowe in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. (Id.)

In support of her claims, Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff is an independent journalist and activist who lives in Duval County, Florida. (Id. at ¶ 1) On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff visited the building containing the Pasco County Tax Collector's Office (the “Office”). (Id. at ¶ 6) Plaintiff recorded her entire visit with a camera.^[1] (Id.) At no time did Plaintiff enter a restricted area of the building. (Id. at ¶ 7) She visited only those areas of the county building that were open to the public. (Id.)

A few minutes after Plaintiff entered the Office with her camera one of the employees of the Office handed Plaintiff a copy of the Office's policy against video recording. (Id. at ¶ 8) The copy of the policy is visible in the video. (Dkt. 6 at 4:38) It states, in relevant part,

The Pasco County Tax Collector's Office (hereafter "PCTC") will make every effort to accommodate journalists or any other individual(s) who wish to video, photograph, record, film, or interview within the interior of any PCTC facility. This policy is in place to protect the confidentiality of records and documents exempt from public disclosure, to prevent disruptions of the PCTC's legitimate public business and rendering of public services, and to foster a safe and orderly environment for PCTC customers and employees. ....

No videotaping, photographing, recording, filming, or interviewing may be conducted inside any PCTC facility by anyone without prior approval of the tax collector. Violators will be requested to cease such activity immediately and/or leave the facility ....

All requests for approval to videotape, photograph, record, film, or interview must be submitted as far in advance as possible [to the Assistant Tax Collector for Communications and Special Projects] ....

Identification numbers and documents, such as passports, driver licenses, ID cards, and Social Security cards or numbers, are confidential in nature and therefore exempt from public disclosure by the PCTC. Videotaping, photographing, recording, or filming personal documents or conversation that contain information exempt from public record is prohibited.

(Id.) Despite being handed the policy, Plaintiff did not stop recording or leave the Office. (Dkt. 1-2 at ¶ 9) Defendant Lisa McGuire said to Plaintiff, “I'm going to have to ask that you either shut your camera off or go outside, please.” (Dkt. 6 at 4:40) Plaintiff said, “Okay, have a nice day. Thank you.” (Id.) Plaintiff did not shut off her camera or leave the Office. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges the Office “attempt[ed] a hecklers veto” to pressure her to stop recording. (Dkt.1-2 at ¶ 10) Plaintiff alleges the Office stopped serving its customers due to Plaintiff's recording, and Plaintiff alleges the Office's intent was to incite the customers to pressure her to stop recording. (Id.)

Plaintiff's video depicts the other customers in the Office expressing their frustration with Plaintiff. (Dkt. 6 at 6:34-7:42; 13:22-16:56) Several customers used foul language or expletive gestures toward Plaintiff. (Id.)

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she advised employees of the Office that she was “willing to wait outside for the police so that they may continue to serve the public instead of them inciting a breach of the peace.” (Dkt. 1-2 at ¶ 11) The video depicts this conversation. (Dkt. 6 at 7:59) The Office employees thanked Plaintiff, and Plaintiff exited the Office. (Id.) After waiting outside the Office for several minutes, Plaintiff called the Pasco County Communications Line to ask whether officers had been dispatched to the Office. (Id. at 10:00) When the operator told Plaintiff that no call for service was pending for the Office's address, Plaintiff went back inside the Office and continued recording. (Id. at 12:59)

Defendants Shireman and Rowe arrived at the Office a little while later. (Id. at 17:05) Plaintiff approached Defendants Shireman, Rowe, and McGuire, who were discussing trespassing Plaintiff. (Id. at 17:39; Dkt. 1-2 at ¶ 12) “As [Plaintiff] [tried] to record what they [were] saying, Capt. Rowe threaten[ed] [Plaintiff] with obstruction if [Plaintiff] [did not] move from the public area [she] was in.” (Id.) Plaintiff moved several feet away from Defendants, who continued to speak with each other. (Dkt. 6 at 18:12)

Defendant McGuire then approached Plaintiff and informed her that she was no longer allowed in the Office. (Dkt. 1-2 at ¶ 13) Defendant Shireman told Plaintiff that if she did not leave the building, she would be arrested. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14) Defendant Rowe also told Plaintiff that if she went back into the building, she would be arrested for trespassing. (Id. at ¶ 15) Plaintiff alleges Defendants Shireman and Rowe “lie[d]” to her and said that she was required by law to provide them with her identification for the written trespass warning, and that failure to do so would result in her arrest. (Id. at ¶ 16) As recorded in the video, Defendant Shireman asked Plaintiff, “Do you mind sharing your identification with me?” (Dkt. 6 at 18:45) She refused. (Id.) Defendant Shireman said, “Okay.” (Id.) Then, Plaintiff asked for a written trespass warning. (Id. at 18:52) Defendant Shireman said he could not give her a written trespass warning without her identification. (Id. at 19:08) Plaintiff again refused to give her identification, so Defendant Shireman said he would create a written trespass warning with the name “Jane Doe,” which Plaintiff could retrieve from “records.” (Id.) Later, Defendant Shireman asked for her identification again. (Id. at 20:22) Plaintiff asked, “Is it required by law?” (Id.) Defendant Rowe said that it was. (Id.) Plaintiff asked, “So, if I don't give it you, then what?” (Id.) Defendant Rowe said, “Then we can place you under arrest.” (Id. at 20:30) Then, Plaintiff said she did not have identification but would give her name under “threat of arrest.” (Id.) She then gave her name and volunteered her date of birth to one of the officers present. (Id.) When the officer asked, “Have you ever had a Florida I.D.?” Plaintiff responded, “That's all I'm required to give to you.” (Id. at 20:01) The officer replied, “I'm just asking the question.” (Id.) He then walked away to verify Plaintiff's information. (Id.) At no point did any of the officers touch Plaintiff. The officers left the scene without obtaining Plaintiff's identification.

Plaintiff raises four causes of action in the Complaint. First, Plaintiff alleges Defendants unlawfully trespassed her from a public building in violation of her First Amendment rights. (Dkt. 1-2 at 3) Second, Plaintiff alleges Defendants retaliated against her for exercising her purported First Amendment right to record government officials in the course of their duties and that this retaliation violated the First Amendment. (Id.) Next, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Shireman and Rowe violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when they allegedly threatened to arrest her if she did not provide her identification. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by taking her liberty interest in public property without a hearing. (Id.)

Defendants Shireman, Rowe, and McGuire move to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. (Dkt. 15; Dkt. 16) In their Motions, Defendants raise qualified immunity in defense to Plaintiff's claims, and contend the Complaint fails to a claim against them under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The threshold for surviving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a low one. Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., et al., 711 F.2d 989 995 (11th Cir. 1983). A plaintiff must plead only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 560-64 (2007) (abrogating the “no set of facts” standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Although a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff is still obligated to provide the “grounds” for his entitlement to relief, and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Berry v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 497 F.Supp.2d 1361, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545). In considering a motion to dismiss and evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, a court must accept the well-pleaded facts as true and construe them in the ...