Pfaendler v. Town of Sahuarita

656 F.Supp.3d 912

Freedom Christopher Austin PFAENDLER, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SAHUARITA, et al., Defendants.

No. CV-20-00188-TUC-JCH

United States District Court, D. Arizona

Filed February 17, 2023

Signed February 16, 2023

Richard Mendel Wintory, Next Chapter Family Law Center, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff.

James M. Jellison, Jellison & Robens PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants.

ORDER

John C. Hinderaker, United States District Judge

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58). Defendants (certain individual "Officers," together with their employer the "Town") seek summary judgment on claims arising from Plaintiff's arrest on August 16, 2019, at a Sahuarita Walmart. The Walmart's manager and employees called police because Plaintiff kept his motorcycle helmet on with the visor down in the store and appeared to ignore the manager's several requests for Plaintiff to leave. The Walmart employees were alarmed by Plaintiff's demeanor because an active shooter had killed at least 20 people in a Texas Walmart three days earlier. The Officers arrested Plaintiff for trespassing, searched him, and cited him for disorderly conduct. One Officer submitted the citation for prosecution, which the prosecutor subsequently dropped. The Court will grant Defendants' Motion because probable cause supported Plaintiff's arrest, the Officers validly searched Plaintiff's person incident to his arrest, and the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity in all respects, including on the search of Plaintiff's backpack.

Plaintiff's original complaint alleged 11 counts against the Officers and vicariously against the Town. Doc. 1. The Court dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Doc. 26. Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint, adding a few factual allegations tending to weaken probable cause: that 9-1-1 dispatchers provided the Officers with an innocent explanation for Plaintiff's appearance, (Doc. 27 ¶¶ 26-28), and that the Walmart manager's story to the Officers was unreliable. Doc. 27 ¶ 41. The Court granted in part, permitting six claims to move forward. Doc. 29. The Court subsequently dismissed one Defendant, (Doc. 35), and granted partial summary judgment for the Officers on the three remaining state law claims. Doc. 44. The Court found partial summary judgment warranted for the Officers because Plaintiff failed to personally serve the Officers and failed to respond to their partial summary judgment motion. Doc. 44 at 2. But the Court denied partial summary judgment for the Town, citing ambiguous Arizona law that could permit vicarious liability for an employer even when its agents receive summary judgment. Doc. 44 at 5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment and statement of facts followed. Docs. 58 ("MSJ"), 59 ("DSOF"). Plaintiff responded, (Docs. 66 ("Response"), 67 ("PSOF")), and Defendants replied. Doc. 69. The Court heard oral argument on February 8, 2022. Doc. 71 ("Hr'g Trns.").

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the parties have no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit. Id.

The movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. If the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and that the fact in contention is material. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); however, it must "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The court must believe the nonmovant's evidence and draw all inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

II. Material Facts

Plaintiff's case depends on whether the Officers had probable cause to arrest him for trespassing or disorderly conduct, and whether they searched him lawfully. As explained in more detail below, probable cause considers the totality of the circumstances known to officers at the time and does not require officers to believe every innocent explanation; trespassing is knowingly remaining on a property after a reasonable request to leave; and disorderly conduct includes knowingly making a protracted display to prevent the transaction of business. The following facts relevant to probable cause and the search are undisputed or drawn from Plaintiff's account.

A. The encounter and arrest

On August 6, 2019, Defendant Officers responded to several 911 calls reporting a suspicious person at a Sahuarita Walmart. DSOF ¶¶ 1-4; PSOF ¶¶ 1-4. The Officers knew that three days earlier, an active shooter had killed or injured 46 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. See DSOF ¶¶ 2, 14; PSOF ¶¶ 2, 14.¹ Upon arrival, the Walmart manager told the Officers that Plaintiff alarmed the manager and his staff by walking around the store wearing armored motorcycle clothes, a motorcycle helmet with a closed visor, and a camouflage backpack. DSOF ¶ 9; Response at 3:15; PSOF ¶ 9. August temperatures in Sahuarita are hot, averaging between 98 and 103 degrees. (DSOF ¶ 10; PSOF ¶ 10. The manager told the Officers he asked Plaintiff to remove his helmet but was ignored, followed Plaintiff around the store trying to get his attention, and demanded Plaintiff leave the store five or six times. DSOF ¶¶ 11-13; PSOF ¶¶ 11-13.

The Officers approached Plaintiff as he was placing purchased items in his backpack. DSOF ¶ 6; PSOF ¶ 6. Plaintiff did not react when Officer George said, "Hey buddy, you got some ID?" DSOF ¶¶ 6-7; PSOF ¶¶ 6-7. Officer George stepped closer to Plaintiff and addressed him again in a raised voice. DSOF ¶ 7; PSOF ¶¶ 7, 10(2). This time Plaintiff responded, removed his helmet, and began to answer the Officers' questions. DSOF ¶ 7; PSOF ¶ 7. Plaintiff explained that he did not hear the manager or the Officer's initial question because he was listening to music through his helmet's Bluetooth connection. See PSOF ¶¶ 4(2), 8(2). Plaintiff also explained he did not know the manager was trying to get his attention, and that he saw the manager but believed the manager was talking through a headset to someone else. PSOF ¶¶ 7(2), 8(2).

The interaction grew more tense. After some back-and-forth between Plaintiff, the manager, and the Officers, Officer George told Plaintiff, "You're an argumentative person, and I am not the person you want to argue with." Response at 3. Officer George told him to "stop talking," (id.), and to "listen to learn, not . . . to reply." Doc. 59-9 at 9 (referenced by Response at 3). "[A]fter Officers George and Rivera lectured [him about scaring people in the wake of El Paso,]" Plaintiff stopped responding verbally. DSOF ¶ 8; PSOF ¶¶ 8, 12(2). When the Officers asked subsequent questions, Plaintiff gestured that he would remain silent. DSOF ¶ 8; PSOF ¶¶ 8, 12(2). Officer Rivera told Plaintiff, "You're acting like a little child." PSOF ¶ 13(2). Officer Rivera told another officer he was contemplating arrest, "especially the way that [Plaintiff is] acting." PSOF ¶ 16. Shortly after, the Officers did arrest Plaintiff, despite initially deciding only to trespass him (prohibiting Plaintiff from returning to any Walmart or affiliate). PSOF ¶ 15. The Officers informed Plaintiff he was under arrest for trespassing, but Officer Rivera also concluded that Plaintiff should be arrested and cited for disorderly conduct. PSOF ¶ 15.

B. The search and prosecution

Officers George and Villanueva handcuffed Plaintiff and led him outside; Officer Rivera collected Plaintiff's backpack and helmet, which were next to Plaintiff when he was arrested, and followed. Doc. 59-12 at 9:00-10:00; see also DSOF ¶ 15; cf. PSOF ¶ 15.² Once outside at their patrol vehicle, two Officers searched Plaintiff's person. DSOF ¶¶ 17, 18; PSOF ¶¶ 17, 18; Doc. 59-12 at 10:00-21:30. Toward the end of the search, Officer Rivera asked Plaintiff, "Is there anything on you I may have missed?" Doc. 59-12 at 20:40. Plaintiff replied, "I do have basketball shorts [on under my motorcycle pants], but the pockets are empty." Doc. 59-12 at 20:44. Officer Rivera asked Plaintiff to confirm the pockets were empty, and Plaintiff replied, "I've got no reason to lie." Doc. 59-12 at 20:55. Another officer advised Plaintiff that he would be searched at the jail, and that if Plaintiff had "any drugs, any contraband, weapons whatsoever" they would be found and ought to be disclosed. Doc. 59-12 at 20:56-21:16. The officer concluded, "So if you have anything on you like that you need to tell us now[.]" Doc. 59-12 at 21:16-21:19. Plaintiff replied, "I don't. Not on me at least. I don't know about my backpack." Doc. 59-12 at 21:24-21:29. Officer Rivera then closed Plaintiff in the back of the patrol vehicle and searched Plaintiff's backpack, which the bodycam video shows was on the hood of the patrol vehicle. Doc. 59-12 at 21:34-32:10; cf. DSOF ¶ 18 ("Plaintiff's backpack, which was originally in [Plaintiff's] possession and remained near [Plaintiff's] area of detention, was also searched."); PSOF ¶ 18 ("Admit.").

Officer Rivera signed a citation for disorderly...