Roldan v. City of Hallandale Beach

1

MICHAEL ROLDAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-60279-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

July 11, 2023

ORDER

RAAG SINGHAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment”) (DE [57]) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability (DE [60]). Defendants filed their Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (DE [58]) in conjunction with their Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [57]). Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE [76]) and an accompanying Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [75]). Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [81]) and a Reply Statement of Facts in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [82]). Plaintiff filed his Motion (DE [60]) along with a supporting Statement of Material Facts (DE [59]). Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion (DE [74]) and a Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [75]). Plaintiff filed his Reply in Support of his Motion (DE [84]) and a Reply Statement of Material Facts (DE [85]). The parties have also filed video evidence in support of their motions. Accordingly, the matter is fully briefed and ripe for review.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a case of a mistaken identity. On May 13, 2019, at approximately 6:23 p.m., a woman reported to the Miramar Police Department (“Miramar”) that her boyfriend Otniel Lorente (“Lorente” or the “suspect”), had battered her. Miramar then asked the City of Hallandale Beach Police Department (“Hallandale Beach” or the “City”) to detain Lorente in a Hallandale Beach apartment complex. Hallandale Beach dispatched six of its officers-Michael Termaat (“Officer Termaat”), Richard Icobelli (“Officer Icobelli”), Todd Crevier (“Officer Crevier”), Christian Casanova (“Officer Casanova”), Miguel Mirabal (“Officer Mirabal”), and Pietro Roccisano (“Officer Roccisano”) (each a “Defendant” and, collectively with “Hallandale Beach,” “Defendants”)-to Lorente's apartment complex. The officers received a probable cause affidavit to apprehend Lorente along with a photo of the suspect and a description of his vehicle. Defendants did not have the suspect's apartment number.

Plaintiff Michael Roldan (“Plaintiff”) also happened to reside in the very apartment complex to which Defendants were directed. Officers observed a vehicle matching the description of Lorente's car directly in front of Plaintiff's apartment and, once Plaintiff answered the door, noticed a similarity between Plaintiff and the suspect's photo. Officers Icobelli and Termaat entered Plaintiff's apartment with no warrant and without verbal consent from Plaintiff. Officer Termaat handcuffed Plaintiff in his kitchen while the other officers worked to confirm Plaintiff's identity. Plaintiff was in handcuffs for just over five minutes and the officers remained on site, in his home, for an additional forty minutes until Miramar could confirm that Plaintiff was not Lorente. Nearly every relevant fact was captured on video as recorded by body cameras worn by the Hallandale Beach officers who were present at the scene of the subject incident.^[1]

Minutes into the encounter, all parties realized that this was a mistake. Officer Termaat told Plaintiff he was “going to have a good story on how dumb the Hallandale Beach police officers were.” Termaat BWC, at 05:07-05:19. The officers apologized to Plaintiff. Plaintiff even hugged Officers Termaat and Casanova. Still, Plaintiff informed the officers that this would not “end here” and brought the instant action. The issue before the Court today is whether, on the record presented, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Court finds that material disputes of fact exist that preclude summary judgment as to Officers Termaat and Icobelli. As for all remaining defendants-Hallandale Beach and Officers Crevier, Casanova, Mirabal, and Roccisano-this Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate on some claims and not others, as set forth more fully below.

On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed an eight-count Complaint (DE [1]) alleging unreasonable seizure (Count I) and unreasonable search (Count II) against all officers for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, false arrest against the officers (Count III) and the City (Count IV), trespass against the officers (Count V) and City (Count VI), and invasion of privacy against the officers (Count VII) and City (Count VIII). Defendant, Hallandale Beach, filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint (“Hallandale Beach's Answer”) (DE [14]) on March 10, 2022, and the officers filed their Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint (“Officers' Answer”) on May 16, 2022.

In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [57]), Defendants conventionally filed a USB drive containing the following video recordings: Video 1, the Body-Worn Camera Footage of Officer Christian Casanova (“Defendants' Exhibit 8”); Video 2, the Body-Worn Camera Footage of Officer Richard Icobelli (“Defendants' Exhibit 9”); and Video 3, the Body-Worn Camera Footage of Officer Michael Termaat (“Defendants' Exhibit 10”). See (Defendants' Notice of Conventional Filing (DE [70]), filed December 29, 2022).

In support of his Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [60]), Plaintiff conventionally filed a USB drive containing the following video recordings: Video 1, the Body-Worn Camera Footage of Officer Richard Icobelli (“Plaintiff's Exhibit 5”); Video 2, the Body-Worn Camera Footage of Officer Michael Termaat (“Plaintiff's Exhibit 16”); and Video 3, the Body-Worn Camera Footage of Officer Christian Casanova (“Plaintiff's Exhibit 17”). See (Plaintiff's Notice of Conventional Filing (DE [64]), filed December 29, 2022).^[2]

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

On May 13, 2019, at approximately 6:23 p.m., Fabiola Sosa Polanco visited the Miramar Police Department to report that her then boyfriend, Lorente, had battered her. Defendants' Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶1); Plaintiff's Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶1). Based on these allegations, Officer Michael Maleta of the Miramar Police Department (“Officer Maleta”) brought charges against Lorente and asked the City of Hallandale Beach Police Department to apprehend him. See (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶¶2-3); (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶2). Miramar provided Hallandale Beach with the address of an apartment complex where Lorente might be found,^[3] but did not include an apartment number. See (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶7); (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶3). The responding officers received a photograph of Lorente and the make and model of his vehicle. See (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶6); (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶4). Defendants did not have a warrant to apprehend Lorente. See (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶13). Rather, Miramar provided Defendants with a probable cause affidavit to seize him. Id. at ¶15; (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶4).

The officers reached the Hallandale Beach apartment complex sometime around midnight on May 14, 2019. See (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶20). As the officers searched the apartment complex, they located a vehicle that matched the description of Lorente's parked outside of the window in the last apartment in the building. See (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶7); (Pl.'s Opp. SOMF (DE [75]) at ¶7) (“Disputed in part. The vehicle was parked to the apartment complex.”). Officers Icobelli and Termaat were among the first to approach Plaintiff's apartment.^[4] See Termaat BWC 16 at 00:00-00:20.

Officer Icobelli knocked on Plaintiff's door and stepped to the left onto an adjacent staircase. See (Defs.' SOMF (DE [58]) at ¶8); (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶20); Termaat BWC at 00:20-00:27. As soon as Plaintiff answered the door, Officer Icobelli descended from the staircase, approached the center of the doorway, and stepped in front of Plaintiff's home. See Termaat BWC at 00:30-00:40. Officer Icobelli asked Plaintiff for his name as Officer Termaat approached Plaintiff's doorway from the right. Id. at 00:3300:40. Plaintiff answered, “Mike” and Officer Icobelli asked Plaintiff about other occupants in the apartment. Id. at 00:35-00:40; see (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶21). At the same time, Officer Termaat asked Plaintiff, “Otniel?” and asked for his last name in an apparent attempt to confirm Plaintiff's identity. Termaat BWC at 00:39-00:44. Officer Icobelli then stepped into Plaintiff's apartment and Plaintiff appears to take a half-step back in response. Id. Plaintiff responded “Roldan” to Officer Termaat and then Officer Termaat directed Officer Icobelli to “go on in, go on in” and the two officers walked further into Plaintiff's home. Id. at 00:42-00:50; (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶¶23-24); (Defs.' Opp. SOMF (DE [73] at ¶¶23-24) (Undisputed). Officer Icobelli then asked Plaintiff if he had any identification on him, to which Plaintiff responded “yeah,” and then Officer Icobelli asked “who else is in here with you?” See Termaat BWC at 00:44-00:52. Perhaps in confusion, Plaintiff responded, “Mike.” Id. Officer Icobelli repeated his question and Plaintiff answered that his mom and dad were in the apartment with him. Id. Officer Termaat then noted, “I think this is our guy,” and Plaintiff is heard saying, “you're scaring me.” Id. at 00:52-00:58; (Pl.'s SOMF (DE [59]) at ¶26); (Defs.' Opp. SOMF (DE [73]) at ¶26) (“Undisputed...