Round v. City of Philadelphia

DUNCAN ROUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 19-3513

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

July 22, 2022

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1. First Incident Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Second Incident Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Initial Interviews at the Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4. Forensic Interviews at the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5. Additional Investigation at Sprouts Day Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. Affidavit of Probable Cause for the Arrest Warrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

B. Procedural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A. Summary Judgment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

i

B. Qualified Immunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

IV. ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and IV Will Be Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Probable Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

a. Reckless Omissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

b. Reconstructed Affidavit for Materiality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

c. Materiality of Omitted Information to Probable Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

B. Defendant Officer Madgey is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity At This Stage of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1. Constitutional Right at Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2. Whether the Right at Issue Was Clearly Established . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

ii

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves serious allegations of sexual assault made by two young children against the owners of a daycare center. Plaintiffs Duncan Round (“Mr. Round”) and Kristen Round (“Ms. Round”), the owners of the daycare center, brought this suit on August 2, 2019 alleging violations of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Mr. Round was arrested by officers of the Philadelphia Police Department for sexual assault of the two minors and his criminal case was dismissed. The allegations of sexual assault resulted not only in Mr. Round’s arrest, but also the removal of all children from Sprouts Day Care, the childcare center owned and operated by Plaintiffs.

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, three employed by the Philadelphia Police Department and one by the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHS”). They are Officer Toni Madgey, Officer William Brophy, Detective Carol Farrell, and Jenifer Klepesky. They seek dismissal of all claims brought against them by Plaintiffs Duncan Round and Kristen Round. In Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the Motion, however, Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims against Defendants Brophy, Farrell, and Klepesky, leaving only Officer Toni Madgey as a Defendant. Also withdrawn were claims made by Plaintiff Kristen Round. (Doc. No. 50-1 at 15, 34.) Further, as indicated in the Response and at the hearing held with counsel for the parties on January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to the dismissal of Counts II, III, V, and VI of the Amended Complaint. (Id. at 30, 34.)

Therefore, at this point, Duncan Round is the only remaining Plaintiff and Officer Toni Madgey is the only remaining Defendant in this case. Moreover, the only claims remaining are alleged Fourth Amendment violations for (1) unlawful arrest (Count I) and (2) malicious prosecution (Count IV), both brought pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, at this juncture, the Motion for Summary Judgment asks the Court to enter judgment in favor of Officer Madgey on Counts I and IV as asserted against her by Mr. Round.

Because a reasonable jury may find that Defendant Officer Toni Madgey lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Round, her Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and IV will be denied. Further, Officer Madgey is not covered by qualified immunity at this point in the litigation. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied in its entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

Plaintiffs Duncan Round and Kristen Round, his wife, owned and operated Sprouts Day Care Center (“Sprouts”), a daycare center located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (See Doc. No. 48-1, Def. Ex. 2 at 3.) In July 2015, Colin and Heather Shearn enrolled at Sprouts their two twin children-a five-year-old brother and sister (referred to as “A.S.” and “C.S.,” respectively). (Doc. No. 48-6, Def. Ex. 17 at 3.)

1. First Incident Report

On July 21, 2017, Mrs. Shearn noticed that A.S. and C.S. were acting strangely at home. (Doc. No. 48-1, Def. Ex. 2 at 3.) The following day, on July 22, 2017, Mrs. Shearn called the Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”). The PPD sent officers to the house to complete an incident report (the “First Incident Report”). (Doc. No. 53, Plff Ex. 1 at 3; see Doc. No. 46-6, Def. Ex. 5, Madgey Dep. 70:6-10.) As noted in the First Incident Report, Mrs. Shearn told the officers of the children’s “changed behavior.” (Id.) When the officers tried to speak with A.S. and C.S., the children were too afraid to speak with them. (Id.) At that time, Mrs. Shearn “state[d] that she believe[d] something happened to them while at the daycare/gym,”^[2] and told the police that she would bring the children to the hospital the next day. (Id.) However, she did not do so. (See Doc. No. 50-1 at 4.)

2. Second Incident Report

On July 23, 2022, Mrs. Shearn made a second report (the “Second Incident Report) to the police. (See Doc. No. 50-1 at 4.) In the Second Incident Report, the mother claimed for the first time that Mr. Round sexually abused her female child, C.S. (See Doc. No. 48, Def. Ex. 1 at 3.) The Second Incident Report included graphic allegations against Mr. Round, since the mother conveyed that the children had disclosed sexual abuse by the daycare owner against C.S., and that the children had said that the abuse occurred in the bathroom of the daycare. (Id.) Notably, the allegations in the Second Incident Report did not implicate any staff members at Sprouts other than Mr. Round. (Id.) Moreover, the Second Incident Report noted that, after the children had disclosed this information the night before, the parents “called local police to report the concern” and that Mrs. Shearn “contacted a child psychiatrist.”^[3] (Id.) After the second report was filed, the matter was referred to the Philadelphia Department of Health and Human Services (“DHS”). (See Doc. No. 48-1 at 3.)

3. Initial Interviews at the Department of Health and Human Services

On July 24, 2017, Jenifer Klepesky (“Ms. Klepesky”), a social worker employed by DHS, went to the children’s home and conducted initial interviews with A.S., C.S., and Mrs. Shearn. (See Doc. No. 48-1, Def. Ex. 2.) Mrs. Shearn said that she had noticed behavior changes in the children “for the past couple weeks.” (Id. at 3.) In the initial interview with Ms. Klepesky, the children’s mother alleged, as she had previously, that Mr. Round sexually abused the female child, C.S. (Doc. No. 46-5, Def. Ex. 4, Madgey Dep. 83:14-15.) However, for the first time, Mrs. Shearn implicated in the abuse another adult staff member at Sprouts, later identified as Carmel “Candy” Storti.^[4] In the children’s initial interview, C.S. said that Mr. Round followed her into the bathroom and abused her, after which “she told him to stop and he did and Ms. Candy told [Mr. Round] to stop too.” (Id.) Although A.S., the male child, told Ms. Klepesky that nothing had happened to him, Mrs. Shearn said that she was not sure whether this was true due to his behavior. (Id.)

During the initial DHS interviews on July 24, 2017, Ms. Klepesky learned from Mrs. Shearn of another incident that had occurred at Sprouts a month prior. (See Doc. No. 48-1 at 4.) In June 2017, A.S. fell on his shoulder and broke his clavicle while in the gym at Sprouts. (See id.) When the children’s parents expressed a desire to withdraw A.S. and C.S. from Sprouts and asked for a refund of their prepaid tuition, their request was denied. (See id.) Because they did not receive a refund, Mr. and Mrs. Shearn continued to send A.S. and C.S. to Sprouts until the events at issue in this case. (See id.) Further, the mother informed Ms. Klepesky that she had conveyed the children’s allegations to Ms. Candy, who responded that “the children are liars and have lied before.” (Id.)

Thereafter, the matter was referred by DHS to the Philadelphia Police Department Special Victims Unit (“SVU”) and assigned to Defendant Officer Toni Madgey. (See Doc. No. 46-6, Def. Ex. 5, Madgey Dep. 29:11-30:15; see also Doc. No. 48-5 at 4.) When Officer Madgey was assigned to the case, she was provided with the First and Second Incident Reports, dated July 22 and 23, respectively.^[5] (See Doc. No. 67-1 at 2.) The matter also was referred to the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance (“PCA”) for an emergency forensic interview. (See Doc. No. 48-1, Def. Ex. 1.)

4. Forensic Interviews at the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance

On July 25, 2017, a PCA employee did an emergency forensic interview of C.S. and A.S. (See Doc. No. 48-1, Def. Ex. 2.) The interview was done by Colleen Getz, a Forensic Interviewer for PCA, and attended by Officer Madgey and Ms Klepesky, who were out of sight of the children. (See id. at 2; see also Doc. No. 67 at 8.) Prior to these interviews, Officer Madgey, Ms. Klepesky, and Ms. Getz received information from Mr. and Mrs. Shearn regarding how the allegations against Mr. Round came about. (See Doc. No. 67-1 at 3; see also Doc. No. 48-1 at 5.) When...