Vasquez v. Dist. of Columbia

110 F.4th 282

Jose T. VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Ruben Agosto, Officer, Individually and in his capacity as an employee of the District of Columbia, Appellees.

No. 23-7050

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Argued February 22, 2024

Decided August 9, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:17-cv-02194)

Creighton R. Magid argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Richard S. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and Graham E. Phillips, Deputy Solicitor General.

Before: Wilkins and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Randolph, Senior Circuit Judge.

Wilkins, Circuit Judge:

The Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") has twice detained Jose Vasquez for one reason: He has the same name and date of birth as another man who is a wanted criminal. Of course, sharing a name and date of birth with a wanted criminal is not a crime. So, Mr. Vasquez sued the District of Columbia and one of its officers for violations of his constitutional rights under Section 1983, and the District of Columbia alone for negligence, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment.

The District Court disposed of the Section 1983 and negligence claims at summary judgment, but the two other common law claims went to trial where the jury held the District of Columbia liable for false imprisonment, but not malicious prosecution. Though the jury awarded Mr. Vasquez $100,000 in damages for the false imprisonment claim, he never received any payout. That is because the District Court granted the District of Columbia's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, it granted the District of Columbia's motion for remittitur.

Mr. Vasquez now appeals. As our opinion details, we affirm the District Court's order granting summary judgment, but vacate its order granting the District of Columbia's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and in the alternative remittitur. In so doing, we reinstate the jury's verdict and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

For over forty years, a man named Jose Vasquez has evaded prosecution in Will County, Illinois for murder. Hoping to detain and prosecute Jose Vasquez, Will County has entered two warrants into the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") database, which allows police departments across the country to access its warrants. One warrant charges Jose Vasquez as a fugitive from justice, and links to the second warrant (for murder), which underlies the fugitive from justice charge. Accordingly, if an officer stops the Jose Vasquez listed in the warrant, and has access to NCIC, they may detain him and contact Will County so that it can extradite.

Of course, whether another police department should detain a person based on the information provided by Will County presupposes that Will County's NCIC entries are accurate. But for a long time, that was not the case. Indeed, from 2005 through 2013, the NCIC entry for one of the Will County warrants contained an egregious error: it named Jose Vasquez as the suspect, but the social security number and physical description described a different Jose Vasquez, a man who lives in Maryland and has never set foot in Will County, Illinois.

Unsurprisingly, Maryland police departments arrested and detained the wrong Jose Vasquez pursuant to the Will County warrant on a few occasions. So in 2013, Will County amended its erroneous NCIC entry to include a new instruction: "DO NOT DETAIN A VASQUEZ, JOSE [redacted birthday] [Social Security number redacted] THIS IS NOT SUSPECT." Vasquez v. County of Will, No. 17-cv-02194, 2021 WL 4476766, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2021) ("Vasquez I"). This amendment seemingly made clear that Maryland's Jose Vasquez (the Plaintiff in this case) was not wanted in Will County.

Will County's clarification aside, Mr. Vasquez was detained twice more by MPD due to the Will County murder and fugitive warrants. This appeal arises from those two detentions.

A.

On October 23, 2016, Mr. Vasquez was stopped by Officer Terence Sutton, an MPD officer, for a traffic violation. Vasquez I, 2021 WL 4476766, at *2. During this traffic stop, Officer Sutton searched the name "Jose Vasquez" in the NCIC database; this search returned two contradictory entries. Id. One entry returned a Will County warrant for Jose Vasquez for a failure to appear based on the underlying homicide charge; the name, date of birth, and social security number recorded in the fugitive warrant for the wanted Jose Vasquez all matched those belonging to plaintiff Mr. Vasquez. Id. The other NCIC warrant entry, for the homicide charge, contained the message saying "DO NOT DETAIN" the Jose Vasquez with the social security number that matches plaintiff's social security number, because he is "NOT [the] SUSPECT." Id.

Nevertheless, Officer Sutton claimed that he did not see the "do not detain" message and arrested Mr. Vasquez. Id. And following the arrest, every MPD officer involved in Mr. Vasquez's detention assumed that Mr. Vasquez was the Jose Vasquez wanted in Will County.

The next day, MPD Officer Ernest Cole sent a teletype message to Will County seeking to confirm that Will County would extradite Mr. Vasquez. Id. This message did not include Mr. Vasquez's social security number. Id. After sending this message, but before receiving a response from Will County, Officer Cole initiated a fugitive criminal action against Mr. Vasquez. Id.

Then, five days after Officer Sutton arrested Mr. Vasquez, yet another MPD officer, Officer Ruben Agosto, emailed the Will County Sheriff's Office to, once again, seek confirmation that Will County would extradite Mr. Vasquez. Id. This email included a photo of Mr. Vasquez along with his fingerprints. Id. Within hours, Will County responded with a teletype message that exonerated Mr. Vasquez and requested that MPD release any holds it had on Mr. Vasquez. Id. Officer Agosto did not see this message for another six days. Id.

Finally, on November 2, 2016—ten days after the initial arrest—at Mr. Vasquez's bond hearing, defense counsel alerted the court that his client was not the Jose Vasquez wanted in Will County. Id. In response, the court ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office to investigate Mr. Vasquez's claim of mistaken identity. Id. The very next day, Officer Agosto found the Will County message requesting Mr. Vasquez's release and forwarded this message to the U.S. Attorney, which dismissed the charges against Mr. Vasquez. Id.

The details of Mr. Vasquez's eleven-day detention were documented in a few ways. MPD gave Mr. Vasquez a PDID number— a unique identifier that MPD gives to any person it arrests and detains. J.A. 556-57. This allows MPD officers to search detainees and review their past encounters with the Department. J.A. 555, J.A. 560-62. Thus, in Mr. Vasquez's case, MPD now had a file containing his social security number, fingerprints, and information from this arrest, and eventual release from jail. MPD officers were also able to access the details surrounding Mr. Vasquez's bond hearing through JUSTIS, a system created and maintained by the D.C. Superior Court.

B.

Mr. Vasquez was arrested again on March 3, 2017 following a traffic stop. This arrest was based on the same erroneous NCIC entry that led to his November 2016 arrest. This time, however, Secret Service —not MPD—handled the traffic stop. Eventually, Secret Service dropped Mr. Vasquez off at MPD's Second District Precinct, thus, placing him in MPD's custody.

Mr. Vasquez vehemently protested his detention and professed his innocence to the MPD officers who detained him. Indeed, he alerted one officer to his social security number, which did not match the number listed in the Will County NCIC entry. J.A. 514, J.A. 517. But to no avail. The officer dismissed his pleas and, instead, called him a liar and a murderer. J.A. 517. Mr. Vasquez would, once again, remain in MPD custody overnight. J.A. 521.

On the morning of March 4th, Officer Leroy Rollins, a fugitive unit officer located in MPD headquarters, J.A. 731, wrote the affidavit that supported Mr. Vasquez's arrest as a fugitive, J.A. 557-59. To prepare this affidavit, Officer Rollins searched Mr. Vasquez in the NCIC database and noticed that his social security number did not match the number on the Will County warrant. J.A. 651-52. Officer Rollins testified that he did not investigate further, but instead messaged Will County asking whether its warrant for Jose Vasquez was still active and if it would extradite. J.A. 662. This message to Will County did not mention that Mr. Vasquez's social security number differed from the number on the Will County warrant. J.A. 659-60. At his arraignment, that afternoon, Mr. Vasquez was released after his attorney alerted the presiding judge that MPD previously arrested and detained him based on this mistaken identity a few months earlier. See Vasquez I, 2021 WL 4476766, at * 2; Vasquez v. District of Columbia, No. 17-cv-02194, 2023 WL 2682290, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2023) ("Vasquez II").

C.

Following the March 2017 detention, Mr. Vasquez sued; a few of his claims are relevant to this appeal. Mr. Vasquez brought constitutional claims arising under Section 1983 against Officer Agosto and the District of Columbia based on the 2016 arrest. These claims did not survive summary judgment. See Vasquez I, 2021 WL 4476766, at *8-10. Mr. Vasquez also brought three common law claims (negligence, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution) against the District of Columbia based on his 2017 arrest. The negligence claim did not survive summary judgment, but the malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims went to trial. See id. at...