False Arrest Claim against the City of Albuquerque Dismissed
In Tanberg v. Sholtis, 03-2231 (March 16, 2005), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the mid-trial dismissal of false arrest claims against an Albuquerque police officer. The opinion is notable for its qualified immunity analysis and the relevance, if any, of police department standard operating procedures (SOP's) to the qualified immunity analysis and to fourth amendment and state law claims for false arrest.
Officer Tom Sholtis was on his way home after his shift at about 2:30 a.m. on a fine, early October morning. Tom Sholtis stopped at his local park to check for people because he noticed two cars parked nearby. Sholtis spotlighted the park and ordered the two plaintiffs to his car. The plaintiffs walked away. Sholtis pulled his car around to the area toward where the women were walking. Plaintiff Tanberg walked past Sholtis. Sholtis proceeded to "arm-bar" Ms. Tanberg and placed both plaintiffs under arrest for being in the park after its close and for "contempt of cop" (resisitng, refusal to obey a lawful order).
The Tenth Circuit upheld the trial court's dismissal of both the state law and federal law false arrest claims despite the existence of disputed facts about whether the plaintiffs complied with the orders of Sholtis.
The Court's analysis was simple. The park was closed; it is a misdemeanor to be in the park after its close even if you can't read the sign; thus, the arrest was supported by probable cause to believe plaintiffs were committing a misdemeanor. The Court held that an arrest in violation of department procedures (SOP's) did not support a false arrest claim under state law.
In addition, the Tenth Circuit upheld the trial court's exclusion of department SOP's on plaintiffs' claims of battery and excessive force.
The Court found that in deciding whether to admit department procedures on use of force, the trial court was correct to be concerned about confusing the jury with a standard different than the Graham objective reasonableness test.
In federal district court in New Mexico, the City of Albuquerque is largely successful in excluding SOP's from evidence. However, their attorneys often open the door to its admission when they solicit whether the officer's conduct was in compliance with the officer's training (as happened in this trial). Once training is discussed, SOP's become admissible; as SOP's are part of training.
As a side not, Officer Sholtis is no longer one of Albuquerque's finest. This blogger successfully sued Officer Sholtis twice to judgment. After the Tanberg incident, Officer Sholtis apparently decided that he would try some other line of work. This was a case of a bad cop who got away with one.