Disorbo v. Hoy

Facts

Sorry but the facts are just really long. Version #1 Ps claims that they are innocent victims of out-of-control police officers who resorted to deplorable acts of brutality to punish them for rebuking personal advances. Ps, two sisters, and another woman went to the Union Inn Bar, where they participated in typical bar behavior, including drinking, playing pool, and socializing with friends. Pedersen (D) approached her and made personal advances. Eventually (P) Rebecca said she was a police officer, hoping this would discourage Pedersen. Pedersen then purportedly boasted that he too had a badge, but Rebecca DiSorbo told him that she was unimpressed and walked away. Rebecca resumed playing pool, had a drink with a friend, and danced for a little while. Pedersen soon approached her again, this time demanding to see her identification. Rebecca maintains that even though she willingly complied with Pedersen's request for identification, he aggressively grabbed her right arm, twisted it behind her back, and forced her out the door. Outside the bar, Rebecca was handcuffed and placed in a police vehicle Pedersen had summoned. Jessica left the bar after a friend informed her of what was happening to her sister. Jessica accidentally dropped a beer glass as she asked the officers what they were doing to her sister. The officers then handcuffed Jessica as well and placed her in the vehicle next to her sister. With Hill (D) driving and Hoy (D) in the passenger seat, the women were brought to the police station. Rebecca denies ever hitting her head against the vehicle's partition or window during the trip to the station. Pedersen traveled to the station in a separate vehicle. Ps claim they were aggressively slammed into the entry door. In a surveillance videotape, Hoy bent Jessica forward to move her along. Jessica claims that she was not offering resistance at this point, and alleges that, when she tried to stand up straight, Hoy threatened, 'If you keep doin' that, I'm going to slam your head against the wall.' He then pushed her to the floor, causing her left side to slam onto the ground. Rebecca claims that as she walked her down the hall with Hill and Pedersen, she made a comment to Pedersen along the lines of, 'I hope you're happy, this is basically all because of you.' In response to this comment, she claims that Pedersen seized her from behind and pushed her against the wall to a blind spot out of view of the surveillance camera. Pedersen then allegedly grabbed her throat, slammed her body against the wall, and choked her with such force that she was unable to breathe and began to lose vision. When Pedersen stopped choking her, Rebecca kicked him out of anger. Rebecca claims that Pedersen then threw her onto the ground and struck her repeatedly as she lay face down and defenseless. After joining her sister in the holding cell, Rebecca was allowed to make a phone call to her mother. In that conversation, which was audiotaped, Rebecca cried and stated that 'he beat the shit out of me' because she 'would not go out on a date with this guy,' referring to Pedersen. Version #2. Pedersen has a different story. While socializing with a friend at the bar, Pedersen noticed Rebecca who he says he suspected to be underage, stumble on a step in a manner that suggested intoxication. Pedersen approached Rebecca and requested identification. Rebecca response, according to Pedersen, was one of irrational fury. Rebecca not only refused to comply with his request for proof of age but also launched a profanity-ridden tirade toward him. Pedersen maintains that he identified himself as a police officer and made a second request for identification, but Rebecca continued to curse at him and refused to produce identification. Pedersen went to his brother, Roy Pedersen, for assistance in handling the situation. Rebecca complied with his brother's request for identification, but in the process continued to shout vulgarities toward him and even reached around Roy Pedersen to strike him. Pedersen contends he informed Rebecca that he was a police officer, and told her that if she continued to behave in this manner, she would be arrested. Rebecca refused to calm down and tried to strike him again, Pedersen arrested her for harassment in the second degree. Rebecca was informed of the arrested and attempted to punch him, forcing him to take her arm, twist it behind her back, and escort her out of the bar. Outside the bar, a police vehicle with Hoy and Hill awaited. Jessica who had exited the bar at this point screamed obscenities and threw a beer mug at him and Hill, which missed the officers and exploded on the curb. Because of this act, Hill arrested Jessica requiring Hoy's assistance in handcuffing her because she was resisting. The DiSorbo sisters were placed in the police car and driven to the station by Hoy and Hill. Throughout the trip, Hoy recalls that Rebecca screamed obscenities and repeatedly banged her head on the driver's side window, causing a loud sound when her head impacted the glass. Hoy first led Jessica through the garage into the doorway of the station. Hoy claims that Jessica was extremely uncooperative as they walked toward the entry door, continuously kicking him as they walked in the sallyport area and forcefully doing exactly the opposite of what he told her. Because of her refusal to follow his instructions, Hoy stated that he had no choice but to resort to physical force to direct her through the sallyport area. While Hoy admits that he pulled Jessica toward the door, Hoy maintains that he merely was trying to position her so that she would go through the door and that Jessica never made contact with the door area. Hill, who followed them as they entered the station, claims that he did not hear any sound indicating that Jessica hit the door area. Hoy justifies his 'come-along move' as a defense tactic which officers are taught as 'a method of moving prisoners, handcuffed people, to comply with your direction.' Hoy claims that when Jessica tried to kick him again, he placed her on the floor and sat on her leg. Hoy then picked her up, and brought her into the holding cage and handcuffed her to the cell. Version #3. Pedersen claims Rebecca kicked in the station's hallway, and he then physically restrained Rebecca by pinning her down across a sink, and, to use Officer Pedersen's words, 'for whatever reason' she fell onto the floor. Pedersen maintains that he never punched or kicked Rebecca as they restrained her on the sink. Pedersen denies ever choking Rebecca and claims he never laid a hand on her during the period where they are not visible on the surveillance videotape. Pedersen claims that he and Hill needed to use force on Rebecca in the booking room, because 'she was violent and combative' and needed to be 'physically restrained.' Hill maintains that, while he fully appreciated his duty to intervene when another officer engages in excessive force, he never witnessed Pedersen use excessive force on Rebecca DiSorbo. Forensic evidence shows Rebecca had two large hematomas on her head, bruises throughout her upper body, and pressure point bruises on the top of her neck and behind her ear which were consistent with the alleged choking incident. In addition, a Dr. found bruises of various sizes on Rebecca's head, right forehead, mandible, right shoulder, hands, left elbow, spine, and the area behind her left ear. None of these injuries required surgery nor did any result in permanent scarring or nerve damage. Ps sought relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging the defendant officers violated their civil rights, including their rights to be free from excessive force, false arrest, and malicious abuse of process, along with similar pendant state law claims, including battery. Ps alleged that the City had an unconstitutional policy of failing to investigate and act upon allegations of police brutality, that the City failed to train its officers with regard to proper and lawful arrest procedures, and that the City failed to properly supervise or take remedial action against its employees. The District Court granted D's motion to bifurcate the claims against the officers from the claims against the municipality. Three trials followed. In the first trial, the jury returned no findings in favor of Ps but returned several findings absolving certain officers. The jury found that: 1) Pedersen did not use excessive force against Rebecca at the Union Inn Bar; 2) Pedersen did not commit battery on Rebecca at the Union Inn Bar; 3) Hill did not falsely arrest Jessica for either disorderly conduct or resisting arrest; 4) Hill did not use excessive force on Rebecca; 5) Hill did not commit battery on Rebecca; 6) Hoy did not use excessive force on Jessica; and 7) Hoy did not commit battery on Jessica. The jury was deadlocked on various claims asserted against Pedersen, namely: 1) whether Pedersen falsely arrested Rebecca for harassment in the second degree; 2) whether Pedersen used excessive force on Rebecca at the police station; 3) whether Pedersen abused process by arresting Rebecca or issuing appearance tickets to her without justification in order to harm her for retaliatory or harassing purposes; and 4) whether Pedersen committed battery on Rebecca at the police station. Because the jury deadlocked on whether Pedersen committed excessive force, the jury did not reach the question of whether Hill failed to intervene in Pedersen's use of excessive force. At the second the jury found in favor of Pedersen on the false arrest claim. The jury, however, found in favor of Rebecca on three of her claims against Pedersen, concluding: 1) Pedersen used excessive force on Rebecca at the police station; 2) Pedersen's actions constituted an abuse of process against Rebecca; and 3) Pedersen committed battery on Rebecca at the police station. With respect to the remaining claim against Hill, the jury found that, although Hill failed to intervene in Pedersen's use of excessive force, he was entitled to qualified immunity. Before the third trial, the issue of City indemnity to Pederson was addressed. The City alerted the court to related state court proceedings on whether the City must indemnify Pedersen. Pedersen had requested that the City, through its Corporation Counsel, defend and indemnify him pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the City and Pedersen's union. The City notified Pedersen that, after an investigation into the events of December 27, 1998, it determined that the City would not pay for defense or indemnification because Pedersen was 'acting outside the scope and course of [his] police duties at the time of' the incident, he 'acted in derogation of established procedure and in violation of law,' and his 'actions constituted willful misconduct.' The Schenectady Police Benevolent Association ('PBA'), on behalf of Pedersen, initiated a proceeding in state court pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules, seeking defense and indemnification pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-j. The New York Supreme Court dismissed the PBA's petition, concluding that Corporation Counsel's determination was not arbitrary and capricious. The District Court, in response to a motion by Pedersen which was joined by Rebecca, ordered the City to indemnify Pedersen for all damages, compensatory and punitive, on the basis that he was acting within the scope of his employment. The court made clear that this decision was intended to supersede the state court decision, even though the court stressed that he was bound by New York state law in requiring indemnification. The District Court subsequently instructed the jury that 'any compensatory or punitive damage award assessed by you as against defendant Pedersen will be paid by the City of Schenectady.' In the third trial, the jury found that the City was deliberately indifferent to the need to supervise properly its police officers (based on evidence from a prior case which was admitted into this case), and this failure to supervise properly was a cause of the violation of Rebecca's constitutional rights. The jury further found that the City had an unconstitutional practice or custom of its officers using excessive force during arrest, and that practice or custom also was a cause of the violation of Rebecca's constitutional rights. The jury awarded Rebecca $400,000 in compensatory damages and $625,000 in punitive damages for her excessive force and battery claims, and nominal compensatory damages and $650,000 in punitive damages for her abuse of process claim. This appeal was taken. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.