Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Under Pennsylvania law, 53 Pa. Stat. 46190, police officers may not be suspended or terminated without just cause. An officer, who entered charges against other officers on the police network on behalf of another, but in violation of regulations governing use of the system, was suspended without a hearing. A union grievance resulted in an award of back-pay. A report by the Office of the Inspector General, issued months later, detailed the conduct at issue and gave notice of a hearing, after which the officer was terminated. The district court held that the post-deprivation union grievance proceeding cured the lack of pre-deprivation due process and that it was not necessary that the officer be notified of the exact rules he was charged with violating. The Third Circuit affirmed. The officer had a constitutionally protected interest, and, absent extraordinary circumstances, could not be suspended without a hearing. That right, however, was not clearly established at the time of the suspension, so the officers involved in the suspension were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The notice of termination hearing gave the officer adequate information about the conduct that was the basis for action.

Harvey and her boyfriend jointly leased an apartment. After Harvey obtained an order of protection and was granted exclusive possession of the apartment, the boyfriend retrieved some of his belongings. Later, seeking to retrieve additional property, the boyfriend requested a police officer to accompany him to the apartment. The officer and the boyfriend, went to the apartment on a weekday, when Harvey was not at home, and, after the officer stated that he 'saw no problem with it' the landlord used her key to admit them. The trial court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the trial court incorrectly stated that 'in order to determine if the . . . plaintiff established her . . . claim, you must answer only one factual question, and that is did the defendant order the landlady to open the door.' Whether the officer took an active role in the entry and repossession of property so that there was state action depends on the totality of the circumstances and all of the officer's actions, not a single factual question. The court's language was highly prejudicial.