Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 27, 2018
Decided: June 19, 2018
Outcome
Eleventh Circuit vacated
Vote
8 - 1
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas


Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Fane Lozman was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence. He sued Riviera Beach, Florida, claiming that the arrest was made not because he was suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct but in retaliation for his criticisms of the city's plan to use eminent domain to revitalize a portion of the city's waterfront. The district court judge instructed the jury that they could find in Lozman's favor only if they concluded that there was no probable cause in support of Lozman's arrest, and the jury found for the city. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled, "The jury’s determination that the arrest was supported by probable cause defeats Lozman’s First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law."[1]
  • The issue: "Does the existence of probable cause defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law?"[2]
  • The outcome: On a vote of 8 - 1, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the scope of First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. In a retaliatory arrest claim, a plaintiff alleges that they were arrested not because they committed a crime but in retaliation for exercising their free speech rights--most often, allegedly in retaliation for the plaintiff publicly criticizing a government official or governmental decision. In this case, the stated reason for Lozman's arrest was the suspicion that he was disturbing the peace. Lozman claimed that his arrest was in retaliation for his criticisms of the council's plans. The issue was whether the fact that there was probable cause for the arrest bars Lozman's claim for retaliatory arrest. In other words, if there was probable cause to suspect Lozman was committing a crime, is he still allowed to make a claim for retaliatory arrest?[1]

    Case background

    The city of Riviera Beach planned to use eminent domain to seize some private property as part of a waterfront revitalization plan. Fane Lozman, a citizen of Riviera Beach, was a critic of the plan. Lozman shared his criticisms at Riviera Beach city council meetings in May and June 2006. Before the city had completed its plans, Florida passed a statewide bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development. To try and finish the plan before the bill went into effect, the Riviera Beach city council held an emergency meeting and approved the revitalization plan. Lozman then filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city's emergency meeting had not met Florida's requirements for sufficient public notice.[1]

    The city council then held a closed meeting to discuss Lozman's suit. The recording of that meeting was eventually disclosed. During the meeting, Councilperson Elizabeth Wade said, "I think it would help to intimidate...I think they should be questioned by some of our people...so they can feel the same kind of unwarranted heat that we are feeling." Another member agreed, saying, "We do have to beat this thing, and whatever it takes, I think we should do it."[2]

    Several months later, the council held a regularly scheduled public meeting. Lozman attended and was given permission to speak during the non-agenda portion of the meeting. Lozman began speaking about the arrests of other local officials on corruption charges. The Eleventh Circuit summarized the series of events:

    “ Councilperson Wade interjected, 'You will not stand up and go through that kind of . . . .' Lozman continued with his allegations despite Councilperson Wade’s instructions. Wade then called out 'Officer,' summoning City Police Officer Francisco Aguirre...Officer Aguirre gestured to [Lozman] and said 'Will you walk outside with me[?] I need to talk to you.' In response, Lozman said, 'I’m not finished,' and continued speaking. Officer Aguirre then told Lozman, 'You’re going to be arrested if you don’t walk outside.' Lozman responded, 'Excuse me? I’m not walking outside, I haven’t finished my comments.' Councilperson Wade then said, 'Well, carry him out.' Officer Aguirre handcuffed Lozman. Lozman yelled, 'Why am I being arrested! I have a First Amendment right!' Councilperson Wade responded, 'If you go out, you won’t be arrested.' After Lozman was removed from the meeting, the next person to speak was called to the podium. Lozman was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence.


    The state’s attorney determined there was probable cause for the arrest but dismissed the charges because there was 'no reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution.'[1][4]

    		”

    Lozman then filed suit against the city under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, alleging deprivation of his rights. Among other claims, he alleged retaliation by false arrest under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1][5] A jury found probable cause to support his arrest and found in favor of the city, and the district court denied Lozman's request for a new trial. Lozman then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

    Panel opinion

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court. Citing Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court concluded that because the jury found probable cause to support Lozman's arrest, Lozman's claim for retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment could not stand:

    “ Probable cause constitutes an absolute bar to a claim for false arrest. That is true whether the false arrest claim is brought under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, or state law. Thus, for all three false arrest claims, the district court instructed the jury that, in order to find in favor of Lozman, the jury had to find that 'the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe that Mr. Lozman had or was committing a crime.' The jury was instructed, more specifically, to consider whether the officer had probable cause to arrest Lozman for the offense of Disturbing a Lawful Assembly, Fla. Stat. § 871.01(1). By finding for the City on the three false arrest claims, the jury thus found Officer Aguirre did have probable cause to arrest Lozman for disturbing a lawful assembly under § 871.01(1)...The jury’s determination that the arrest was supported by probable cause defeats Lozman’s First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law. [1][6][4] ”

    Lozman then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner, Fane Lozman, challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Lozman argued that the Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing his claim for retaliatory arrest.[2]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 13, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioner's request for certiorari on September 28, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2018.[2]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "In Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court held that a plaintiff who claims he was subject to a retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the prosecution. The Court subsequently granted certiorari in Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012), to determine whether that rule should be extended to claims of retaliatory arrest as well. But the Court left that question unanswered, instead resolving the case on grounds of qualified immunity. This case presents the question Reichle reserved: Does the existence of probable cause defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law?"[2]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    Decision

    On a vote of 8 - 1, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.[3]

    Majority opinion

    Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion for the court majority, joined by all the justices except Clarence Thomas. Kennedy ruled that in this case, the existence of probable cause did not end Lozman's claims. However, he refrained from ruling whether the existence of probable cause would or would not end other retaliatory arrest claims. He distinguished Lozman's case from other retaliatory arrest cases, writing that Lozman alleged that city officials maintained a policy of retaliation against him, not that an individual arresting officer made a spur of the moment retaliatory arrest:

    “ Lozman’s claim is far afield from the typical retaliatory arrest claim . . . Lozman does not sue the officer who made the arrest . . . Instead Lozman alleges more governmental action than simply an arrest. His claim is that the City itself retaliated against him pursuant to an official municipal policy of intimidation. In particular, he alleges that the City, through its legislators, formed a premeditated plan to intimidate him in retaliation for his criticisms of city officials and his open-meetings lawsuit. And he asserts that the City itself, through the same high officers, executed that plan by ordering his arrest at the November 2006 city council meeting. The fact that Lozman must prove the existence and enforcement of an official policy motivated by retaliation separates Lozman’s claim from the typical retaliatory arrest claim. An official retaliatory policy is a particularly troubling and potent form of retaliation, for a policy can be long term and pervasive, unlike an ad hoc, on-the-spot decision by an individual officer.[3][4] ”


    In cases like Lozman's, Kennedy continued, "there is a compelling need for adequate avenues of redress." He ruled, "For these reasons, Lozman need not prove the absence of probable cause to maintain a claim of retaliatory arrest against the City." But, he concluded, "The Court need not, and does not, address the elements required to prove a retaliatory arrest claim in other contexts." The court vacated the ruling of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.[3]

    Dissent by Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's ruling and opinion. Thomas argued that the court had failed to address the certified question on appeal, namely, whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. Thomas disagreed with the majority's conclusion that cases like Lozman's required a particular rule and that the court did not need to decide the question for all retaliatory arrest claims. He wrote, "I would hold that plaintiffs bringing a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim must plead and prove an absence of probable cause."[3]

    “ I find it hard to believe that there will be many cases where this rule will even arguably apply, and even harder to believe that the plaintiffs in those cases will actually prove all five requirements. Not even Lozman’s case is a good fit, as the Court admits when it discusses the relevant considerations for remand. In my view, we should not have gone out of our way to fashion a complicated rule with no apparent applicability to this case or any other . . . Because we should have answered the question presented and held that probable cause necessarily defeats First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claims, I respectfully dissent.[3][4] ”


    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, "Lozman v. Riviera Beach" Opinion, February 28, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach" Question Presented, November 13, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 United States Supreme Court, "Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach Opinion," June 19, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ None of Lozman's other claims is at issue in this appeal.
    6. ↑ Interal citations and quotations omitted.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, argued February 27, 2018
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, argued February 27, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beach&oldid=8891755"