Shaun Wright v. Scott Altland

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1114
___________
SHAUN WRIGHT,
Appellant
v.
SCOTT ALTLAND; SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP POLICE; YORK COUNTY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civil No. 07-cv-00918)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1
January 4, 2010
Before: SMITH, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : January 7, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Shaun Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in favor of

-- 1 of 8 --

Wright also brought claims against the Springettsbury Township Police and York1
County, and claims against Detective Altland for due process violations, negligence per
se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court dismissed these
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Wright does not pursue them on appeal.
2
Appellee Scott Altland, a Springettsbury Township police officer, in his civil rights
action. Wright was charged with two robberies in 2005; a bank robbery and the robbery
of a Hardee’s restaurant. He was later acquitted of the Hardee’s robbery, and his
complaint alleges false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution in connection
with the Hardee’s robbery. Wright also claims that property was seized during the
investigation of that robbery in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. We will1
affirm the District Court’s order to the extent it granted summary judgment on Wright’s
false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims, but will vacate as to
Wright’s unconstitutional seizure of property claim.
The record reflects that Detective Altland was assigned to investigate an armed
robbery that occurred on September 15, 2005, at approximately 8:30 p.m. at a Hardee’s
restaurant. On the night of the robbery, Springettsbury Township police officers
interviewed Hardee’s employees Rachel Watkins and Christina Osborn, who identified
the robber as a black male, 5'8" to 6' tall with a thin build, and wearing a white t-shirt,
blue jeans with red stitching around the pockets, and a black knit cap pulled down over
his face. Watkins and Osborn stated that the male entered the store carrying a black
revolver and demanded all of their money. Watkins gave the robber $300.00 from her

-- 2 of 8 --

3
cash register and the robber fled.
On September 20, 2005, Detective Altland heard a radio dispatch reporting an
armed robbery at a bank in Hellam Township, the neighboring municipality. Detective
Altland and another detective went to the bank. Like the robber of Hardee’s, the bank
robber reportedly wore a white t-shirt and a black knit cap pulled down over his face and
carried a black revolver. Later that day, Hellam Township police advised Detective
Altland that the car used by the bank robber to flee the scene was registered to Jora Rial,
who lived in the Yorkshire Apartments in Springettsbury Township.
Detective Altland went to the Yorkshire Apartments and interviewed Rial, who
lived with Wright. Rial told Detective Altland that she and Wright went to the York Fair
on September 15, 2005. Rial explained that she was with Wright until 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.,
when he left the apartment because he had something to do. Rial stated that Wright
returned at 8:45 p.m. and they went to the fair. Rial told Detective Altland that Wright
had a lot of money, that she asked Wright where he got the money because Wright was
unemployed, and that Wright did not respond. Detective Altland obtained three money
orders from Rial in the Yorkshire Apartments rental office in the amounts of $1000.00,
$500.00, and $15.00. He gave the money orders to the Hellam Township police.
Detective Altland later learned that Wright had bought the money orders on September
20, 2005, after the bank robbery occurred.
Wright was arrested for the bank robbery. York County Detective Ray Taylor

-- 3 of 8 --

4
interviewed Wright after his arrest about the Hardee’s robbery. Taylor reported that
Wright told him that he had met “P” at Hardee’s and that “P” had asked him to check how
many people were inside the restaurant. Wright went inside and asked for a cup of water
and then told “P” what he saw. Wright then asked “P” why he wanted to know the
number of people inside. “P” replied, “I’m about to get ‘em.” Altland Certification at 3.
Wright stated that he understood that “P” was about to rob Hardee’s, that he left the area,
and that he had no more contact with “P.” According to Taylor, Wright told police, “I’ll
take a conspiracy on this case, but I didn’t do the robbery.” Altland Certification at 3.
Detective Altland spoke again to Hardee’s employee Christina Osborn, asking her
if she remembered a black male ordering a cup of water before the robbery. Osborn
stated that she did, and that when the same black male returned to rob the store, she
thought it was a joke. Osborn also stated that the robber had the same jeans and mouth
features as the person who ordered the cup of water. Thereafter, Detective Altland filed a
criminal complaint against Wright and an affidavit of probable cause for his arrest for
committing the Hardee’s robbery. As noted above, Wright was acquitted of the charges
arising from the Hardee’s robbery and he then filed his present complaint.
In granting summary judgment for Detective Altland on Wright’s false arrest and
imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims, the District Court recognized that lack of
probable cause is an element of these claims and properly considered whether Detective
Altland had probable cause to arrest Wright for the robbery. See Johnson v. Knorr, 477

-- 4 of 8 --

Wright was charged with violating 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1)(v), which provides2
that a person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he physically
takes or removes property from the person of another by force however slight.
5
F.3d 75, 82 (3d Cir. 2007) (malicious prosecution); Groman v. Township of Manalapan,
47 F.3d 628, 634-36 (3d Cir. 1995) (false arrest and imprisonment). As noted by the2
District Court, the descriptions of the robbers involved in the Hardee’s robbery and the
bank robbery, and the robbers’ modus operandi, were similar, and Wright already had
been arrested for the bank robbery. In his affidavit of probable cause, Detective Altland
set forth Rial’s statements that she was with Wright on the night of the Hardee’s robbery
until 6:30 or 7:00, that Wright returned at 8:45 with a lot of money, that she asked Wright
where he got the money but he did not respond, and that Wright had not had a job in over
a month.
The affidavit also includes Wright’s statements to Detective Taylor that Wright
had gone into the Hardee’s on the night of the robbery and asked for a cup of water in
order to see how many people were there, and that he would “take a conspiracy” but he
did not commit the robbery. The affidavit also recounts Detective Altland’s later
conversation with a Hardee’s employee, who stated that a person ordered water on the
day of the robbery and that this person was the same person as the robber.
These facts were sufficient to establish probable cause for Wright’s arrest. See
Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 514 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that probable cause
to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge

-- 5 of 8 --

6
are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person to be arrested). Although Wright disputes some of the
information relied upon by Detective Altland, we agree with the District Court that
Wright has not shown that Detective Altland had reason to doubt the information.
The District Court further concluded that Wright had not shown that Detective
Altland knowingly and deliberately, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, made false
statements or omissions in applying for a warrant, and that such statements or omissions
were material to the finding of probable cause. See Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 786-
87 (3d Cir. 2000). Although Wright did establish that Detective Altland omitted the fact
that Hardee’s employees had stated that the robber resembled a former employee, the
District Court noted that, even if this information had been included in the affidavit, there
was still probable cause to arrest and prosecute Wright. We agree. The District Court did
not err in granting summary judgment for Detective Altland on Wright’s false arrest and
imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims.
The District Court also granted summary judgment on Wright’s claim that
Detective Altland seized the three money orders in violation of his Fourth Amendment
rights, concluding that Wright was collaterally estopped from bringing his claim because
his motion for return of property on Fourth Amendment grounds was denied in state
court. The District Court found Wright’s contention that the state court judge never heard
the motion on the merits unsupported by the record.

-- 6 of 8 --

We look to the law of Pennsylvania, the adjudicating state, to determine its preclusive3
effect. See Delaware River Port Auth. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 290 F.3d 567, 573
(3d Cir. 2002).
Detective Altland might be able to establish on remand that there was an adjudication4
on the merits in state court with the submission of additional evidence. We also note that
Detective Altland has not asserted, and it is unclear from this record, whether Wright’s
Fourth Amendment claim was adjudicated in his criminal proceedings for the bank
robbery.
7
Collateral estoppel requires a final adjudication of an issue on the merits. Office
of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiesewetter, 889 A.2d 47, 50 (Pa. 2005). Although Altland3
states in his brief that it is undisputed that there was an adjudication on the merits, Wright
contests that there was such an adjudication, arguing that his motion was denied on
procedural grounds. Wright states that the court referred the motion to his public
defender, who refused to litigate it because it was a civil matter, and that the court told
him that he would have to get another lawyer. Wright’s motion for return of property was
docketed on the state court’s miscellaneous docket. Detective Altland relies on the
docket, which reflects only that Wright’s motion was denied. Because the record does
not conclusively establish that there was an adjudication on the merits, Detective Altland
has not shown that he is entitled to summary judgment on Wright’s Fourth Amendment
claim based on collateral estoppel.4
Detective Altland also argues that Wright lacks standing to assert a constitutional
violation because he seized the money orders from Rial. The District Court rejected this
argument and explained that Wright has a possessory interest in the money orders, which

-- 7 of 8 --

In Rakas, the Supreme Court also explained that the definition of Fourth Amendment5
rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law
than within that of standing. Id. at 140.
The District Court, of course, need not reach this question if Detective Altland6
establishes that Wright’s claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court.
8
he bought and gave to Rial to pay the rent for their apartment. See Soldal v. Cook
County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992) (stating that a seizure occurs for Fourth Amendment
purposes when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory
interests in that property). We agree that Wright has standing to bring a Fourth
Amendment claim. He alleges an injury in fact and asserts his own legal right and
interest. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 139 (1978).5
In the ordinary case, seizure of personal property is per se unreasonable within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial
warrant issued upon probable cause. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983).
Detective Altland asserts that Rial consented to the seizure and that stolen money funded
the money orders. The District Court should address in the first instance whether
Detective Altland has established that an exception to the warrant requirement applies.6
We will thus remand this matter to the District Court.
Accordingly, we will affirm in part and vacate in part the District Court’s order.

-- 8 of 8 --