COLUMBUS — Three of the police defendants in a Murray City man’s federal civil rights lawsuit over seizure of his guns have asked a court to issue judgment in their favor.
Carl Wilderman, Craig Johnson and Kyle Arnett were all Hocking County Sheriff’s deputies when the incident occurred that later prompted Robert L. Wolfe to file his lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Wilderman is still with the sheriff’s office, but Johnson and Arnett have both taken other law enforcement jobs, Arnett with the Logan Police and Johnson with the Athens Police.
A fourth former sheriff’s officer, Caleb Moritz, is also a named defendant in the suit. Moritz resigned as chief deputy last year, and is now awaiting trial on felony charges based on alleged wrongdoing while he was a deputy.
On Feb. 23, 2023, officers came to Wolfe’s home to serve him with a civil protection order, because he had allegedly made threatening statements via email that were directed toward a sheriff’s detective, Tom McKnight. Wolfe alleges in his lawsuit that he was told, falsely, that the order required him to surrender all his firearms immediately (he claims the order gave him three days in which to do so). He also claims that one of the officers assaulted and injured him; that the officers entered his home without a warrant or permission and seized his collection of 25 guns; and that they falsely arrested him for assault (he was later charged instead with obstructing official business).
By their actions, Wolfe alleges, the officers violated his Second, Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Moritz has responded to the lawsuit individually through his own attorney, but the three other officers share legal representation. They recently responded to the suit, denying its key allegations and offering 13 different defenses.
On June 20, the three filed a motion seeking judgment on the pleadings in their favor. In it, they say that McKnight obtained a civil stalking protection order against Wolfe, which said that Wolfe could not possess, use, carry or obtain any deadly weapon while the order was in effect for the next five years, and ordered him to turn over any weapons in his possession to the sheriff’s office.
In support of their request for judgment in their favor, the officers argue that Wolfe’s civil rights claims against them in their official capacities fail to meet what is called the “Monell standard” for such claims. Essentially a claim against a government employee in their official capacity is a claim against their employer, and to succeed with such a claim, a plaintiff needs to establish that the government agency empowered its employees to violate the plaintiff’s rights by having a “custom or policy” allowing such behavior.
A plaintiff can do so by showing one of four things: that the government agency had an illegal official policy or enactment; that it had a policy of inadequate training or supervision; that it had a custom of tolerating or acquiescing in civil rights violations; or that an official with final decision-making authority ratified the illegal action.
Because Wolfe’s self-filed complaint is “devoid of any allegation regarding a custom and/or policy that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations,” the officers maintain, his civil rights claims against them in their official roles must fail.
The three also contend that they should win on Wolfe’s Second Amendment-based claims against them as individuals. “While significant precedent exists to assist courts in determining whether laws and regulations violate the Second Amendment, there is little controlling law addressing when the seizure of an individual’s firearm(s) constitutes a Second Amendment violation,” they note. Because this remains an “ill-defined” legal issue, they argue, their actions in seizing Wolfe’s guns “do not constitute a Second Amendment violation.”
Regarding Wolfe’s claim that the officers used excessive force, they state that his complaint contains no allegations that any of the three “used any type of force” against him, and therefore, this claim should be dismissed.
Wolfe also clams that he was the victim of malicious prosecution, based on the criminal charge filed against him and later dismissed. The officers respond by noting that Wolfe does not allege in his lawsuit that Wilderman or Arnett had anything to do with the filing of the charge. He does allege that Johnson intentionally filed a false report/charge, but even if the court found that to be true, the defendants say, Wolfe does not assert that as a result of the legal proceeding he was deprived of his liberty, which he would need to do to prevail on this claim.
In regards to Wolfe’s Sixth Amendment (due process/speedy public trial) claim, the defendants maintain that he simply does not include any specifics in his complaint explaining how his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
The three officers also maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as they were acting under the objectively reasonable belief that their actions were lawful.
Email at jphillips@logandaily.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0