Civil Rights Violation Appeal
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCivil Rights Violation Appeal
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs397 F.
2d 799
Anthony CAPERCI et al., Defendants, Appellants,
v.
Earl P. HUNTOON, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees.
No. 7092.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Heard June 4, 1968.
Decided July 11, 1968, Certiorari Denied Nov. 12, 1968, See
89 S.Ct. 299.
Raymond F. Barrett, Quincy, Mass., with whom Stephen T. Keefe, Jr.,
Quincy, Mass., was on brief, for appellants.
Paul T. Smith, Boston, Mass., with whom Manuel Katz, Boston, Mass.,
was on brief, for appellees.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Huntoon in October 1960 was a sergeant on the police force of the
City of Quincy. A serious difference of opinion (whether personal, or in the line
of duty, depends upon whose testimony one accepts) arose between him and
other members of the force. On October 14 he was arrested and detained at the
police station. Other members of the force, supported by a warrant, then visited
his home and conducted a search. The search markedly exceeded the bounds of
the warrant. Nothing was taken.
At 10:30 that evening two members of the police force, accompanied by a
civilian, returned to plaintiff's home and demanded admission. Upon being
admitted they searched the deep freezer in the basement. Again, nothing was
taken. Later, at 1:30 a.m., a substantial number of police officers came to
plaintiff's home and demanded admission. At this time they conducted a
rigorous search and removed over 200 articles, ranging from shoe laces and
shirts to pencils and tools. Concededly, on neither of these latter occasions did
they have a warrant or any probable cause entitling them to obtain one. Much
less did they have a right to enter and search, unless upon actual consent.
3
While plaintiff remained in custody, in his home during all three searches were
his wife, the co-plaintiff herein, and a 14-year old daughter. In due course the
plaintiffs brought the present action for violation of civil rights, 42 U.S.C.
1983, against all the police officers participating. After an extensive trial the
jury returned a number of special verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs to the effect
that no consent had been given, and for general and punitive damages.1 On this
appeal defendants briefed a number of matters, but at oral argument waived all
issues except damages. This, in turn, must mean punitive damages; we perceive
no other question.
On the issue of punitive damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 there is no
great amount of authority. It is true that in Massachusetts punitive damages are
not normally recoverable.2 However, we believe, on balance, that the remedial
purpose of the Act is better served by not permitting local variations allowing
diminution of the amount of recovery. Rather, we will look to federal common
law. Basista v. Weir, 3 Cir., 1965,340 F.2d 74; Mansell v. Saunders, 5 Cir.,
1967, 372 F.,2d 573; cf. J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 1964, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct.
1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423.
As to whether punitive damages were warranted in this case, defendants argue
that police officers 'acting in good faith and with no evil intent * * * should not
be subject * * * to punitive damages.' We agree with the principle. There was
ample evidence, however, warranting a finding that the defendants did not
come within it. The female plaintiff's concession that defendants 'acted like
gentlemen' did not mean that their conduct was not an outrageous invasion of
plaintiffs' privacy without color of right and for an improper motive. The court
instructed the jury with care. There was no error.
Affirmed.
Some special verdicts were in favor of some defendants. As to these no
questions are raised
Or, as has been said, are not recoverable 'unless authorized by statute.' City of
Lowell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 1943, 313 Mass. 257, 269, 47
L.Ed.2d 265, 146 A.L.R. 750. See also Note, Punitive Tort Damages in New
England, 41 B.U.L.Rev. 389, 390 (1961)
You might also like
- No ratings yetJoseph Biehunik v. Frank N. Felicetta, Commissioner of Buffalo Police Department, Thomas R. Blair, Deputy Commissioner of Buffalo Police Department, Howard R. Wheeler, Inspector, Buffalo Police Department, Charles Devoe and Karl Muehlbauer, Both Captains of the Buffalo Police Department, 441 F.2d 228, 2d Cir. (1971)7 pages
