TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A New Jersey police officer has been found liable for false arrest after an appeals court overturned a jury verdict in favor of him.
The Appellate Division ruled July 21 that jurors were wrong to side with Camden police officer Jose Gonzalez in plaintiff Robert Bryant’s lawsuit alleging false arrest, unreasonable search and suppression of his freedom of expression.
The appeals court affirmed verdicts in favor of other officers on claims of harassment and racism. It ordered a damages-only trial against Gonzalez.
“Under the circumstances, we do not envision a prudent person would believe there was a reasonable basis for Gonzalez’s determination that he had a right to arrest Bryant for obstruction of a shooting investigation for merely not turning his identification, or not answering questions about the shooting incident,” says the decision.
Bryant, a Black man, filed his lawsuit in 2015, two years after an incident at a strip mall where he was selling merchandise.
He says Gonzalez confronted him and patted him down, and Bryant produced his identification. Gonzalez questioned him about a shooting incident that occurred six days earlier.
Gonzalez had him sit on the curb and then arrested him, charging him with obstruction. The charge was dismissed months later.
Gonzalez’s version of the account had Bryant smelling of marijuana when Gonzalez asked him to sit on the curb. The vehicle in which Bryant was sitting, his father’s, matched the description of the vehicle used in the shooting.
“I again asked him about the vehicle in question and I also asked him about the odor of marijuana,” Gonzalez testified. “He again stated he was not going to answer my questions and asked me for my name.
“I told Bryant my name and rank, as well as my badge number, and advised him that if he refused to answer any of my questions, he would be placed under arrest for obstruction. He again refused and was subsequently placed under arrest.”
Because the frisk of Bryant revealed no weapon, he was under no obligation to turn over his ID or answer Gonzalez’s questions, the court ruled.
“We find it of no significance whether Gonzalez saw Bryant drive the car, or whether he could infer Bryant had been driving it as the trial judge found,” the decision says.
“The confrontation was not initiated on the belief Bryant was suspected of violating a motor vehicle law, so he had the right to refuse to turn over his identification.”