WPC@ C˩Dg뛂"򖑜CfC*MJʮ ͡79Q w$]-8`c9mEsf6Eq~tP?xCS#b8UG sY ^Bk7uH\#Ls)ZkŰ$gƩpNN̕/(.E90s4eX+q hxނȄZ7S{نJ1>`AmƔW8nl&B:WWKW@B &@>Oɵ'ʩ;$%0ҩɊH{lCasPƘRt2“:MՔ2,@`;k8?-&ϑI?.r80S>V\zLz:@T*}L t]` 7-.h33W"y -)i# % 0D 0G U: 0J U8 nT* N~ UN UF ^  w 4$ 8 G EI fK aM ma x N 0 ^PU6 0U 09 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0Y 0C- 0p 0G 0 B 0  0 0 0a 0@! 0a 05 0 0 0 0g 0,! 0! 00" 0<" 0# 0># 0v$ 0`$ 0`$ 0`I% 0`% 0` & 08i& 0& 02s' 0' 0:( 0Y( 0_4) 0 ) 0j* 0, B*- D/- D+- 0. D// 0/ 060 00 0:1 0^2 0<f2 1e2U>3U*E3UBo3 1u3 72&4bX4`47779999G<G<G<G<G<]c>HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2$ !XWXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularR0s v0ry File3|x TABLE AU *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7J(X7  ?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X7&  d dI)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7M(X7  ?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X7I)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  #$%&()* 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Xi)- -  $XI$XXX      1    _CoadyCorp.v.ToyotaMotorDistributors,Inc.,361F.3d50,  57&n.4(1stCir.2004).Sometimesthestandardofreviewis  describedasoneofreasonableness,e.g.,UnitedStatesv. \ Padilla-Galarza,351F.3d594,597n.3(1stCir.2003),butin 2 truththedegreeofdeferencetendstovarywiththecircumstances, X InreExtraditionofHoward,996F.2d1320,1328(1stCir.1993).  4 ' Turner0Turner .     $XI$XXX      3    _CompareUnitedStatesv.Martin,289F.3d392,399(6thCir.  2002)(prostituteflaggingdownmotorist),andStatev.Lipscomb,  779A.2d88,94(Conn.2001)(same),withUnitedStatesv.Gray, \ 213F.3d998,100001(8thCir.2000)(presenceinareaof 2 prostitution),andRiverav.Murphy,979F.2d259,26264(1stCir. X 1992)(presenceinareawheredrugdealerarrested).  $XI$XXX      4    _Thereisanexceptiontothehearsaybar,associatedwith  UnitedStatesv.DeSisto,329F.2d929,93334(2dCir.),cert.  denied,377U.S.979(1964),nowcodifiedinFed.R.Evid. \ 801(d)(1)(A),butthereisnoindicationthatitsrequirementswere 2 metinthiscase. X  S $XI$XXX      2    _AnothercircuithassaidthatinlightofOrnelas,itis  pointlesstosubmitthereasonablesuspicionorprobablecause  questionstothejuryatallunlessthefactsaredisputed.See \ Bell,321F.3dat640.Becauseinthiscasetherewereatleast 2 somedetailsactuallyorpotentiallydisputed,weneednotpursue X thisissue. !XI$XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X9XXXI$ ^X X9     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals @' ^  FortheFirstCircuit  JF @' XI$X JF  A') ` dE<` A   No.012227   @!DAVIDBOLTON,JR., K  @<< Plaintiff,Appellee,  G  @tt)v.   @44STEPHENTAYLOR,IndividuallyandasPoliceOfficer O  @  oftheCityofNewBedford,Massachusetts, %u  @*@ Defendant,Appellant. ! A') ` dE<|` A } @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT b @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ^ @[Hon.DouglasP._Woodlock_,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, G Campbell,SeniorCircuitJudge,   andLynch,CircuitJudge. O " A') ` dE<"` A "!%       JosephL._Tehan_,Jr.withwhomJonathanM._Silverstein_and #' _Kopelman_Ԁand_Paige_,P.C.wereonbriefforappellant. $(   DavidJ.Bolton,Jr.prose. b% )   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4# , SIH(#- @38110@SMay4,2004 )n$/  RHC)D%0" @38110 @ R(H(#1  (  * !   ,'3? _  8WI$WXXdd8Z*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. OnOctober25,1999,atabout10  a.m.,DavidBoltonlatertheplaintiffinthiscivilrightscase x pulleduptoagasstationatthecornerofSawyerandPurchase $t StreetsinNewBedford,Massachusetts.AwomannamedSandraSwain   gotoutofBolton'scar.Theseeventstookplaceinsightof |  policeofficerStephenTaylortheprimedefendantinthiscase ( x  whowasrollinguptotheintersectioninhispolicecarandsaid $  thatheknewSwaintobeaprostitutewhopliedhertradeonthe   cornerandthatshewasalsoadrugaddict. ,|   ` AccordingtoTaylor'slatertestimony,SwaingaveTaylor ( a"mischievoussmile""maybe'youcaughtme'orsomethingtothat  effect."Then,accordingtoTaylor,Boltongavehimaquick 0 glance,lookedaway,appeared"nervous,"andlefttheparkinglot , withsquealingtiresandata"highrateofspeed."Taylor  followedandeventuallypulledBoltonover.Thesesupposeddetails 4 werenotcontestedbyBoltonattrial,exceptforTaylor'sclaimof 0 squealingtires.    ` AfterBoltonwasstopped,analtercationfollowedbetween 8!" Bolton,Taylorandseveralpolicemenwhoappearedinanotherpolice "4$ car.BoltonandTaylorgavedifferentversionsastohowitbegan, $& eachblamingtheother,butthereisnodoubtthatBoltonwas <&!( throwndown,struckandsufferedsevereinjuries.Taylorsought '8#*  prosecutionofBoltononfivestatecharges,andBoltonwas )$, convictedbyajuryontwoofthem:assaultandbatteryonapolice  officeranddisturbingthepeace. \   ` InduecourseBoltonbroughtthepresentactionunder X section1983againstTaylor,twootherofficers,thepolicechief   andtheCityofNewBedford.42U.S.C.1983(2000).Eventually `  thecasewenttotrialonjusttwoclaims.Onewasafalsearrest  \  claimagainstTaylorandanotherofficer,transmutedalongtheway   intoaclaimthatTaylorhadengagedinanunlawfulTerrystop. d  Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1(1968).Theotherwasaclaimagainst `  thesametwoofficersforuseofexcessiveforce.    ` ThejuryreturnedaverdictagainstTayloronthe h unlawfulstopclaim,awardingBolton$175,000.Thejuryfoundfor d thedefendantsinallotherrespects,specificallyrejectingthe  chargeofexcessiveforce.Thedistrictcourtrequiredareduction l oftheawardto$17,500byremittitur,whichBoltonacceptedto h avoidanewtrial.Taylornowappeals,claiminginteraliathat  theevidencewasinsufficienttosupportliability.Onlythis p  firstgroundoftheappealneedbeaddressed. !l"  ` Claimsofinsufficientevidencemustordinarilybe "$ preservedbyatimelymotionattrialforjudgmentasamatterof t$& law.Fed.R.Civ.P.50;Davignonv.Clemmey,322F.3d1,13(1st  &p!( Cir.2003).InoneofTaylor'sposttrialmotions,herepresents '#* thathemadeamotionattrialbothatthecloseoftheplaintiffs x)$, caseandatthecloseofallevidence.Althoughattrialhis $+t&. counseldidnotspelloutthecontentsofthemotions,itis  reasonablyclearthatcounselandthedistrictcourtjudge \ understoodtheoralmotionsasdirectedtothesufficiencyofthe X evidence.    ` Thisbringsustothemerits.Thebackgroundlegalrules `  arestraightforward.Atthetimeofthestop,Taylorlacked  \   probablecausetobelievethatBoltonhadcommittedanoffense,   butundertheTerrydoctrine,TaylorcouldpullBoltonoverfora d  comparativelybrief investigativestoponlessthanprobable `  cause.SeeFlowersv.Fiore,359F.3d24,29(1stCir.2004).   WhatTerryrequirestosatisfytheFourthAmendmentsreasonable h seizurestandardisan articulablesuspicion!meaningarational d reason(asopposedtoahunch)tosuspectcriminalactivity.  Illinoisv.Wardlow,528U.S.119,12324(2000). l  ` Whetherareasonablesuspicionexistsistreatedasan h objectiveinquiry:theactualmotiveorthoughtprocessofthe  officerisnotplumbed.Whrenv.UnitedStates,517U.S.806,813 p  (1996).Sotheonlypertinent factsaretheinformation !l" availabletotheofficer.Ifthisisdisputed,thejurysfindings "$ controlunlessclearlyerroneous,seeOrnelasv.UnitedStates,517 t$& U.S.690,69697(1996);UnitedStatesv.Tibolt,72F.3d965,969  &p!( (1stCir.1995),cert.denied,518U.S.1020(1996),butinthis '#* casewhatTaylorsawandknewisnotcontested,apartfromthe x)$, questionwhetherBoltonstiressquealed. $+t&.  ` Whatdeference,then,istobegiventothejurys  furtherjudgmentastotheultimatequestion:whetheronknownor \ resolvedfactsareasonablesuspicionofthedefendantwasnot X warranted?Strictlyspeaking,theapplicationofanabstract   standardtoknownfactsisalegalissueeventhoughitis `  sometimescalledamixedquestionorquestionoflawapplication,  \  e.g.,CityofMontereyv.DelMonteDunesatMonterey,Ltd.,526   U.S.687,721(1999);butusuallysomemeasureofdeferenceis d  giventothefactfinder,becausethejuryortrialjudgeiscloser `  tothesituationanduniquefactsdiminishprecedentialvalue.[ #  1          ` However,thereareexceptionsandtheSupremeCourthas h providedthatnodeferenceshouldbegiventothefactfinderasto d probablecauseorreasonablesuspicionwheretherawfactsare  undisputedorsettledandtheonlyissueisoneoflawapplication. l seeOrnelas,517U.S.at69697;UnitedStatesv.Maguire,359F.3d h 71,76(1stCir.2004).AlthoughtheOrnelascaseinvolvedajudge  asfactfinder,itwouldmakenosensetodeferonlawapplication p   tothejurybutnottothetrialjudge.SeeJohnsonv.Campbell, !l" 332F.3d199,20409(3dCir.2003);Bellv.Irwin,321F.3d637,  640(7thCir.),cert.denied,124S.Ct.84(2003).h #  2      ׀ \   ` Inthiscase,wecomereluctantlytotheviewthata X policemaninTaylorspositionwasentitledtohaveareasonable   suspicionthatBoltonhadengagedincriminalactivity.Itis `  doubtfulwhetherTaylorwasmotivatedbyanysuchbelief,andhis  \  conductmaywellhavebeendeplorable;weshallreturntothese   issuesinduecourse.ButunderFourthAmendmentprecedents,the d  decisivequestioniswhetheranobjectiveobservercouldhavehad `  areasonablesuspicion,andtothisquestionouranswerisyes.    ` Attrialandinhisappellatebrief,Taylorsaidor h impliedthatBoltonmightreasonablyhavebeensuspectedoffour d differentcrimes:buyingdrugsfromorsellingthemtoSwain;  drivingundertheinfluenceofdrugs;speedingorrecklessdriving; l orsolicitingprostitution.Taylorneversaysthatanyoneof h thesepossibilitieswasinhismindatthetimeorthatanyorall  ofthemmotivatedhisdecision.Typicalofhistestimonyisthe p  followingpassage: !l" 8 ` Again,itwasthetotalityofthewhole "$ circumstance.SandraSwainbeinginthe #% vehicle,ahighcrimearea,he'ssquealingthe t$& tiresoutoftheparkinglot,he'snotlooking J% ' atme,seemskindofnervous,youknow,  doesn'twanttomakeeyecontactwithme.As  soonasheripsoutofthere,Idon'tknow.. \ .whathe'sholding,ifhewantstothrow 2 somethingoutofthecar.There'sawhole X myriadofthingsthatcouldbehappening..` x` x  ` Thesupposeddrugrelatedcrimescanreadilybe   disregarded.TaylorapparentlyknewSwainwasadruguserbut 6   thereisnoevidence,andnobasisforsuspicion,thatSwainwasa  2  suppliertoanyoneorthatBolton(infactalobstermanwithhis   ownboat)wassupplyingSwainwithdrugs.ThenotionthatBolton :  haddrugs( Idontknowwhathesholding)orwasdrivingunder 6 theirinfluence(elsewhereimpliedbyTaylor)isequallywithout  anybasisevenforsuspicion. >  ` ThesuggestionthatBoltonwasspeedingordriving : unsafelyisalsounsupported.TaylortestifiedthatBoltonstires  squealedasheleftthelotandthathewastravelingfast,but B TaylorneverstatesthatBoltonwasexceedingthespeedlimit,and > TaylorneverchargedBoltonwithspeeding.Moreover,Boltondenied  thathewasspeeding,afactwemustassumethatthejurydecided F ! inBolton'sfavor.SeahorseMarineSupplies,Inc.v.P.R.SunOil !B# Co.,295F.3d68,84(1stCir.2002). #%  ` Thisleavesastheonlyremainingcrimethepossibility J% ' thatBoltonhadsolicitedSwainsservicesasaprostitute!acrime &F") tobesure,Commonwealthv.King,372N.E.2d196,203(Mass.1977), (#+ althoughoneoftenignored.Here,theevidenceavailabletoTaylor N*%- wasthinbutnotnonexistent:Swainwasknowntobeaprostitute; +J'/ Boltonwaslettingheroutofhiscaratherknownhaunt;the  demeanorofbothBoltonandSwain(accordingtoTaylorsun \ rebuttedtestimonyquotedabove)wasfaintlysuspicious;andBolton X leftveryquicklyonseeingTaylor,evenifnotunlawfully   speeding. `   ` Isthisenoughtogiveanofficerareasonablesuspicion  \  thatBoltonhadsolicitedsexualfavorsfromaprostitute?Two   pointsworkinTaylorsfavor.Oneisthattherequiredlevelof d  suspicionforaTerrystopandbriefinquiryisfairlylow. `  Wardlow,528U.S.at12325.Theotherfactoristhatthelaw   imputestoatrainedpolicemanameasureofexpertise,Ornelas,517 h U.S.at699700,andanexplainablesuspicioncanbebasedonan d assemblageofcluesviewedthroughthelensofthepolicemans  trainingandexperience.UnitedStatesv.Sokolow,490U.S.1,9 l 10(1989). h  ` Here,Boltonwasseenpartingfromaknownprostituteat  herusualbeat,andthenaturalinferencewasreinforcedbythe p  pair'sallegedsuspiciousdemeanorandBoltonsrapiddeparture. !l" So,ondenovoreview,wethinkthatTaylorcouldhavehada "$ reasonablesuspicion!nothingmore!thatBoltonhadbeenconsorting t$&  withSwainandinstitutedaTerrystoptoaskBoltonwhathad  &p!( occurredbetweenhimandSwain.CaselawhasallowedTerrystops  onnogreatersuspicion._ #  3       \   ` Whythendoesthisoutcomeleaveasourtaste?Itis X primarilybecauseTaylorapparentlydidnothaltBoltonbecause   TaylorwasinterestedininvestigatingwhetherBoltonhadcommitted `  thecrimeofsolicitingaprostitute.Taylorhimselftestified  \  thatarrestingcustomersofprostitutes doesnotinterestme,   that"Ihaveneverarrestedaprostituteinmynineyears,and d  that"[w]earetoobusyinourcitytogetinvolvedwiththattype `  ofpolicework....Wedon'thave!-wedon'thavethetime.   That'swhynarcoticsandvicehandlethattypeofsituation." h  ` Worsestill,attrialBoltontestifiedthathehadmerely d offeredSwainaridebecauseshesaidthatshewassick.Taylors  counselinturncalledSwainasawitnessandshetestifiedthat l shehadconsortedwithBoltononthemorninginquestionandat h othertimes.Inresponse,overobjectionfromthedefense,  Boltonscounselthenreadtranscriptsofanearlierinterview p  givenbySwaintothepolice. Afterthecloseofplaintiff's !l" evidence,Bolton'scounselwasallowed,overobjection,toplaya "$ tapeofSwain'sinterview. t$&  ` Intheinterview,Swainhadtoldapoliceinvestigator  lookingintotheBoltonTaylorincidentthatTaylorandother \ officersmadearegularhabitofharassingSwainsclients.She X intimatedthattheofficersdidsonottoeffectarrestsbutmerely   outofhumorormalice. Boltonscounselinvokedthisevidencein `  herclosing. Onappeal,Taylorsaysitwaserrortoadmitthe  \  tape,arguinginteraliathatitsimpeachmentvaluewasoutweighed   byitsprejudicialimpact,seeFed.R.Evid.403,anditsofferin d  evidencewasunfairlyinstigatedbythetrialjudgeafterBolton `  hadrested.    ` WhetherornotthetapewasadmissibletoimpeachSwains h courtroomtestimony,itmightwellhavepersuadedthejuryof d TaylorsactualmotiveforstoppingBoltoneventhoughbeing  hearsayitwasnotadmissibleforitstruth.c #  4      ׀Afterall,Taylor l hadtestifiedthathewasnotinterestedinprostitution,andhis h othersupposedsuspicionswereevenlessplausible.Ifthelaw  heldTaylorresponsibleformakingaTerrystopsubjectively p  motivatedbyawrongfulpurpose,theverdictagainstTaylormight !l"  bedefended. "$  ` UnfortunatelyforBolton,Whrensobjective"standardin   FourthAmendmentcasesseeminglymakessubjectivemotiveirrelevant \ inallsuchcases,517U.S.at813;notonlycanthepoliceinvoke X aminortrafficviolationforanarrestactuallypromptedbyother   lawenforcementaims(e.g.,thedriverisaknowndrugdealerwhom `  thepolicewishtosurveil)butitisevenirrelevantatleast  \  undertheFourthAmendment,equalprotectionclaimsmaybea   differentmatter,id.whetherthesametrafficviolationis d  normallyinvokedagainstotherdrivers,solongasitis `  technicallyaviolation.See1LaFave,Search&Seizure1.4(3d   ed.1996,Supp.2004)(deploringWhren). h  ` InHollandv.CityofPortland,102F.3d6,911(1st d Cir.1996),thiscourtformallyreservedthequestionwhetherany  subjectivemotiveforastoporarrestcouldbesobadasto l overcomeWhren'sbar.WeexpressedgravedoubtthatWhrenadmitted h ofexceptions,butnotedthat,inHollanditself,therewasno  compellingevidenceofharassment,id.at11;here,therewas p  evidenceofasort,butitwasnotadmissibleforitstruthsothe !l" situationisaboutthesame.NothingsinceHollandsuggestsany "$ erosionofWhren. t$&  ` WhatthismeansisthatBoltoncannotcollectthe$17,500  &p!( judgmenttowhichhislargerawardwasreduced,andweneednot '#* reachTaylorsotherclaimsofallegederrorsuchastheadmission x)$, ofthetape.Taylormaywellhavelackedanyproperintent,buta $+t&. reasonablepoliceofficercouldhaveperformedalawfulTerrystop  basedonwhatTaylorknew.Thatsaid,wejoinintheview! \ obviouslysharedbythedistrictjudgeandthejury!thatBolton X wasbadlytreatedbythepolice.    ` ThejudgmentinBolton'sfavorisvacated.Thecaseis `  remandedforentryofjudgmentinTaylor'sfavor.Eachsideshall  \  bearitsowncostsonthisappeal.    ` Itissoordered.