Michael Kaplon was involved in a drunk driving crash in the predawn hours of February 11, 2020, after which he fled the scene on foot. Police officers investigating the abandoned vehicle, which was registered to a nearby home and potentially stolen, located Kaplon hiding behind a sign. When an officer approached, Kaplon ran, leading to a physical struggle where he attempted to strike the officer. Additional officers arrived to subdue him, using physical force including knee pressure and punches to his back to gain control of his hands. Kaplon was arrested and later pled guilty to driving under the influence and failing to report the accident. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging Fourth Amendment violations for unlawful seizure and excessive force, as well as claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and state tort law against the officers and their municipalities. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and the force used was reasonable. Kaplon appealed, arguing the seizure was unlawful and the force was excessive.
The Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Kaplon but noting that body-worn camera footage that blatantly contradicted his account could not be ignored. First, the court addressed the Fourth Amendment seizure by Officer DeCaro. The court applied the 'totality of the circumstances' test for reasonable suspicion, citing Illinois v. Wardlow. It found that Officer DeCaro had a particularized and objective basis to suspect criminal activity because he encountered Kaplon alone in the predawn hours near a crashed, possibly stolen car in an area with recent thefts. Furthermore, Kaplon's behavior—hiding behind a sign, walking away upon the officer's approach, and then running—constituted evasive behavior and flight, which are pertinent factors supporting reasonable suspicion. The court concluded the stop was lawful. Second, the court analyzed the excessive force claims against Officers Yeboah and Boeninghaus under Graham v. Connor. The court emphasized that the reasonableness of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with hindsight. For Officer Yeboah, the court found no reasonable jury could conclude the force was excessive because he observed Kaplon fleeing and attempting to strike Officer DeCaro, and Kaplon continued to resist by punching and kicking. For Sergeant Boeninghaus, the court noted he feared Kaplon was concealing a weapon, had ordered him to show his hands multiple times without success, and used a lower level of force with the intent to gain control after warning Kaplon. The court held this force was reasonable. Finally, the court addressed state law claims, ruling that New Jersey statutory immunity protected the officers from liability for injuries resulting from the pursuit and that Kaplon failed to prove the 'willful misconduct' required to overcome that immunity.
The decision affirms the dismissal of Kaplon's civil rights and tort claims, reinforcing that summary judgment is appropriate when body-worn camera footage contradicts a plaintiff's version of events and when officers use force against actively resisting suspects who pose a threat. It clarifies that flight and evasive behavior near a suspected stolen vehicle can establish reasonable suspicion for a stop. The ruling also confirms that New Jersey statutory immunity bars tort claims in pursuit scenarios absent a showing of willful misconduct. No remand instructions were issued as the case was affirmed in full.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download