Lexplug logoLexplug

Trezevant v. City of Tampa

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
741 F.2d 336 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional deprivation that results from an official policy or custom, including an unwritten, joint procedure between different governmental entities that fails to adequately protect an individual's rights.


Facts:

  • James C. Trezevant was stopped by Officer Eicholz of the Tampa police department and issued a citation for reckless driving, a civil infraction.
  • Officer Eicholz explained that Trezevant could either sign the citation as a promise to appear in court or go to central booking to post a bond.
  • Trezevant elected to post a bond and had sufficient cash on his person to do so.
  • Officer Eicholz escorted Trezevant to central booking, a facility run by the Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice (HBCJ).
  • Upon arrival, Officer Eicholz took Trezevant through the entrance designated for arrestees in custody, rather than the entrance used by lawyers and bail bondsmen.
  • A jailer at the booking desk took Trezevant's valuables, belt, and shoes and placed him in a holding cell with other individuals under arrest for criminal violations.
  • Trezevant was held in the cell for 23 minutes before being processed, during which time his requests for medical aid for severe back pain were ignored.
  • Officer Eicholz consistently maintained that he had not arrested Trezevant and was only escorting him to post the bond.

Procedural Posture:

  • James C. Trezevant sued the City of Tampa, Officer Eicholz, the Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice (HBCJ), and Deputy Edwards in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
  • The complaint alleged deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and included state law claims.
  • At trial, the plaintiff dismissed one state claim, and the court granted a directed verdict against the plaintiff on another.
  • A jury returned a verdict for $25,000 in favor of Trezevant against the City of Tampa and the HBCJ.
  • The jury absolved the individual defendants, Officer Eicholz and Deputy Edwards, of all liability.
  • The City of Tampa and the HBCJ appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  • Trezevant cross-appealed the amount of the attorney's fees awarded by the trial court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the incarceration of a motorist who elects to post a cash bond for a civil traffic infraction, rather than signing the citation, pursuant to a joint policy between a city police department and a county booking facility, constitute a deprivation of civil rights for which the municipalities can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?


Opinions:

Majority - Fay, Circuit Judge

Yes, the incarceration of a motorist who elects to post a bond for a civil infraction pursuant to a joint municipal policy constitutes a deprivation of civil rights for which the municipalities can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reasoned that Mr. Trezevant's incarceration was the direct result of an official, albeit unwritten, joint policy between the City of Tampa and the HBCJ. The actions of the city police officer and the county jailer cannot be viewed in a vacuum; they were participants in a flawed procedure established by both defendants. The court held that the 'failure of the procedure to adequately protect the constitutional rights of Mr. Trezevant was the direct result of the inadequacies of the policy.' The fact that this situation was infrequent did not excuse the municipalities from having a constitutional procedure in place. This policy was the 'moving force' behind the constitutional violation, thus satisfying the requirements for municipal liability under Monell and its progeny.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the scope of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by holding that a 'policy or custom' can be found in unwritten procedures and inter-agency cooperation. The decision establishes that liability can arise from a lack of adequate procedures to handle foreseeable, if infrequent, situations. It prevents municipalities from evading responsibility by blaming individual employee actions or the actions of another governmental entity when a constitutional violation results from their shared, flawed system. This precedent reinforces the idea that a 'policy' can be found in a city's omissions as well as its commissions.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"