Federal lawsuit against Hamilton policeman heats up
HAMILTON » A federal complaint against a Hamilton policeman remains active as a U.S. District Court judge denied the officer’s legal attempt to terminate the lawsuit.
Legal counsel for Officer James Scott filed a motion seeking a quick summary judgment and requesting the court to dismiss Randy Padilla’s complaint with prejudice, arguing that Scott had probable cause to issue a criminal complaint against Padilla.
Padilla, 51, of North Bergen, filed his federal complaint on Aug. 24, 2015, alleging there “was no reasonable basis or probable cause” for Scott to file the contempt charge.
Scott issued a complaintwarrant on May 22, 2014, charging Padilla with contempt — a low-level crime classified as a disorderly persons offense — for Padilla allegedly violating a domestic violence restraining order. Consequently, the North Bergen Police Department acted upon the warrant and arrested Padilla within 24 hours. He was released from police custody on May 23, 2014, after posting $500 bail, records show.
Padilla was accused of attempting to contact his 13-year-old daughter on May 21, 2014, in a FaceTime video call that allegedly violated a final restraining order. Padilla’s wife obtained a restraining order against him to restrict his parental access; however, the final order contained explicit language allowing Padilla to have “electronic/written communication with his children.”
Scott’s legal counsel says the Hamilton cop had probable cause to issue the complaint-warrant, arguing that Padilla was not permitted to FaceTime his children under the terms of the final restraining order, also known as a FRO. But the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office voluntarily dismissed the criminal complaint against Padilla on Dec. 9, 2014, and that is one of the main facts that Padilla raised in his lawsuit that accuses Scott of cooking up a “false criminal charge” and igniting a “malicious prosecution.”
Scott’s attorney, Mitchell B. Jacobs of the Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri and Jacobs LLC law firm, sought to get Padilla’s lawsuit squashed by filing a summary judgment motion on Oct. 28, 2016, asking the court to dismiss Padilla’s complaint with prejudice. Jacobs suggested Officer Scott had probable cause to issue the criminal complaint against Padilla and said the policeman “acted in good faith” and was therefore “entitled to immunity from civil liability” under New Jersey state law.
Trenton-based U.S. District Court Judge Peter G. Sheridan in April issued an opinion denying Jacobs’ summary judgment motion. In his opinion, Sheridan cited the fact that the criminal contempt case against Padilla “was dismissed favorably to Padilla” and suggested the language of the final restraining order did not make it clear whether Padilla was prohibited from contacting his children through FaceTime.
“I myself being a trial judge,” Sheridan wrote in his opinion, “it is a basic principle when writing an order enjoining or prohibiting of certain activities, the order must be specific and precise so that the parties can easily understand and follow the court order. Here, the phrase ‘defendant permitted electronic/written communications with children’ clearly allows communication by both electronic (telephone) and written (letters) means. As such, the underlying contempt matter that was resolved favorably to plaintiff and this action for false arrest are permitted.”
Joel Silberman, Padilla’s attorney, issued a statement applauding the judge’s decision.
“The federal court’s opinion in this matter speaks for itself,” Silberman said Tuesday evening. “In denying the motion the court saliently noted that had the arresting officer simply read the restraining order that is at issue and conducted any investigation as he is required to do, the plaintiff would have never been charged.”
“We must continue to hold police officers to the same standard we hold other professionals,” Silberman added. “Police officers are professionals just like doctors, lawyers and teachers and must be held to same professional standards we require of other professionals. The federal court’s opinion demonstrates that the judiciary feels the same way.”
Padilla is demanding monetary compensation in the form of punitive damages.