Glassboro Police Department

Full title: WALTER P. GARRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLASSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Jun 26, 2000


This dispute arises from the unfortunate and erroneous arrest of then-seventeen-year-old Theresa Garrison by Glassboro Police Department Detective Ed Alicea on November 14, 1997. On that day, Ms. Garrison, her sister Justine, and Justine’s infant son were food shopping at the Glassboro Shop Rite, where Theresa was also an employee. After shopping, the Garrison’s keys were accidentally locked in their car with the infant still inside. Justine Garrison called her father, a police officer in Elk Township, for help. (Theresa Garrison Dep. at 16:3, 17:7.) Mr. Garrison contacted the Glassboro Police Department about getting the car unlocked, informing the dispatcher that Theresa Garrison would be waiting by the car. (Radio Transcript at 1:10, Pl. Ex. B.) Detective Ed Alicea, the ten-year veteran, responded. Before Alicea left to assist Theresa Garrison, however, Alicea was informed by dispatcher Sheryl Carey that there were escape warrants for the arrest of Theresa Garrison. Anticipating that he would arrest Garrison, and because he could not transport suspects in his unmarked car, Alicea then asked Officer Pat Hagen to accompany him. Alicea did not request a copy of the arrest warrants or the file photograph of Theresa Garrison for whom the warrants had been issued.


Court Judgment

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., and the Court having reviewed the party’s submissions, and for the reasons discussed in today’s oral opinion,

IT IS this day of June, 2000

ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED as against all of the plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and it is further

ORDERED that the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims according to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1367(c)(3), and accordingly, plaintiffs’ state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiffs’ right to file such claims in an appropriate state court.

Also, Read

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ten + three =