April 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 29

the basket " there just in case someone
wanted to make a donation to
my mission. " According to Grant,
people did typically " put money in
the basket. " When the police officers
arrived, Grant estimated there
was $50 to $75 in his basket.
Grant was approached by the
two police officers on duty at the
Christmas Village, Officer Sauris
and Officer Moffitt. According to
Grant, " Sauris' face scrunched up
in disgust " upon reading his sign,
asking Grant to leave Love Park.
Grant further stated Officer Sauris
did not specify why he needed
to leave, but said, " I'm just doing
my job, you know. " According to
Grant, " Officer Sauris also said
that he knew Grant and called him
names, such as 'con artist.' "
Grant refused to leave and continued
talking to Officer Sauris for
approximately five to seven minutes
before Officer Moffitt arrived.
After Grant continued to refuse
to leave, the officers handcuffed
Grant and allegedly " dragged him
approximately [30] feet to the outside
edge of Love Park. "
After confirming Grant had no
warrants for his arrest, the police
officers issued Grant a Citation Violation
Notice (CVN) for " failure
to disperse " and told him not to
return to the spot where they had
removed him from. Upon receipt
of the citation, Grant crumpled the
CVN in Officer Sauris' face and
threw it in the trash. Grant then
immediately returned to the spot
within Love Park that the officers
had removed him from.
Fourth Amendment
Violation?
In his complaint, Grant alleged his
detention by City of Philadelphia
police officers had constituted a
" custodial arrest without probable
cause " in violation of his federal
civil rights under the Fourth
Amendment.
In response, the City
argued
Grant " was never subjected to a custodial
arrest, only an investigative
stop. " Moreover, the City claimed
the police officers had reasonable
suspicion for an investigative stop.
In the alternative, if this investigative
stop constituted an arrest, the
City maintained Officer Sauris and
Officer Moffitt had probable cause
to believe that Grant was violating
Pennsylvania law and various city
ordinances, including " disorderly
conduct, noise violations, failure to
disperse, solicitation within eight
feet of a business, and obstruction
of public sidewalks. "
As described by the federal district
court, the Fourth Amendment
guarantees the right of individuals
against " unreasonable
searches and seizures " of their
persons. While Grant may have
experienced a temporary " seizure "
of his person in this particular
situation, the City maintained
Grant was only " subjected to an
investigative stop rather than a
custodial arrest. "
Within the context of the Fourth
Amendment, the court noted a
" seizure " would occur when " taking
into account all of the circumstances
surrounding the encounter,
the
police
communicated
conduct would have
a reasonable
to
person that he was not at liberty
to ignore the police presence and
go about his business. " Moreover,
the court acknowledged " not all
seizures are arrests. " Instead, the
court found " limited seizures may
be considered investigative stops,
which do not violate the Constitution
even in the absence of probable
cause, provided that the officers
have reasonable suspicion " :
An officer may, consistent with
the Fourth Amendment, conduct a
brief, investigatory stop when the
officer has a reasonable, articulable
suspicion that criminal activity
is afoot....
A brief stop of a suspicious individual,
in order to determine his
identity or to maintain the status
quo momentarily while obtaining
more information, may be most
reasonable in light of the facts
known to the officer at the time.
Viewing the undisputed facts
in this particular case, the federal
district court found Grant was
not subjected to a custodial arrest.
While Grant was " restricted in
handcuffs for up to [30] minutes, "
the court noted Grant did " not
contest that the officers were detaining
him to confirm his identity
and search for possible outstanding
warrants, nor that he was released
once the investigation was
complete. " Moreover, the court
found Grant did not allege any
" undue delay by the officers. "
Accordingly, in the opinion of
the federal district court,
it was
" reasonable for the officers to verify
that a person previously known
to at least one officer, whom they
believed to be violating the law at
the time of seizure, did not have
outstanding warrants. " In particular,
the court found " [t]he officers'
decision to restrict Grant's
movements for the [30] minutes
required to conduct that investigation
was reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances which
justified the interference in the
first place. "
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | APRIL 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
29
April 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of April 2023 - Parks & Recreation
