Professional Documents
Culture Documents
____________________
No. 95-2297
MICHAEL D. VEILLEUX,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
____________________
OPINION EN BANC
____________________
____________________
Per
Curiam.
In the
district court,
Michael Veilleux
___________
brought
Jeffrey
Perschau,
Hampshire
Police
detective
Department.
in
The
the
1983 against
Manchester,
district court
New
granted
immunity.
divided
Veilleux
panel of
this court
banc pursuant
____
App.
to our
P. 35(a).
reaching issues
appealed,
We
and on
August
reversed the
withdraw.
30, 1996,
district court's
We ordered a
rehearing en
__
now affirm
that may
the district
Fed. R.
court without
in future
cases.
Taking
the
facts most
favorable
to
Veilleux, as
is
appropriate
on
summary judgment,
St. Hilaire
____________
v. City of
________
Ct.
2548 (1996),
the following
is what
occurred.
On the
in
direction.
saw
Veilleux fumbling
pocket.
as if
to take
something out
of his
was no gun on
the
officer.
officer
and
He was
resisting
arrest.
The
scuffled with
assaulting a police
next
morning,
while
-2-2-
Veilleux
was
arraignment,
at
he
the
was
Manchester
overheard
by
state
court
awaiting
another police
officer
specifically, a .32
to
the courthouse
and
ammunition.
had Veilleux
brought
to a
private
counsel.
in
arresting
him, [but
only] in
he "wasn't interested
getting
the gun
off the
Perschau also
the
he gave the
against him,
States
______
v.
Veilleux, 846
________
F.
Supp. 149,
152
United
______
(D.N.H. 1994)
(McAuliffe, J.).
Veilleux then
had thrown it
on or
admitted that he
beneath a porch
pistol and
but
could
not
conducted a
the
recall the
precise
location.
Police in
turn
day found
of the arrest.
a felon-in-possession under
18 U.S.C.
-3-3-
922(g)(1).
as
There is
In
the federal
district
police.
Without
required, the
statements
court, Veilleux
deciding
that
Miranda
_______
because
circumstances,
"[u]nder
the
defendant's statements
interrogation, was
distorted legal
155.1
overborne by
advice given."
Following
the
was
of
these
were involuntary--his
repeatedly during
the promises
Veilleux, 846
________
suppression
made to
warning
totality
the
moved before
order,
made and
F. Supp.
the
at
federal
Veilleux then
against
Perschau
before
Veilleux
brought the
in the
different
claimed
constitutional
substantive
whether there
federal
district
that
rights
due
same
present section
Perschau
against
process.
had been
judge
1983 action
district court
(Judge
had
Barbadoro).
violated
self-incrimination
Without
deciding
a violation--but
but
Veilleux'
and
to
definitively
expressing evident
____________________
1The
Miranda
_______
reason
for
apparently
the
stemmed
Miranda warnings
_______
court's hesitation
from
to
recognition
rely
that
on
the
in situations
where the
questions are
safety
of the public."
New York v.
________
658-59 (1984).
-4-4-
of
We agree with
Qualified
section
1983
immunity
civil
protects
liability
public
so
long
officials
as
they
from
"acted
reasonably under
v.
Bryant, 502
______
U.S.
224, 228
circumstances."
(1991)
Hunter
______
(per curiam).
See
___
The
liability but
immunity
from the
Holloway, 510
________
trial
itself.
Elder
_____
v.
U.S. at
228.
is on
of
whether
the
confession
was "involuntary."
There
is
considerable
Miranda
_______
doubt
whether,
violation
standing
constitutional claim
apart
from
Quarles,
_______
alone
would
give
rise
even
to
(8th Cir.),
cert.
_____
v. Bissell, 31
_______
no
physical abuse,
totality
of
the
generally depends
circumstances
-5-5-
the
on whether
defendant's
there is
under the
will
was
overborne.
(1st
1990).
Cir.
Perschau
had applied
In
this
case,
relatively
some
236, 242
might think
little pressure,
that
that his
goal was admirable, and that the legal advice that he gave to
Veilleux
was
sound
of a lawyer
involuntary.
and
amply confirmed
by
the
district
The absence
found
to
defendants
police
be
"involuntary"
in police
pressure or
certain
custody in
following
believed to
be unfair
likely
that the
district court
was
affected by
the
response to
advice or
court
suppress
statements
in granting
by
fairly modest
promises that
or misleading.2
federal
made
Here,
the
it is
the motion
to
prosecutor's action
earlier representation.
Further,
making
their
unique
own
fact-specific
judgment
whether,
under
____________________
57-60
represented
(10th
physical protection");
41,
(D.
Me.
(Cyr,
confessed).
-6-6-
C.J.)
671 F. Supp.
(police
defendant out of
officer
jail if he
are
unique
Although
and
the
the
right
voluntariness
against
issue
is
self-incrimination
very
close.
is
itself
to
qualified
reasonable,
accord
______
immunity
even if
Hegarty v.
_______
that
the
[so
long
mistaken."
as
Hunter,
______
Somerset County,
_______________
1995).
qualified
his]
502 U.S.
53 F.3d
immunity
protection
defense
to
was
at 229;
1367, 1372-73,
Court has
said
was
designed
but
the
"provid[e]
ample
incompetent
all
decision
to
plainly
Malley
______
Under
an
objective
reasonableness standard,
rights
but
offering
him
Perschau
an
attractive
bargain
for
chance that
a criminal).
purposes
zone
of immunity is to
of protection in close
cases."
Roy
___
the cardinal
v. Inhabitants of
______________
Affirmed.
________
This
-7-7-