September 2020 - Parks & Recreation - 34

L AW R EV I EW

detention does not rise to the level of a First Amendment deprivation of familial association. "
As noted by the federal district
court, the First Amendment does
protect " distinctively personal aspects of one's life. " Specifically,
the First Amendment would protect " family relationships " that
presuppose " deep attachment and
commitments to the necessarily
few other individuals with whom
one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences,
and beliefs. "

The federal district court agreed
with Defendants that " Plaintiﬀ's
brief detention likely does not
amount to a violation of the
First Amendment.
In this particular instance, the
federal district court found Plaintiff had alleged Officer Porter
continued to harass her " subsequent to the initial incident " of
what Defendants described as a
" brief detention. " Plaintiff alleged such harassment included
the following:
...telling the Little League
to ban her because she and her
family are " dangerous " ; calling
Plaintiff 's place of employment
and defaming Plaintiff to her coworkers; spreading rumors in the
community that Plaintiff is " dangerous " and " a liar " ; and continuing to stalk and harass Plaintiff in
public while in the presence of her
family and friends.
Accordingly, " as a result of Defendants' actions, inactions, or deliberate indifference to her rights, "
Plaintiff alleged, " her working as32

Parks & Recreation

sociations have been restricted and
affected, causing loss of quality of
life, relationship, companionship,
and society. "
The federal district court agreed
with Defendants that " Plaintiff 's
brief detention likely does not
amount to a violation of the First
Amendment. " On the other hand,
the court found: " The alleged subsequent intimidation and harassment by Officer Porter, however,
condoned by the municipal Defendants, could plausibly be construed as an unconstitutional restraint of free association because
it has had the effect of alienating
Plaintiff from her family, friends,
and coworkers. " As noted by the
court, Defendants had attempted to minimize this extensive harassment by characterizing it as
" loosely related post-incident harassment and gossip. "
In the opinion of the federal district court, the municipal Defendants' inaction or indifference to
allegations of Officer Porter's continued harassment of Plaintiff and
false claims related to the incident
amounted to more than " loosely
related post-incident harassment
and gossip. " Accordingly, the court
found Plaintiff had " alleged sufficient facts to support a violation
of her First Amendment Rights. "
The court, therefore, denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff 's First Amendment claim.

Intentional Inﬂiction of
Emotional Distress
In addition, the federal district
court found Plaintiff had alleged
sufficient facts in her complaint to
support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and
to overcome Defendants' Motion

| S E P T E M B E R 2 02 0 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G

to Dismiss. The court cited the
following legal definition of intentional infliction of emotional distress:
To qualify as severe emotional
distress, the distress must be so severe that no reasonable person in a
civilized society should be expected
to endure it. Emotional distress
qualifies as severe and traumatic
when manifesting as shock, horror,
nausea, or another physical affect.
As noted by the court, Plaintiff 's
complaint had alleged she suffered
from " anxiety and severe emotional distress due to Officer Porter's
behavior, " which included the following misconduct:
Officer Porter pointed his service weapon at Plaintiff and her
13-year-old son and told Plaintiff 's
8-year-old daughter to " shut the
f*** up! " Plaintiff alleges she was
in fear for her life and her family's
safety as Officer Porter threatened
to harm them. Plaintiff alleges she
was handcuffed with her winter
clothing on, detained for over an
hour in a hot police vehicle, without proper ventilation, and in front
of members of her community,
and that she became physically ill,
all while her pleas for water and
ventilation were ignored.
Further, the court noted Plaintiff
alleged she is " being treated for severe psychological and emotional
injuries, including post-traumatic
stress disorder, stemming from
Officer Porter's behavior. " In determining whether or not to grant
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, as
described above, the federal district
court would accept " Plaintiff 's allegations as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in her favor. "
Accordingly, the court found Plaintiff 's complaint had sufficiently
September 2020 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2020 - Parks & Recreation
