Attorney Patrick Megaro
prevails in Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit; lower court
improperly granted immunity to police officer who had falsely arrested the
Plaintiff
Court of Appeals largely
agreed with the arguments of Patrick Megaro, that the police officer had no
good reason (“probable cause”) to stop driver
Orlando,
FL (August 2018) Florida Criminal Defense Attorney Patrick Megaro prevailed on
appeal in a case where a police officer stopped the vehicle of Mr. E.L. without
justification. The Law Firm of
Halscott Megaro PA announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit largely agreed with the arguments of Mr. Megaro, that the police
officer had no good reason (“probable cause”) to stop E.L. The opinion of the
three judges of the Court was unanimous (“per curiam”).
The underlying criminal case arose out of a
traffic stop. According to the police officer’s testimony, E.L. was driving
somewhat erratically, including multiple lane changes. When the officer stopped
E.L., the testimony whether E.L. appeared intoxicated was contradictory.
The
officer arrested E.L. for violating the Traffic Control Devices (changing
lanes); for the violation Required Position and Method of Turning at
Intersections (for turning into a middle lane instead of the nearest available
lane); and finally, for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
Later
testing revealed that the client had 0.0% of blood alcohol concentration, and
absolutely no drugs in his system. Despite the testing results, the police
officer maintained that the client appeared to be intoxicated.
On behalf of his client, Megaro filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983
action (civil rights violations), claiming that this was a false arrest. In the
trial court, the judge granted the police officer qualified immunity and thus
summary judgment (a decision on the pleadings, without a formal trial).
Attorney
Patrick Megaro appealed, and the Court agreed with the key arguments. On the
issue of the multiple lane changes, the Court found that the applicable law
does not prohibit such multiple lane changes, and it seems there were no solid
yellow lane lines or solid double white lane lines. Thus, E.L.’s lane changes
do not create a reason to arrest him. As to E.L.’s left turn into the middle
instead of the nearest available lane, again the applicable law does not
require that the turn be made to the extreme left hand lane lawfully available.
There, based on the available information, the police officer did not have
probable cause to stop and then arrest E.L.
Attorney Patrick Megaro comments: “First, let
me say that we support the police who are dedicated public servants sworn to protect public safety. For that we are truly grateful. However,
everybody, even police officers, must follow the law. We applaud the Court’s
ruling that no
reasonable police officer could have believed that my client’s conduct at
the time of the stop was DUI.”
Mr. Megaro notes in particular that the
police officer was “not entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest
claim …. because … no reasonable police officer could have believed that
[E.L.]’s conduct at the time of the stop constituted driving under the
influence.”
The Court sent the case
back to the trial court for a proceeding on the false arrest claim.
The underlying case
is Llorente v. Demings, No. 17-14452 (11th Cir. 07/30/2018).
About Attorney Patrick Michael Megaro
Mr.
Megaro is a native of New York where he played Division I college football and
rugby at Hofstra University before graduating from Hofstra Law School. While at
Hofstra Law, Mr. Megaro found his calling in life as a litigator and courtroom
attorney. In law school, he interned at The Legal Aid Society in Queens, New
York City and practiced criminal defense at the Criminal Justice Clinic at
Hofstra Law School, representing real clients prior to graduation.
Patrick
Megaro began his legal career at The Legal Aid Society Criminal Defense
Division in Manhattan, New York City as a public defender. At Legal Aid, Mr.
Megaro represented hundreds of clients charged with misdemeanors and major
felony offenses, gaining invaluable trial experience fighting in court daily
for the rights of clients in the area of criminal law.
Mr.
Megaro entered private practice as a criminal defense attorney in 2004 as an
associate at a high-profile criminal defense law firm in New York City before
forming his own firm in 2007. In private practice, Mr. Megaro represented
clients in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and various Federal courts around the
nation, concentrating on criminal trial defense, sentencing advocacy and
mitigation, criminal appeals and post-conviction relief. In private practice he
handled many high-profile criminal cases in New York City, earning a reputation
as a fierce litigator in the area of criminal law. He continued to practice
criminal law and appellate law in New York and New Jersey until 2014.
Since
2014, Mr. Megaro has been a partner at Halscott Megaro PA, based in Orlando,
Florida, focusing in criminal defense, criminal appeals, post-conviction
relief, and civil rights litigation. In his current position, he represents
clients in legal appeals, post-conviction litigation, and at the trial court
level. At the law firm of Halscott Megaro PA, Mr. Megaro joined forces with
Orlando criminal defense attorney Jaime T. Halscott, Esq., bringing more than a
decade of experience to Halscott Megaro PA in the area of criminal law.
**** Patrick Michael Megaro is a partner at Halscott Megaro PA. His primary areas of practice are criminal defense, criminal appeals, post-conviction relief, civil appeals, and civil rights litigation. Attorney Profile at: https://solomonlawguild.com/patrick-michael-megaro; Attorney News at: https://attorneygazette.com/patrick-megaro%2C-esq#ab17a387-a757-4c0f-bc37-81f556fd15ea
