United States District Court, D. New Jersey
CHARLES V. KLINGBERG, JR. and BRENDA KLINGBERG, Plaintiffs,
LISA HATCHER, RON MIDDLETON, SCOTT OBERMEIER, DAVE WALLACE, and GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP, Defendants.
M. KOBER CHERRY HILL, N.J. 08003 On behalf of Plaintiffs
RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN
& GOGGIN, PA MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. 08054 On behalf of
Defendants Lisa Hatcher, Ron Middleton, Scott Obermeier, and
JESSICA ANN JANNETTI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF N.J.
TRENTON, N.J. 08625 On behalf of Defendant Dave Wallace
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
matter concerns constitutional claims by Plaintiffs after
they were detained for fifteen hours at a police station
during an investigation into a fire at Plaintiffs'
apartment. After the investigation, no charges were filed.
Presently before the Court is the second motion of Defendant
Dave Wallace, one of the investigators, to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims. For the reasons expressed below,
Defendant's motion will be granted.
recitation of the facts of the case may be found in this
Court's prior opinion granting Defendant Dave
Wallace's first motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 34.)
Previously, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims
against Wallace for lack of sufficient pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint.
stated, on January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs, Charles V.
Klingberg, Jr. and Brenda Klingberg, were taken to the
Gloucester Township police station to give a statement to aid
in the investigation of a fire at their apartment. They claim
that they were not permitted to leave for fifteen hours. With
regard to Defendant Wallace's involvement in
Plaintiffs' detention, Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint alleges that Wallace, an investigator with the
Camden County Prosecutor's Office,  participated in
interrogations of both Brenda Klingberg and Charles
Klingberg. Plaintiffs claim:
45. Defendant, DAVE WALLACE, arrived at the Gloucester
Township police department during the course of the afternoon
while the detention of Plaintiffs was in progress.
46. After his arrival, Defendant, DAVE WALLACE, did not
inquire of the Plaintiffs if they were present in the police
station by their consent.
47. The failure by the Defendant, DAVE WALLACE, to inquire of
the Plaintiffs if they were present in the police station by
consent was deliberate indifference as to whether the
Plaintiffs were present in the police station by consent or
48. Defendant, DAVE WALLACE, as an experienced detective,
should reasonably have realized that if the Plaintiffs were
not detained in the police station by their consent, their
continued detention in the police station for purposes of
interrogation and investigation was a violation of their
49. If Defendant, DAVE WALLACE, had inquired of the
Plaintiffs if they were present in the Gloucester Township
Police station by consent, he would have learned that the
Plaintiffs were not present in the Gloucester Township Police
station by consent.
50. Upon learning that the Plaintiffs were not present in the
Gloucester Township Police station by consent, in order not
to be complicit in violating the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights, Defendant, DAVE WALLACE, needed to
tell the Gloucester Township individual defendants that they
needed to release Plaintiffs immediately, and that he would
refuse to ...