Willis v. Lepine

• Decision Date: 23 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–2224.,11–2224.
• Citation: 687 F.3d 826,83 Fed.R.Serv.3d 352
• Parties: Michael A. WILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. William J. LEPINE, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

687 F.3d 826

83 Fed.R.Serv.3d 352

Michael A. WILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.William J. LEPINE, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 11–2224.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 12, 2012.

Decided July 23, 2012.

Irene K. Dymkar (argued), Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.

Justin A. Houppert (argued), City of Chicago Law Department, Chicago, IL, for Defendants–Appellees

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and MANION and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

MANION, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Michael Willis and Kendrick Owens, 14 and 16 years old, respectively, were arrested outside of Willis's home for allegedly dealing drugs. After being transported to the police station, Willis and Owens claim that they were subjected to a strip search before being confined for several hours. Willis and Owens were released to their families after being charged with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and were ordered to appear at juvenile court a few weeks later. The charges, however, were eventually dropped. Willis and Owens then filed this suit in federal court against the two arresting officers, alleging false arrest and an illegal search under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution under Illinois state law. The case went to trial, and a jury returned a verdict for the defendant officers on all claims. The district court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions for relief from judgment and for a new trial. Willis and Owens appealed, asserting that the district court wrongly denied their post-trial motions and that defense counsel's alleged violation of a motion-in-limine ruling constitutes reversible error. We affirm.

I.

Michael Willis and Kendrick Owens, two teenaged black males, were arrested in the evening hours of February 26, 2006, outside of Willis's home located at 5531 West Congress Parkway in Chicago. Owens was a friend of Willis's who lived on the same block. The arresting officers were William Lepine and Derek Glowacki; they are the defendants in this case. At trial, the two sides gave accounts that were, at many points, directly contradictory. We begin with the plaintiffs' account.

A. Plaintiffs' Account

Willis was 14 years old when the incident occurred. He lived in his grandmother's home with several members of his immediate and extended family. On the day of this incident, Willis left his house a few minutes before 7:00 p.m. to retrieve a CD from his sister, who was waiting for him in a car outside on the street. At the same time that Willis was obtaining the CD, his distant cousin, Brandon Thompson, a 22–year–old black male, approached the house. Thompson purportedly stopped by to ask another cousin (who did not live at the house) to trade basketball jerseys. After Willis retrieved the CD from his sister, he and Thompson began chatting on the front porch. A few minutes later, Owens, a 16–year–old neighbor and friend of Willis's, came strolling down the street and joined in the conversation.

As the three young men talked on the porch, Owens saw an unmarked police car drive by carrying the defendant police officers dressed in plain-clothes attire. Owens noted that one of the officers gestured like he was asking for marijuana. Willis did not see the unmarked police car drive by. Owens stated that the officers then returned ten to fifteen minutes later, exited their vehicle, and ordered the three young men off of the porch. Willis estimated that the total time that the young men spent talking before being interrupted by the officers was somewhere between five and fifteen minutes.

When the young men reached the sidewalk outside of Willis's home, the officers handcuffed them to one another and searched them. Officer Glowacki then ushered Willis, Owens, and Thompson into the back of the police car and ran their names through the computer system to check for outstanding warrants. While Glowacki stayed in the police car, Officer Lepine scoured the block with a flashlight for approximately thirty minutes to an hour. After Lepine returned, the two officers spoke outside of the car. Owens heard one of the officers quietly say, “We still got to take it in.” The two officers then got in the car and drove the young men to the police station.

When they arrived at the station, the officers placed the young men in a holding area. Ten to fifteen minutes later, Officer Lepine walked in holding two plastic bags containing pink or purple tablets. Lepine asked the young men, “Which one of these do you all want?” All three men said that they did not want either bag and, moreover, that they had never possessed the bags. Officers Lepine and Glowacki then donned rubber gloves and ordered the young men to undress down to their underwear. The officers allegedly searched through all of their clothing and then instructed the young men to remove their underwear, lift their testicles, spread their buttocks, and cough. After the search revealed no contraband, the officers confined the young men. Willis and Owens, as minors, were placed in one holding cell while Thompson was placed in another. Willis and Owens were then released to their families around midnight. It was at that time that they first learned that they were being charged with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. They were also ordered to report to juvenile court in three weeks on March 20, 2006.

B. Defendants' Account

Officers Lepine and Glowacki told a much different story. They testified that they were on patrol when they received a dispatch at 6:49 p.m., stating that a citizen had reported that a black male was selling drugs at 5528 West Congress Parkway (an address just a few houses down from Willis's residence at 5531 West Congress), and that the drugs were hidden in a nearby vacant lot. In addition to giving the seller's race and sex, the report described the seller as approximately 5'7?, 165 pounds, wearing a black hat, black coat, blue jeans, and black gym shoes with a white stripe. The officers did not respond immediately, estimating that they arrived at the 5500 block of West Congress at 7:35 p.m. Importantly, this estimated arrival time was based on a police report that the officers submitted after the fact. At trial, Lepine testified that he and Glowacki recorded the approximate time that they arrived on the scene only after they had returned to the police station.

After their arrival, the officers drove down the block, noting that Willis, Owens, and Thompson were standing in the street and further observing that Thompson had a white stripe on his shoes as described by the dispatch report. The officers also noticed a vacant lot just a few lots removed from where the three men were standing. Given these similarities to the report's descriptions, the officers decided to park on a street north of West Congress and then head back on foot to survey the scene. The officers' presence went unnoticed by the young men because they confined their movements to the narrow gangways that separated the buildings on the north side of West Congress (the gangways they used were between 5530 and 5534 West Congress). From their surveillance positions, the officers testified that they saw Thompson twice take money from individuals, walk to the vacant lot, and return with items that the officers believed to be drugs. Additionally, the officers claim that they heard Willis and Owens each yell “X” (slang for the drug Ecstasy) to passing cars and “police” when a marked police car drove down the block.

After observing the second alleged drug transaction, the officers returned to their car and drove back to the 5500 block of West Congress. The officers arrested the three young men for conspiracy to sell narcotics, and Lepine immediately searched the vacant lot for the drug stash. He testified that he returned less than five minutes later having found one plastic bag containing nineteen Ecstasy pills. Lepine asserted that he did not search the block any further.

The officers radioed dispatch at 7:41 p.m. to report that they had arrested and were transporting Willis, Owens, and Thompson. The officers testified that after they arrived at the police station, they conducted a custodial search of the three young men—notably finding $114 in cash on Thompson—and then placed Thompson in one holding cell and the two minors, Willis and Owens, in another. The officers denied strip-searching the young men or holding up two bags of pills and asking them which bag they wanted. The officers then wrote up the arrest report and received approval for the charges of conspiracy to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance. The officers also contacted Willis's and Owens's families, and, after fingerprinting and photographing the three young men, the officers released Willis and Owens into their families' custody at approximately 11:30 p.m.

C. Procedural Background

As ordered, Willis and Owens, along with their mothers, went to juvenile court on March 20, 2006. Maintaining their innocence, Willis and Owens rejected a deal that would have dismissed the charges after they had completed 300 hours of community service. Nevertheless, the charges were eventually dismissed. Thompson, who was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, pleaded guilty.

Willis and Owens then filed this suit in federal district court against officers Lepine and Glowacki, alleging false arrest and illegal search claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a malicious prosecution claim under Illinois state law. The case went to trial on January 11, 2011. Before trial, however, the plaintiffs filed two motions in limine: (1) to bar evidence that made reference to the 5500 block of West Congress Parkway as a “high-crime area”; and (2) to bar evidence of Thompson's prior arrests and convictions (including his latest guilty plea in the underlying criminal case). The district court judge granted both of the plaintiffs' motions.

At trial, plaintiffs' counsel went to great lengths to establish...