Williams v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 05 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–1763.,15–1763. |
| Citation | 809 F.3d 936 |
| Parties | Tracy WILLIAMS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Brandon BROOKS, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Scott Leroy Barnhart, Attorney, Keffer Barnhart LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Kirk A. Horn, Attorney, Mandel Horn McGrath & Reynolds, PC, Carmel, IN, Darren James Murphy, Attorney, Howard & Associates, Noblesville, IN, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before POSNER, FLAUM, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Officer Brandon Brooks conducted a traffic stop of Tracy Williams for failing to activate his turn signal prior to changing lanes. Williams did not cooperate with the instructions of Officer Brooks and Officer Kehl, which led to a physical confrontation. Defendant Sergeant Shannon Trump then arrived at the scene. Officer Brooks arrested Williams for resisting law enforcement, and after a bench trial, a state court judge granted Williams's motion to dismiss the charge. Williams suedin federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, excessive force, and failure to protect in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted' motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
The facts presented here are taken from the videotape evidence of the incident, the officers' affidavits, and Williams's deposition testimony.
On October 5, 2011, at approximately 1:15 AM, Officer Brooks of the Noblesville, Indiana Police Department observed Williams's vehicle pull into the left turn lane without signaling his lane change. Williams later testified in a deposition that his normal habit is to signal as he enters a turn lane but that he had no present memory of activating his turn signal on this specific night. Once Williams was in the left turn lane, he activated his turn signal and made a left turn. Officer Brooks turned on his police vehicle's overhead lights, which triggered his dashboard camera. Williams pulled into a gas station parking lot, and Officer Brooks pulled in behind him. Officer Kehl also arrived at the scene.
When Officer Brooks approached Williams's vehicle, Williams's window was only rolled down two inches. Officer Brooks asked Williams to lower his window, and Williams rolled it down approximately one more inch. Based on his training and experience, Officer Brooks knew that this was common behavior for intoxicated persons attempting to prevent officers from smelling their breath or the inside of their cars.
After telling Williams that he had been pulled over for failing to signal before changing lanes, Officer Brooks asked for his license and registration. He also asked Williams whether he had been drinking, and Williams said he had not. Officer Brooks said, Williams responded that he normally puts his turn signal on and that it had been a long day. Officer Brooks took Williams's license and registration, told Williams to "hang tight," and said he would be right back.
Officer Brooks returned to his police vehicle, ran Williams's license plate and registration, and did not find any problems. He decided to issue Williams a warning for his failure to signal. Officer Brooks told Officer Kehl that he could leave the scene.
As Officer Brooks exited his vehicle to give Williams the warning ticket, Williams stepped out of his vehicle and started walking toward the center of the gas station. Officer Brooks had never encountered a person getting out of his vehicle during a traffic stop. Additionally, he had learned in training that being away from his vehicle without cover is one of the most vulnerable positions for an officer during a traffic stop. Williams is significantly larger than Officer Brooks: Officer Brooks is 5'9 and 170 pounds, and Williams is 6'3 and 195 pounds. Officer Brooks asked Williams to get back in his car, but Williams ignored him. Officer Brooks repeated this command six more times. Williams did not comply until Officer Brooks drew his taser.
Officer Brooks radioed Officer Kehl to return to the scene. He asked Williams why he would get out of his car during a traffic stop, and Williams responded that he wanted to get a paper towel to clean his side mirror. Officer Brooks again asked Williams if he had been drinking, and Williams again responded that he had not.
Because Williams had exited his vehicle and because of his demeanor, Officer Brooks believed that Williams might be intoxicated or otherwise mentally impaired. He decided to perform a pat down search followed by a field sobriety test. He asked Williams to step out of his car at least six times before Williams complied. Williams finally exited his vehicle and stood facing Officer Brooks.
For safety reasons, Officer Brooks wanted Williams against the car so that he could not reach into his pockets during the pat down. He pointed in the direction of Williams's car and said, "Face that way for me." Williams did not comply. Instead, he took a step toward Officer Brooks and asked for a breathalyzer. Officer Brooks again said, "Face that way for me, turn around," and grabbed Williams's right arm and pushed him toward his car. Williams pushed against the car with his left hand and backed into Officer Brooks. Williams said, "If you're going to do this, you're going to visit with my attorney, son." Officer Brooks instructed Williams to stop resisting. Williams said, "I'm not resisting," but again pushed against the car with his left hand back toward Officer Brooks.
Officer Brooks radioed Officer Kehl to "step it up a little bit." He tried to get both of Williams's hands behind his back, but Williams kept pushing against Officer Brooks. Officer Brooks pushed against Williams as Williams leaned into him. Williams hit the side of the car three times during the struggle.
At this point, Officer Kehl arrived at the gas station. Williams pulled his hand free of Officer Brooks's grip and spun around to face Officer Brooks. As Williams pushed Officer Brooks away and threw an elbow at him, Officer Brooks backed up and drew his taser on Williams. Williams took a step toward Officer Brooks, and Officer Brooks instructed Williams to turn around. Williams ignored the command. Officer Brooks repeated it several times and told Williams to put his hands above his head. Williams did not turn to face his vehicle but instead made a 360–degree turn so that he was still facing Officer Brooks. He briefly put his hands above his head and said, "What do you want from me?"
Officer Kehl approached Williams and ordered him to turn around. After Williams ignored two more commands to turn around, Officer Kehl grabbed Williams and turned him so he was facing his car. He ordered Williams to put his hands behind his back multiple times. Williams did not comply, so Officer Kehl pulled his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Williams said, Officer Kehl responded that he saw Williams assault Officer Brooks, and Williams denied having done so.
Officer Brooks proceeded to pat down Williams. Officer Brooks asked Williams again if he had been drinking that night. Williams said, Officer Brooks replied, "Because normal people that haven't been drinking don't act like you're acting right now." Williams said that it had been a long day at work. Officer Brooks put Williams in the back seat of his police vehicle. Williams complained that his handcuffs were uncomfortable on his wrists, and Officer Kehl responded that they were not supposed to be comfortable.
Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Shannon Trump, the shift supervisor that evening, came to the scene and spoke with Williams. Williams said Officer Brooks was "very hostile and aggressive," claimed he did not know why Officer Brooks had pulled him over, and alleged that he had complied with everything Officer Brooks asked of him. When Sergeant Trump asked Williams if Officer Brooks had told him not to walk away from the car and if Williams had not listened to him, Williams responded that Officer Brooks had given him contradictory messages by first telling him to stay in the car and then telling him to get out of the car. Williams again complained about his handcuffs and asked Sergeant Trump to remove them, but she declined. Sergeant Trump asked Williams if he would be willing to take a field sobriety test, and he agreed. Officer Brooks administered a field sobriety test. Williams also consented to a breathalyzer, which registered a zero percent reading for blood-alcohol level.
Sergeant Trump reviewed the video of the incident and found that Williams had resisted law enforcement and that Officer Brooks had acted appropriately.
Williams was arrested and charged with resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor under Indiana law. Ind.Code § 35–44–3–3(a)(1) (repealed 2012). On March 20, 2012, Williams signed a diversion agreement, wherein he "admit[ed] the truthfulness of the charges against [him]" and acknowledged that "such admission may be used against [him] if there is a resumption or prosecution of these charges by reason of termination from the pretrial diversion program." A condition of the diversion agreement was that Williams complete anger management training. Williams did not fulfill this condition, so the State revoked the agreement, and the case went to a bench trial in Hamilton County Criminal Court on April 25, 2013. The State presented the video of the incident and the testimony of Officer Brooks. The state court granted Williams's motion to dismiss the resisting law enforcement charge.
On October 4, 2013, Williams filed suit in federal district court against Officer Brooks, Officer Kehl, and Sergeant Trump....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mwangangi v. Nielsen
...not adopt the nonmoving party's version of the events when that version is blatantly contradicted by the videotape." Williams v. Brooks , 809 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2016).The Court need only consider the cited materials, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ha......
-
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co.
...outcome" of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; Williams v. Brooks , 809 F.3d 936, 941–42 (7th Cir. 2016) ; Crown Operations Int'l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc. , 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A "genuine" dispute over a mate......
-
Nar Bus. Park, LLC v. Ozark Auto. Distribs., LLC
...686 (2007). However, the Court will not draw inferences that are "supported by only speculation or conjecture," Williams v. Brooks , 809 F.3d 936, 944 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Argyropoulos v. City of Alton , 539 F.3d 724, 732 (7th Cir. 2008) ) (internal citations omitted), and "[c]onclusory......
-
Aberman v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., Case No. 12–cv–10181
...(7th Cir. 2016). However, the Court will not draw inferences that are "supported by only speculation or conjecture," Williams v. Brooks , 809 F.3d 936, 944 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Argyropoulos v. City of Alton , 539 F.3d 724, 732 (7th Cir. 2008) ) (internal citations omitted), and "[c]oncl......