Akers v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 25 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2014-CA-001778-MR,NO. 2014-CA-001394-MR,2014-CA-001394-MR,2014-CA-001778-MR |
| Parties | KATELYN AKERS APPELLANT v. TIMOTHY ROBERTS AND CITY OF PIKEVILLE APPELLEES AND KATELYN AKERS APPELLANT v. UNIVERSITY OF PIKEVILLE; DOUG J. COTTLE; ALLEN E. ABSHIRE; JEFF KENDRICK; MATT THACKER; BRIAN MCGUIRE; TRACEY NICKLES; AND J. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT
After careful consideration of the record and the arguments, we affirm the trial court's decisions.
In her brief, Akers only provides a procedural history and does not describe the events underlying the appeals. The appellees' briefs, however, described the pertinent facts. Both appeals commenced when Pike District Court entered a bench warrant for the arrest of Akers' friend, Sarah Elizabeth Sisco. Thereafter, Timothy Roberts, a Pikeville police officer, was assigned to serve Sisco's warrant.
The following facts are relevant to both appeals. On April 26, 2012, Officer Roberts saw Akers drive her vehicle onto the campus of the University of Pikeville. Officer Roberts, in his December 6, 2013 affidavit, stated that he knewSisco was a close friend of Akers. Thus, after Akers stopped her vehicle to drop off a passenger, Officer Roberts approached the vehicle and asked if she had seen Sisco. In her deposition, Akers stated that she told the officer that she had not seen Sisco but believed she was at home. Sisco's home was a short distance, that is, about a block away. According to Officer Roberts' affidavit, Akers volunteered to go to Sisco's residence. He agreed to her offer. (In her affidavit, Akers contends that Officer Roberts asked her to take him.)
According to Akers' deposition, after being questioned by Officer Roberts, she felt like she should check to see if her friend was at home. As Akers drove to Sisco's home, Officer Roberts followed her. (Contrary to her affidavit, Akers stated in the deposition that Officer Roberts never asked her to take him to Sisco's home.) Upon arriving at Sisco's home, Akers voluntarily knocked on both the front and back doors of the Sisco home. (However, in her affidavit, she maintained that he told her to knock on the door, but in the deposition, she conceded that Officer Roberts did not ask her to knock.) Sisco was not at home. Akers, in her deposition, stated that she asked Officer Roberts if he would like her to call Sisco's father. He declined. She then asked if he would like her to call Sisco's sister. He agreed. Sisco's sister did not know where she was either. Then, everyone drove off. The duration of this contact was approximately seventeen minutes.
Because of the interaction, Akers maintains that Officer Roberts detained and imprisoned her for seventeen minutes. Nonetheless, Akers admitsthat she was never placed under arrest, never placed in handcuffs, never put into a police car, or taken to jail. Still, Akers claims that Officer Roberts' actions amounted to detention.
The second appeal is based on the above event and also on an occurrence that took place later that day. Regarding the above-described event, Akers asserts that security personnel employed by the University of Pikeville, including Officer Doug Cottle, also detained and imprisoned her for the same seventeen minutes of the aforementioned contact with Officer Roberts.
Apparently, when Officer Roberts followed Akers to Sisco's home from the campus, some members of the University's security personnel, including Officer Doug Cottle, followed them to Sisco's residence, too. Nonetheless, the security personnel never left their vehicle or spoke to Akers while outside Sisco's residence. Akers corroborates this lack of communication with them in her deposition. She notes that no member of the University of Pikeville security office told her that she had to go to Sisco's house or, for that matter, told her that she had to do anything. Again, as in the facts related to the first appeal, once it was determined that Sisco was not at home, everyone departed.
The additional facts associated with the second appeal happened later the same day, sometime between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. (Akers does not reference this event in her affidavit.) After Akers spoke with Sisco by phone, she drove to her home and Sisco got in her car. Akers and Sisco drove to a parking lot near the Landmark Inn and parked. Coincidentally, a dance sponsored by the University ofPikeville was being held at the Landmark Inn that evening, and officers from the University were providing security for the event. While Akers and Sisco were parked and talking, Officer Cottle spotted Sisco in Akers' vehicle.
Officer Cottle parked his vehicle next to Akers' vehicle and advised her of the outstanding warrant. In addition, the city police were notified and arrived on the scene a short time later and arrested Sisco. Because of the interaction, Akers maintains that University of Pikeville security officers detained and imprisoned her for ten minutes. According to Akers' deposition, however, the security officers never spoke directly to her at the Landmark Inn. Specifically, Akers testified that no one said that she could not leave. She decided to stay to support her friend. Akers left after Sisco was arrested and taken into custody. No one tried to prevent Akers from leaving.
Akers filed a complaint on January 10, 2013, and an amended complaint on February 13, 2013. She alleges that she was detained and imprisoned for a period of seventeen minutes on April 26, 2012, and later on that same day, she was detained and imprisoned for ten minutes. Furthermore, the actions of the officers placed her in substantial fear. And these actions, based on the complaint's assertions, were racially motivated because of Akers' association with African American students who attend the University of Pikeville.
In the complaint, Akers proffers false imprisonment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the officers. Additionally, she alleges negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent hiring against theUniversity of Pikeville. Finally, Akers asserts that the acts were racially motivated and violated her rights under the Kentucky Constitution.
The parties engaged in discovery including interrogatories, request for production of documents, and request for admissions. Then, on May 16, 2014, Officer Roberts and the City of Pikeville filed a motion for summary judgment with Officer Roberts' aforementioned affidavit attached. In the affidavit, which has been previously cited, Officer Roberts stated he never arrested, detained, or physically threatened Akers. On June 24, 2014, in the response to the motion for summary judgment, Akers attached her previously mentioned affidavit, which contravened Officer Roberts' affidavit. Finally, Akers was deposed on June 26, 2014. Testimony from the deposition is also highlighted above.
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment in the first appeal was held on July 26, 2014. After the hearing, the trial court, on August 1, 2014, entered summary judgment in favor of Officer Roberts, the City of Pikeville and its police department. The trial court determined that Officer Roberts did not arrest or detain Akers. Further, the trial court concluded that Officer Roberts did not tell her she could not leave the scene or to go to Sisco's home or to knock on the doors of the home. Therefore, the trial court decided that Officer Roberts did nothing in his attempt to locate and serve an outstanding bench warrant on Sisco that would lead Akers to believe that she was under arrest or being detained.
Moreover, the trial court reasoned that while Akers may have "felt" pressured to go to the Sisco home, Officer Roberts' actions would not lead areasonable person to believe that he or she was under arrest or not free to leave. Instead, the trial court opined that Officer Roberts may have thought that Akers was being helpful. In sum, the trial court held that Officer Roberts did not arrest, detain, or imprison Akers and his conduct did not rise to the level of "outrageous conduct." Hence, the trial court granted Officer Roberts, the City of Pikeville, and the police department's motion for summary judgment and dismissed them from the action. Further, the trial court ordered that Akers pay their taxable costs.
Regarding the second appeal, the University of Pikeville and members of the security office filed a motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2014. After Akers' response, the trial court held a hearing on September 26, 2014. The trial court then entered summary judgment on October 6, 2014, in favor of the University of Pikeville, et al. In the order, the trial court observed that the officers from the University of Pikeville, who followed Officer Roberts' patrol car to the Sisco residence, did not get out of their vehicle or speak with Akers.
The trial court also established that when the University officers spotted Sisco in the passenger seat of Akers' vehicle at the Landmark Inn, they did not speak with her or tell her that she could not leave the scene. Therefore, the trial court held that the University's security personnel did nothing to lead Akers or any reasonable person to believe that he or she was arrested or detained nor did the officers' conduct arise to the level of "outrageous conduct."
The trial court continued its order and noted that regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial