Ankele v. Hambrick, CIVIL ACTION No. 02-4004 (E.D. Pa. 5/7/2003)
| Decision Date | 07 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 02-4004. |
| Parties | ADAM ANKELE, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS HAMBRICK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
This is a federal civil rights action brought against a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, Marcus Hambrick ("Hambrick"), in his individual capacity. Plaintiff Adam Ankele ("Ankele") contends that Hambrick violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution following a February 12, 2001 vehicle accident and subsequent investigation. Presently before the Court is Defendant Hambrick's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Ankele's claims. For the reasons set forth below, Hambrick's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
The following factual account is taken in a light most favorable to Ankele as he is the non-moving party on the instant motion for summary judgment. On February 12, 2001, Ankele left work at 4:00 p.m. after working the 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift. See Ankele Deposition Transcript at 8-9, attached to Defendant's Motion (hereinafter "Ankele Dep."). Ankele stopped at a bar called the Rittersville Fire Company at approximately 4:00 p.m. in order to meet a friend. While waiting for his friend Ankele consumed three ten-ounce glasses of beer, and ate no food. Id. at 11-12, 16, 21. When Ankele's friend did not arrive by 5:30-6:00 p.m., Ankele left the bar to go home. Id. at 15, 17, 24. The bartender working that afternoon, Jonathan Christman, testified at Ankele's trial on the DUI charge that he did not observe any of the behavior that he had witnessed on prior occasions when he knew Ankele was intoxicated, such as slurring his speech and laughing a lot. See Trial 1/18/02 N.T. of Testimony of Jonathan Christman, at 11-12 (hereinafter "Christman"). Christman also testified that based on his observations of Ankele that afternoon, he would have volunteered to be a passenger in Ankele's car. Id. at 10.
At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ankele crashed into the rear of a car stopped at a red light at the intersection of Tilghman Street and Blue Barn Road, in Upper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania. Ankele Dep. at 8, 25; Police Accident Report at 1, attached to Ankele Dep. at Ex. 2 (hereinafter "Police Report"). Ankele admits that he was not paying attention to the road in front of him when he struck the other automobile at a speed of 15-20 mph. Ankele Dep. at 25-26. Ankele then drove his vehicle away from the site of impact, which was in the middle of the road, and into the parking lot of the Kuhnsville Inn, located across the street. Id. at 27, 31-32; 1/18/02 Trial N.T. of Ankele at 12 (hereinafter "Ankele Test."). From this time forward, witness accounts of events vary, but the Court will continue to set forth Plaintiff's version, as he is the non-moving party.
Ankele exited the car, inspected the damage to his vehicle, paced back and forth, sat on a curb close to his vehicle, composing himself and smoking a cigarette. Ankele Dep. at 33; Ankele Test. at 14-15. At this time a bystander who had witnessed the accident, Michael Wieder, approached Ankele and asked if he was alright. Ankele Dep. at 34. Wieder testified at Ankele's trial that Ankele was walking away from the scene, perhaps attempting to leave the scene altogether, but that Ankele slowed down and stopped when he realized that Wieder was behind him. 1/18/02 Trial N.T. of Michael Wieder at 9, 27, attached to Defendant's Motion (hereinafter "Wieder Test."). Ankele admits that Wieder told Ankele that he had an obligation to return to the accident scene. Ankele Dep. at 74. During this conversation, Wieder noticed nothing out of the ordinary in Ankele's speech or walking. See Wieder Test. at 26. In addition, Wieder did not smell alcohol on Ankele's breath while standing about three feet away from him, see id. at 26-27, but when asked "could you tell he had been drinking?", Wieder responded that "from what I saw, I would say he was." Id. at 10-11.
During this conversation between Ankele and Wieder, Defendant State Police Trooper Hambrick arrived at the accident scene to investigate. Ankele Dep. at 37. Wieder then escorted Ankele across the street and back to the site of impact. Hambrick saw both men crossing the street, and noted that Ankele was walking with a "staggered gait." See Deposition of Marcus Hambrick at 12, attached to Defendant's Motion (hereinafter "Hambrick Dep."). When crossing the street with Ankele, Wieder did not notice anything unusual about Ankele's manner of walking. However, he testified that he was not paying close attention to Ankele because he was looking out for oncoming traffic. Wieder Test. at 31-32.
As Ankele and Wieder crossed the street, Hambrick was speaking to the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, Mr. Robert Woods. Ankele Dep. at 36, Police Report at 1. As soon as Ankele arrived at the location of the accident, he stood by the police cruiser, smoking a cigarette. See Ankele Test. at 18. Hambrick walked toward Ankele, and asked him if he was the other driver involved in the accident. Id. at 40. At this time Ankele began backing away from Hambrick because he found Hambrick to be "a very intimidating person." Ankele Test. at 19. Ankele responded "yes," and immediately thereafter Hambrick "grabbed [Ankele], threw [Ankele] on the back of the [police] car, ripped everything out of [Ankele's] pockets and immediately handcuffed [Ankele] and put [Ankele] in the back of the [police] car." Ankele Dep. at 40. Wieder's testimony tends to corroborate Ankele's contention that the verbal exchange and subsequent handcuffing occurred in a very short time span. Wieder Test. at 28 (). Ankele claims that Hambrick "grabbed me and slammed me on the car," and that this resulted in "soft tissue injuries" to his body. Ankele Dep. at 42; Complaint ¶ 12. As a result, Plaintiff was "sore" for about a week. Ankele Dep. at 44, 112. Wieder testified that throughout this incident Ankele was not verbally abusive, Wieder Test. at 33. Ankele contends that he did not argue with Hambrick, although he admits saying when Hambrick grabbed him. Ankele Dep. at 46.
Ankele admits that he told Hambrick that he had been drinking alcohol, but it is not clear from the record whether he made this statement before or after being taken into custody. Ankele Dep. at 69, 105. Ankele contends that Hambrick never asked him to perform field sobriety tests before taking him into custody. Ankele Test. at 20-21.1
Ankele was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI") in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3731(a)(1); leaving the scene of an accident in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3743(a); and driving at an unsafe speed in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3361. Hambrick transported Ankele in custody to the Fogelsville police barracks, and asked him to submit to a "breathalyzer" test. Ankele complied with Hambrick's requests, blowing breath samples into a tube connected to a machine, the Intoximeter Alco-Sensor IV, which determines blood-alcohol content. Ankele blew four to five samples into the tube. Ankele recalls the machine's printer, the RBT IV, printed slips, or a "little white receipt," upon completion of each breath sample. When Ankele asked Hambrick what the reading was, Hambrick stated that the machine was not printing out a reading. Ankele also claims that Hambrick threw the slips of paper into the trash. Hambrick then asked Ankele to sign a refusal form. Ankele did not sign the form, because he felt that he had complied with the instructions given by Hambrick. Ankele Dep. at 49-51.
The preliminary hearing before a district justice on the criminal charges was held on June 6, 2001. There, Hambrick attempted to bolster his claim that Ankele refused the breath test by testifying that another police officer, Trooper Campbell, was present during the entire time that Ankele submitted to the tests. 6/6/01 Preliminary Hearing Transcript at 22, attached to Plaintiff's Appendix at Ex. 6 ). Hambrick changed this story during his deposition in this case, when he admitted that Trooper Campbell was not present through the completion of the breath test, and was present for only a "small portion of it." Hambrick Dep. at 51.
Moreover, Hambrick testified at the preliminary hearing that he did not conduct field sobriety tests at the scene of the accident because he felt he "had enough to ask him to come back to Fogelsville" based on the fact that he was in an accident, his gait, bloodshot eyes, "moderate odor of alcohol." Prelim. Hrg. at 16. However, Hambrick changed this story during his deposition in this case, where he claimed that he asked Ankele to perform field sobriety tests at the scene of the accident, but did not follow through because he felt "threatened" by Ankele when Ankele stood up and began to "spin away" during a frisk, and that he was concerned that Ankele might try to harm him. Hambrick Dep. at 23, 26, 28.
Thereafter, Hambrick testified a third time at Ankele's license suspension appeal hearing on January 14, 2002. During his testimony, Hambrick testified that Ankele never gave a sufficient breath sample. See N.T. of License Suspension Appeal at 30-31, attached to Plaintiff's Appendix at Ex. 5 (hereinafter "License Appeal"). In order to explain the absence of a refusal slip from the machine, Hambrick testified that a refusal slip is not always printed out by the machine. Id. at 26. Hambrick now claims in this action that he mistakenly turned the machine off before any slip, neither confirming nor denying that a refusal to submit to a breath test, was printed. Hambrick Dep. at 70, 73, 80. The state court trial judge apparently rejected Hambrick's version of the events as the suspension...
To continue reading
Request your trial