Aponte v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 19 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-cv-08082,09-cv-08082 |
| Parties | GILBERT APONTE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, an Illinois municipal corporation; JOHN ADREANI, an individual; HENRY VIA, an individual; KIMBERLY VALENTI, an individual; and DONALD DEVITO, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
NOW COMES the Defendant, JOHN ADREANI, by and through his attorneys, CUISINIER, FARAHVAR & BENSON, LTD., and for his Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act seeking to recover damages allegedly suffered as a result of the lawful search of Plaintiff's residence occurring on or about August 18, 2009. Plaintiff contends that the manner in which the search was conducted was unreasonable thereby violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant, JOHN ADREANI (hereinafter "ADREANI"), seeks the entry of judgment in his favor as a matter of law on the basis that there was not a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Plaintiff. In thealternative, ADREANI seeks entry of judgment as a matter of law in his favor because the complained of conduct falls within the realm of qualified immunity.
Under Rule 50, if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the Court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the party on that issue, the Court may resolve the issue against the party and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim that, under the controlling law, can be maintained only with a favorable finding on that issue. FRCP 50(a) (2011). If the court does not grant a motion made under FRCP 50(a), a movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. FRCP 50(b) (2011). In this case, the evidence does not establish that the manner in which ADREANI conducted his search of 1939 W. Race was unreasonable such that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated.
To prevail on a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b), the moving party must show that the jury's findings, presumed or express, are not supported by substantial evidence. Arthrocare Corp. v Smith & Nephew, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D.C. Del. 2004). In considering such a Motion, a court (1) should review all of the evidence in the record, not just evidence and reasonable inferences which tend to support the case of the non-moving party, (2) while drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of non-moving party, (3) may not make credibility determinations or weigh evidence, and (4) must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe, although a court should give credence to evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least toextent that such evidence comes from disinterested witnesses. Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000). The fact that the record, when viewed in light most favorable to the non-movant contains a scintilla of evidence in support of the challenged verdict, or barely refutes the contention that there is no evidence supporting the non-movant's case, presents no legal barrier to entry of judgment as a matter of law. Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 447 F. Supp. 557 (D.C. Kan. 1977). In this instance, even when drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, it is clear that there is insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in Plaintiff's favor. Therefore, ADREANI is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On August 18, 2009, ADREANI participated in the execution of a valid search warrant at 1939 W. Race in Chicago, Illinois. The manner in which a warrant is executed is generally left to the discretion of the executing officers who must determine the details of how best to proceed. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238, 99 S.Ct. 1682 (1979). "The test is whether 'the officers executing the warrant employ[ed] a methodology that is, in light of the values protected by the Fourth Amendment and the exigencies of the situation, a reasonable one'." Johnson v. Manitowoc County, et al., 635 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing U.S. v. Jones, 54 F.3d 1285, 1292 (7th Cir. 1995)). What is reasonable in connection with the implementation of the search depends upon the context in which the search takes place. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
The search warrant in this case gave ADREANI and the other officers the legal right to enter the residence. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-136 (1990). Indeed, Plaintiff did not challenge that the warrant was properly issued. The police are entitled to search for the items named in the warrant where it is likely those named items may be found. Russell v. Harms, 397 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2005). Where drugs are involved, an assessment of the reasonableness of themanner in which the search is conducted must necessarily take into account the fact that drugs can be hidden in small places and in small containers. Bates v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, 591 F. Supp. 711 (N.D. Ind. 1983). Accordingly, a search for drugs commonly results in invasive measures that may cause damage to property. Bates, supra.
The testimony at trial established that ADREANI and Officer Henry Via, after obtaining a valid search warrant, set up surveillance at 1939 W. Race. Plaintiff was eventually seen leaving the residence. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was taken into custody and taken to 1939 W. Race. The officers obtained the keys to the home to avoid having to force entry into the home. After the house was secured, a plain view search was conducted. When drugs and drug paraphernalia were not found in plain view, the canine unit was contacted to come to the residence to perform a search. Nothing more than a plain view search was performed before the canine unit arrived.
Shortly after arriving, the canine unit, consisting of Officer Juan Martinez and his dog, Rocky, conducted a search of the home. ADREANI was present with Officer Martinez and Rocky for that search, the purpose of which was to determine whether Rocky detected the odor of narcotics. Rocky did not make a positive alert for the presence of the odor of narcotics. After Rocky completed his search, the officers resumed their search of the property. As Officer Martinez testified, a search will be conducted by the search team regardless of whether the canine makes a positive alert for the presence of narcotic odor. In fact, Officer Martinez testified that he has participated in searches with his canine in which the canine did not make a positive alert for the presence of narcotic odor and, yet, drugs were ultimately found.
During their search, the officers searched drawers, closets, clothing and cabinets. In the kitchen, food items that were already opened were searched. The officers did not open food containers that were not already opened. No evidence was presented that the officers opened any previously unopened food items. In fact, Plaintiff's own photographs show unopened food items. ADREANI testified that he emptied pillows and cushions that had zippers. ADREANI never damaged any of those items. No photographs of any pillows or cushions depicting any damage were presented. In fact, none of Plaintiff's photographs, Exhibits 9-33, 35-41, show any damage. Furthermore, Joanna Aviles and Leticia Neri testified that the photographs do not show the damage they described. At the close of Plaintiff's case, no evidence was presented showing that any of the actions taken by ADREANI were unreasonable.
The officers testified that after the search, the house was a mess and in substantial disarray. Ms. Neri testified that the reason she was taking photos was to document the mess. The evidence presented by Plaintiff shows just that - a mess. The mere fact that the premises was left, to some degree, in a state of disarray does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the search was unreasonable. "[S]o long as the officer's conduct remains within the boundaries of reasonableness, an officer has discretion over the details of how best to proceed with a search warrant's execution.'" Johnson, supra (citing Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1349) (10th Cir. 1997)). Reasonableness is judged from the perspective of the officer at the time of the search, not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Johnson, supra (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). As the Court pointed out in Johnson, there are no cases requiring an officer to use the least possible destructive means to execute a search warrant. In this instance, ADREANI provided a reasonable explanation for every action he took during the course of his search. Each action he took was certainly within the boundaries of reasonableness and, as such,he had discretion over the details of how best to proceed with the execution of the search warrant.
A Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) must be granted where there is such complete absence of evidence to support the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or where there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fairminded men could not arrive at verdict against him. The jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against ADREANI in the amount of $100.00 is clearly not supported by the evidence. The amount of the verdict makes it clear that the jury clearly rejected Plaintiff's claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. No evidence was presented during...
To continue reading
Request your trial