Baker v. City of Durham
| Decision Date | 13 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:14CV878 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | BRIAN JOSHUA BAKER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DURHAM, et al., Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Dorothea Alene Rosencrans's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motion for summary judgment. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, Docket Entry 77; Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Docket Entry 93.) The matter is ripe for disposition. For the reasons stated herein, the Court recommends granting both motions.
On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff Brian Joshua Baker, a pro se inmate, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful search and seizure and excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Defendant and others1. (See generally Compl,Docket Entry 2; see also 2d Am. Compl., Docket Entry 62.) Plaintiff's claims arise from a "no-knock"2 search that was conducted on October 21, 2011, at his girlfriend's apartment where he was staying. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30, 49-56.) The search was conducted in response to a break in at La Cocina Mexican Restaurant in Mebane, North Carolina and pursuant to a warrant based in part on an anonymous tip. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the search was illegal because: (1) the anonymous informant could not be verified as reliable; (2) a search for "[a]ny and all stolen property" was improper because there was nothing stolen from the business; (3) the warrant was "not particularly descriptive," and therefore did not give officers proper guidance regarding which items to seize; (4) the "no-knock" search warrant was unnecessary and conducted as punishment for Plaintiff's previous lack of cooperation; and (5) the items seized during the search "had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation and could only be seen as a sign of vindictiveness." (2d. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51-56.)
On January 2, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and on March 28, 2018, a motion for summary judgment. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss; Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.) She argues in each that Plaintiff's claims are conclusory and barred by the United States Supreme Court's Decision in Heck. v. Humphrey.3 (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss; Def.'s Mot. Summ. J.; see also Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Docket Entry 78; Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J, Docket Entry 94.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to each motion. (Pl.'s Response Opp. Mot.Dismiss, Docket Entry 81; Pl.'s Response Opp. Mot. Summ. J., Docket Entry 100.) To his response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Pl.'s Response Opp. Mot. Summ. J. at 2-22), Plaintiff attached his declaration (id. at 1), Detective John Franklin and Officer Ryan Cook's case supplemental reports of La Cocina break in (id. at 23-24), the search warrant and search warrant application (id. at 25-34),4 and an inventory of the items seized pursuant to the warrant (id. at 35-36.)
In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff describes the events leading up to search as follows. (2d. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-30.) On the morning of October 4, 2011, the Mebane Police Department responded to a break in in progress at La Cocina Mexican Restaurant in Mebane, North Carolina in Alamance County. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.) When officers arrived, the perpetrators had already fled the scene. (Id.) Nothing was reported stolen, but there was some damage to the business. (Id.) Police obtained a description of the vehicle used in the break in. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) On October 9, 2011, Orange County Sheriff's Department Deputy Tyler-Berry pulled Plaintiff over driving a black, 2003 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor with a CB antenna and silver "detective" center caps. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 21.) Plaintiff's girlfriend, Angela Butler, was also in the vehicle. (Id. ¶ 16.) Deputy Berry told Plaintiff that his vehicle matched the description of the vehicle used in a robbery in Alamance County and asked Plaintiff to wait for Detective Franklin. (Id.) Plaintiff agreed. (Id.)
Detective Franklin arrived with an Officer Moody. (Id. ¶ 17.) Detective Franklin told Plaintiff that he suspected that another vehicle that matched that description was actually the one used in the break in but asked to search Plaintiff's vehicle anyway. (Id.) Plaintiff denied consent to search his vehicle, which "visibly upset" Detective Franklin. (Id.) Detective Franklin and Officer Moody conversed briefly in private, then looked in the windows of the vehicle with their flashlights, took pictures of the vehicle and asked for Plaintiff and Ms. Butler's licenses. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) Detective Franklin and the officers let Plaintiff go. (Id. ¶ 18.)
On October 10, 2011, Durham Police pulled Plaintiff over, this time for "looking too official." (Id. ¶ 19.) Officers again asked to search the vehicle, and Plaintiff refused. (Id.) Officers asked Plaintiff to exit the vehicle so they could "run the [K-9] dog around the car." (Id.) An officer rolled the driver-side window of the vehicle down. (Id. ¶ 20.) The K-9 jumped through the window and sat down in the rear of the car. (Id.) Using the "sit down" alert as an excuse, officers searched Plaintiff's vehicle. (Id.) They found nothing and allowed Plaintiff to leave. (Id.) As soon as Plaintiff got home, he removed the mounted CB antenna and the silver "Detective" center caps from the vehicle. (Id. ¶ 21)
The same day, after attempting to locate Plaintiff at his mother's house, officers located Plaintiff's vehicle outside Ms. Butler's apartment at 1200 Leon Street in Durham, North Carolina and took more pictures of it. (Id. ¶ 22.) Detective Franklin asked one Sergeant Price to place surveillance on Plaintiff's vehicle, but Sergeant Price told Detective Franklin that he was too short staffed. (Id. ¶ 23.) The following day, Detective Franklin and Officer Apple took more pictures of the vehicle outside Ms. Butler's house, purportedly because the center caps had been removed, although they had noticed and photographed the alterations to thevehicle the day before. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22, 24.) On October 14, 2011, Detective Franklin and Officer Apple went to Ms. Butler's apartment to make contact with her. (Id. ¶ 25.) No one answered the door, so they took pictures of Ms. Butler's vehicle. (Id.) On October 18, 2011, they tried again to make contact with Ms. Butler at her apartment and again no one answered the door. (Id. ¶ 26.) Officers learned that she worked at T.G.I. Friday's in Durham, and on October 19, 2011, they went there to speak with her. (Id. ¶ 27.) Detective Franklin asked Ms. Butler for consent to search her apartment; Ms. Butler refused. (Id. ¶ 28.)
On October 20, 2011, Defendant and Detective Chris Ray Header applied for a "no-knock" search warrant. (Id. ¶ 29.) In the warrant application, Defendant swore that she had personally received a call from someone wishing to remain anonymous. (Id. ¶ 30.) Defendant swore that the informant told her that Plaintiff, Angela Butler and one other person had burglarized La Cocina and that he or she had seen numerous weapons inside Ms. Butler's apartment. (Id.) Defendant omitted from her warrant application the fact that nothing was stolen from the business. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 52.)
On October 21, 2011, six individuals carrying shotguns and dressed in black suits and helmets with face shields (John Does Nos. 1-6) burst into the apartment on Leon Street. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32.) They instructed Plaintiff to get on the ground. (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff raised his hands above his head and got down on his knees. (Id.) The individuals threw Plaintiff to the floor, beat him in the face, choked him, and put a knee in his back while they screamed "quit resisting." (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) After they cuffed Plaintiff, one of the officers kicked Plaintiff between the legs and jerked Mm to a standing position by the hand cuffs. (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff was then seated outside the apartment while Defendant, Detective Header, Detective Franklin,and other Durham police officers searched the apartment. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) Officers B.T. Francis and H.M. Crenshaw approached Plaintiff with a pink criminal summons. (Id. ¶ 37.) They told Plaintiff that they had found a minute amount of marijuana and some drug paraphernalia in a back bedroom and that Plaintiff would be charged for it. (Id.) Defendant and the other searching officers seized boxes of Plaintiff's property including a laptop, a palm pilot, cell phones, an external hard drive and thumb drive, pocket knives, a BB gun, binoculars, sheers, wire crimpers and stripers, various clothing, and Plaintiff's vehicle. (Id. ¶ 38.) Officers took Plaintiff to the hospital, where he was treated for injuries, then to the Alamance County Jail. (Id. ¶¶ 39-4l.)
When Plaintiff's mother and girlfriend returned to the apartment later that day, they found the door open. (Id. ¶ 42.) A substantial amount of Plaintiff's property had been stolen. (Id.) Plaintiff's mother called the Durham Police Department to complain about the assault on Plaintiff during the search. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiff's mother was informed that Plaintiff had resisted arrest. (Id.)
Police returned Plaintiff's property, including his vehicle, to his mother on July 9, 2012. (Id. ¶ 44.) When returned, Plaintiff's vehicle, which had been in good condition when seized, had rusted wheels, flat and warped tires, and damage the exterior finish or "coat". (Id.) Also in July, 2012, blood tests revealed that Plaintiff's thyroid wasn't functioning properly. (Id. ¶ 45.) While in prison, Plaintiff began to have nightmares about being re-arrested. After his release, Plaintiff continued to have nightmares, and also experienced rapid weight loss, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, palpitations, chest and stomach pain, difficulty breathing, headaches,anxiety, and panic attacks. (Id. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.)
To continue reading
Request your trial