Brown v. Chiappetta, Civil No. 10–2629 (DSD/TNL).
| Decision Date | 23 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 10–2629 (DSD/TNL). |
| Citation | 806 F.Supp.2d 1108 |
| Parties | Esther Ruth BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Michael CHIAPPETTA and City of Minneapolis, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joshua R. Williams, Esq., Law Office of Joshua R. Williams, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.
C. Lynne Fundingsland, Esq., Amanda M. Trelstad, Esq. and Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the motion for partial summary judgment by plaintiff Esther Ruth Brown and motion for summary judgment by defendants Michael Chiappetta and City of Minneapolis. The court heard oral argument on May 27, 2011. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants defendants' motion.
This civil rights dispute arises out of the arrest and detention of Brown following an alleged drive-by shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota in August 2009.
On August 27, 2009, at 4:46 p.m. Derrick Charleston called 911 and reported that Brown had fired three shots at him from the passenger seat of a green Pontiac near the corner of 36th Avenue North and Penn Avenue North. Minutes later Minneapolis Police Officer Anna Hedberg arrived and questioned Charleston. Charleston stated that he knew Brown because he had lived with her and she recently kicked him out after an argument concerning his girlfriend, Drucilla Pickens. Chiappetta Aff. Ex. 1, at 8; see Brown Dep. 8:22–10:3. Charleston said that Brown fired three shots at him from the passenger seat of a dark green car with twenty-inch silver rims. Chiappetta Aff. Ex. 1, at 8. He said that the vehicle belonged to Brown. Id. An independent witness, Patricia Knapp, approached Hedberg and said that she heard three shots fired from a dark green vehicle, but that she could not see the shooter because the vehicle had tinted windows. Id. Hedberg searched the area and found three spent 9–mm shell casings. Id.
Hedberg recognized Charleston as a suspect in the burglary of Brown's home on August 26, 2009, during which a 9–mm Taurus handgun was allegedly stolen. 1 Id. Hedberg handcuffed Charleston and placed him in her squad car. Id. Charleston told Hedberg that he had neither burglarized Brown's house nor stolen a handgun. Id. Rather, Charleston said that he had returned only to recover his property. Id. Hedberg released Charleston, and instructed him to contact the precinct the next day. Id.
Meanwhile, Officers Kasso and Griffin saw Brown and two of her friends, Yenestra Shockency and Derrica Randle in a green GMC Jimmy near Brown's house. Id. at 10–11. Griffin stopped the vehicle and arrested Brown. Id. Kasso reported that she heard Shockency say, “[t]his must be because of the shooting” and “[t]his must be because of the gun.” Id. at 11.
Chiappetta was assigned to investigate the incident. Officers Hedberg, Griffin and Yasso each wrote supplemental reports on August 27. Chiappetta wrote a supplemental report on August 28. Chiappetta's report noted largely the same information as the reports of Hedberg, Griffin and Yasso, but added that Shockency had been contacted “but would not confirm that she was present during the time of the shooting” and that Randle “also stated that she was with Brown from 3 [p.m.] to the time of her arrest but denied a shooting had taken place.” Id. at 13. Chiappetta stated that “[b]oth known witnesses that had been contacted are believed to be providing false information at this time.” Id.
On August 28, 2009, an assistant county attorney filed a complaint against Brown in Minnesota state court. The complaint stated:
Complainant, Sgt. Michael Chiappetta, of the Minneapolis Police Department, has investigated the facts and circumstances of this offense and believes that the following establishes probable cause:
On August 27, 2009, at about 4:49 p.m., police spoke with [Derrick Charleston], a 19 year old male. He stated that he had been at 36th Street and Penn Ave. North in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, when a green Buick [sic] Grand Prix with 20? silver rim tires approached. A woman he recognized as ESTHER RUTH BROWN, the Defendant herein, reached out the right passenger window and fired a handgun three times in his direction.
Officer Hedberg, who spoke with [Charleston], was also approached by a woman, [Knapp], who stated that she heard three shots coming from a dark green vehicle which had dark tinted windows. Officer Hedberg searched the area where the car had reportedly been when the shots were fired. The officer located three 9–mm shell casings on the north side of 36th, just north of Penn Ave. These were photographed and recovered.
Officer Griffin reports that on August 27, 2009, at about 5:48 p.m., he and Officer Kasso located a vehicle matching the description given by the witnesses. Officer Kasso reports that the driver appeared to attempt to evade the squad. The defendant BROWN was seated in the front passenger seat. The car contained two other women. One of them, [Shockency] stated “ This must be because of the shooting.” [Shockency] later stated, “ This must be because of the gun.”
Officer Hedberg reports that the day before this drive-by shooting the defendant BROWN had made a police report claiming that her “godson,” [Charleston], had re-entered her home without consent and had taken items, including her 9–mm Taurus semi-automatic handgun.
Williams Decl. Ex. C, at 1, ECF No. 30–1, at 27.
The judge found probable cause and set bail at $100,000.2 Id. at 3. Brown remained in pretrial detention until Shockency and two others posted a $3,000 bond on September 26, 2009. Brown was released. The case proceeded to trial in April 2010. A week or two before trial, Brown's defense attorney failed to show up for a meeting with the prosecutor and Chiappetta to discuss disclosures. Chiappetta Aff. Ex. 4, at 88:19–89:9, 95:4–96:16. On the morning of trial a discovery dispute arose, and Brown argued that the City had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. The judge held a pretrial hearing.
Chiappetta was the only person who testified at the hearing. Brown's defense counsel and the assistant county attorney questioned Chiappetta.
Chiappetta said that he spoke to Shockency on August 28, and that she “denied making the statement” about the gun at the time Kasso and Griffin stopped the car. Chiappetta Aff. Ex. 4, at 11:5–8. Chiappetta said that he told the prosecutor about the conversation, but could not recall the exact date or time. Id. at 16:14–18. Chiappetta also confirmed that he spoke to Randle on August 28, and that Randle told him that she had been with Brown since 3:00 p.m. on August 27. Id. at 27:25–28:4. Randle also confirmed several other facts, none of which were relevant. Id. at 38:21–25.
Chiappetta talked to Pickens about her relationship with Charleston and Brown, and confirmed Charleston's story that there was no burglary on August 26. Id. at 45:16–18, 46:2–11. Chiappetta did not discuss the shooting with Pickens. Id. at 45:22–46:1. He talked to Charleston before taking his recorded statement. Chiappetta also talked to Charleston after the statement to confirm some facts about the alleged burglary and handgun. Id. at 62:11–25.
Chiappetta also spoke with Kris Brown, who cares for Brown's adult son. Kris Brown told Chiappetta that she had been with Brown when she bought the 9–mm handgun. Id. at 69:4–17. Detective Brian McKague also spoke with Kris Brown in November 2009. Trelstad Ex. 7, at 1. Kris Brown told McKague that “she has seen Esther [Brown] driving by the house and on one occasion Esther [Brown] parked in front of the house and pointed a gun at Kris through the window.” Id. at 2.
Chiappetta also said that the same gun was used in a separate shooting in October 2009. Id. at 75:10–18; Pl.'s Mem. Supp. 6. Chiappetta told the prosecutor about the second shooting a week before trial. Chiappetta Ex. 4, at 75:13–19. Chiappetta stated that he did not see bullet holes at the scene of the alleged shooting.
At the end of the hearing Brown moved to dismiss the charges. The state court dismissed the complaint as a sanction for the City's failure to disclose.
On June 25, 2010, Brown sued defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they deprived her of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and due process.3 Brown also claims numerous state statutory and common law violations, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Brown moves for partial summary judgment as to liability under § 1983 and defendants move for summary judgment on all claims.4
Brown bases much of her argument on the order of the state court judge dismissing the criminal case. The dismissal is significant to the instant action, however the issues in the criminal case are distinct from this action. For example, Chiappetta had no interest in the outcome of the criminal proceeding. Moreover, the decision of the judge to dismiss the criminal complaint bears only on the acts of the prosecutor, and Chiappetta appeared as an uninterested witness, not an adversary. Therefore, the outcome of the state criminal proceeding does not establish § 1983 liability for Chiappetta, and the reasons for sanctions are of little analytical value here.
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [police] officers from personal liability under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 473 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)). The court applies the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jennings v. Nash
- Longs v. Groves, 4:19CV3001
- Woodworth v. Hulshof
- Mercer v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands Dep't of Educ.