Brownell v. Montoya, Civ. No. 11-0979 MV/GBW
| Decision Date | 28 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 11-0979 MV/GBW |
| Parties | JOHNATHON BROWNELL, Plaintiff, v. EMILY MONTOYA, THERESA MARTINEZ, MICHAEL DREW, DETENTION OFFICER HENRY, FORMER SHERIFF RENE RIVERA, FORMER WARDEN DEREK WILLIAMS, and THE VALENCIA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Theresa Martinez, Detention Officer Henry, Michael Drew,1 Former Warden Derek Williams, Rene Rivera, and the Valencia County Board of Commissioners' ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17]. The Court, having considered the motion, briefs, and relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that the Motion for Summary Judgment is well taken in part and will be granted in part.
On September 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico ("Complaint") asserting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that Defendants violated his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure underthe Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and alleging that Defendants committed the torts of false arrest, false imprisonment, and battery. Plaintiff's claims arise out of a traffic stop that occurred on September 29, 2009. Defendants removed the case to this Court on November 11, 2011.
On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint ("Motion to Amend") seeking to add a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim as well as a state tort claim for abuse of process. Plaintiff also sought to amend the Complaint to add additional allegations to support Counts III, IV, and V of the original Complaint in order to withstand a motion to dismiss and to update the alleged facts based upon what he had learned since the litigation commenced. On June 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order of Reference, referring the Motion to Amend to the Magistrate Judge, and on June 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order granting the motion. On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint for Recovery of Damages Caused by the Deprivation of Civil Rights and Tortious Conduct ("Amended Complaint").
On September 29, 2009, Plaintiff and Jorge Marentes were traveling together in a vehicle on Highway 47 in Valencia County, New Mexico. Mr. Marentes was driving the vehicle, which was registered to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was riding in the passenger seat of the vehicle.
Defendant Montoya, a deputy sheriff employed by the Valencia County Sheriff's Office ("VCSO"), conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle at approximately 11:30 p.m. In the criminal complaint, Defendant Montoya attests that she stopped the vehicle because it was traveling 65 miles per hour in a 45 mile-per-hour zone. The criminal complaint indicates that Mr. Marenteshad bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Plaintiff disputes that Mr. Marentes displayed any physical signs of intoxication at the time of the traffic stop, pointing to several pieces of evidence. First, the Los Lunas Police Department breathalyzer receipts reflect that Mr. Marentes registered a 0.0 (i.e., negative result) three times between 1:04 a.m. and 1:08 a.m. (approximately one and one-half hours after Defendant Montoya initiated the traffic stop). Second, the Officer Screening Form filled out at the Valencia County Detention Center ("VCDC") two-and-one-half hours after the traffic stop indicates that Mr. Marentes was alert and oriented and showed no signs of intoxication or drug withdrawal. Third, in his affidavit, Mr. Marentes attests that at the time of the stop, his speech was not slurred and his eyes were not bloodshot.
Moreover, the parties dispute whether Mr. Marentes informed Defendant Montoya that he had been drinking during the evening prior to his arrest. In the criminal complaint, Defendant Montoya contends that Mr. Marentes admitted that he had been drinking at a friend's house before driving. In his affidavit, however, Mr. Marentes states that he told Defendant Montoya that he had not been drinking in the evening and that he only had consumed two drinks in the afternoon, which was more than six hours prior to the time Defendant Montoya conducted her traffic stop. Plaintiff likewise attests in his affidavit3 that Mr. Marentes informed Defendant Montoya that the only drinks Mr. Marentes had consumed were two drinks during the afternoon.
Mr. Marentes consented to take several field sobriety tests. In the criminal complaint,Defendant Montoya maintains that Mr. Marentes failed the tests and that he therefore was arrested for driving under the influence. In his affidavit, however, Mr. Marentes states that he performed all of the tests without difficulty. Plaintiff likewise attests in his affidavit that he did not see Mr. Marentes stumble or fall off balance during the field sobriety exercises.
After arresting Mr. Marentes, Defendant Montoya questioned Plaintiff. Defendant Montoya's criminal complaint indicates that Plaintiff informed her that "he had drunk more beer than Mr. Marentes and that is why Mr. Marentes was driving." Plaintiff denies that he ever admitted that Mr. Marentes had been drinking that evening. In his affidavit, Plaintiff states that Mr. Marentes informed Defendant Montoya that he "only had two beers earlier that afternoon." Thereafter, Defendant Montoya placed Plaintiff under arrest for conspiracy to commit driving under the influence.
Defendant Montoya transported Plaintiff and Mr. Marentes to the VCSO. Mr. Marentes consented to submit to a breathalyzer test. Valencia County Sheriff Deputy Jorge Trujillo drove Mr. Marentes to the Los Lunas Police Department to take the test, because the VCSO's breathalyzer was not working properly. Deputy Trujillo administered three breathalyzer tests to Mr. Marentes, all of which yielded the negative result for alcohol of 0.0. In Defendant Montoya's incident narrative, Defendant Montoya contends that Deputy Trujillo informed her that Mr. Marentes admitted to Deputy Trujillo that he had consumed two beers and smoked marijuana. Upon Mr. Marentes' return from the Los Lunas Police Department, Plaintiff and Mr. Marentes were transported to VCDC for booking. Defendant Martinez was the VCDC booking officer.
In his affidavit, Plaintiff states that a male correctional officer at VCDC gave Plaintiff a jumpsuit and told him to go into a side room and get undressed. Two correctional officers,Defendants Henry and Drew, followed Plaintiff into the room and left the door open with Defendant Montoya standing in the doorway. Defendant Henry "told [Plaintiff] to spread [his] cheeks, then he moved [Plaintiff's] legs apart and told [Plaintiff] to lift [his] scrotum." The strip search took several minutes to complete, and Defendant Montoya stood in the doorway looking into the room during the entire process. Mr. Marentes' affidavit confirms that Defendant Montoya stood in the doorway while Plaintiff was in the side room.
Defendants submit the affidavit of Deputy Warden John Harris, in which Harris states that at the time of Plaintiff's arrest and detention, VCDC had in place a policy prohibiting strip searches by personnel of the opposite sex and searches of detainees in the presence of members of the opposite sex. Warden Harris further attests that VCDC has no records or evidence indicating that Plaintiff was subjected to a strip search in the presence of a member of the opposite sex.
In her incident narrative, Defendant Montoya states that "[w]hile Mr. Montoya was being searched, a Correctional Officer . . . found [a] dollar bill" rolled up and with white powder on it, without specifying whether the dollar bill was found prior to or after the strip search itself. In his affidavit, however, Plaintiff states that after completing Plaintiff's strip search, Defendant Henry searched the pockets and found the rolled-up dollar bill.
The parties also dispute whether Plaintiff admitted that he used cocaine. In her incident narrative, Defendant Montoya indicates that she overheard Plaintiff tell a correctional officer, whom Defendant Montoya does not name, that Plaintiff and Mr. Marentes had done a line of cocaine. In his affidavit, however, Plaintiff states that Defendant Henry asked if Plaintiff had been doing cocaine after Henry found the dollar bill, and that Plaintiff informed Defendant Henry he had not done cocaine and offered to submit to a drug test. Despite Plaintiff's offer, at no timewas Plaintiff taken for a medical screening or otherwise segregated to determine if he was intoxicated or under the influence of a drug. In addition, when Plaintiff was released from VCDC and his personal belongings were returned to him, the one dollar bill was amongst his possessions and had not been segregated or marked as potential evidence.
Mr. Marentes was released from VCDC at around 3:00 a.m. on September 30, 2009. On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff was moved with the other detainees to an outside workout area. On the evening of October 1, 2009, Plaintiff was assigned to a pod housing unit and placed in a cell with another detainee. Plaintiff was released from VCDC on October 2 or 3, 2009.
At 9:10 a.m. on October 1, 2009, after Mr. Marentes was released from VCDC but prior to the time Plaintiff was released, Assistant District Attorney David Wertz sent Defendant Montoya by facsimile a letter dated September 30, 2009, explaining that the State of New Mexico was declining to prosecute a driving under the influence case against Mr. Marentes. Mr. Wertz wrote that "there is no way the State can prosecute a case against drunk driving" given that Mr. Marentes blew a 0.0 on his breathalyzer tests. Mr. Wertz further indicated that because "Section 30-28-2 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated...
To continue reading
Request your trial