Bumpers v. Cleveland
| Decision Date | 28 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:08-cv-00283. |
| Citation | 653 F.Supp.2d 1202 |
| Parties | Floyd BUMPERS, Plaintiff, v. Adam CLEVELAND et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
C. Michael Lawrence, Taylorsville, UT, for Plaintiff.
Joni J. Jones, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Adam Cleveland's ("Trooper Cleveland") Motion for Summary Judgment. Trooper Cleveland1 stopped Plaintiff Floyd Bumpers for allegedly following another vehicle too closely and for possibly having a broken windshield. Bumpers asserts that Trooper Cleveland conducted an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the due process and equal protection rights of the Fourteenth Amendment. Trooper Cleveland asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because he operated within the scope of his employment as a Utah Highway Patrol Officer when he stopped Bumpers. After due consideration of the memoranda, documents, oral argument, and the facts and law relevant to this matter, the court grants in part and denies in part Trooper Cleveland's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Bumpers is a 66-year-old African-American man. On June 12, 2007, he was traveling northbound on Interstate 15 in southern Utah when Trooper Cleveland pulled him over. Trooper Cleveland testified in deposition that prior to pulling Bumpers over he was facing southbound and had just completed a traffic stop of another vehicle.2 He then did a U-turn in the median and started traveling northbound at approximately 10:16 a.m.3 He testified he never saw Bumpers prior to making the U-turn.4
At 10:17:05 a.m., Trooper Cleveland activated his dashboard videotape recorder and recorded footage for two seconds. The footage shows a semi-truck and vehicle at a great distance ahead of Trooper Cleveland.5 At 10:18:24, Trooper Cleveland reactivated the recorder. This recording begins with Trooper Cleveland narrating that a vehicle was starting to get too close to a semi-truck again, and that "just a minute ago" before he activated the recorder, the vehicle was traveling too close to the semi.6 The recording then shows Trooper Cleveland following Bumpers for approximately twenty-five seconds. During that time, Trooper Cleveland further stated on the recording that it looked like Bumpers' windshield might be cracked and that Bumpers was starting to get too close to the semi-truck again.7 At that point, Trooper Cleveland initiated a traffic stop.
Trooper Cleveland informed Bumpers that he had pulled him over because he was following too closely.8 Bumpers responded that he did not realize he had done so.9 Trooper Cleveland then questioned Bumpers and learned that Bumpers was a resident of Iowa and was traveling home after visiting relatives in Las Vegas, Nevada. Trooper Cleveland questioned Bumpers for approximately two minutes about his travel plans, including where he was headed, where he had come from, the length of his trip, where he had stayed, the location of where he had stayed, which of his family members he had visited, and his prior trips to Las Vegas.10
After questioning Bumpers, Trooper Cleveland returned to his patrol car to verify Bumpers' driver license and registration and check whether Bumpers had any prior criminal history. After completing the background check, and finding nothing of concern, Trooper Cleveland returned to Bumpers' vehicle and asked him to step out of it.11 When Bumpers did so, Trooper Cleveland returned Bumpers' documents to him and informed him that he was issuing a warning rather than a citation.12 Bumpers stated that in forty-plus years he had never been pulled over for following too closely.13 Trooper Cleveland wished him a safe trip and Bumpers took a step back towards his vehicle.14 At that point, Trooper Cleveland asked him if he could ask him more questions.15 Bumpers responded "Sure."16
Trooper Cleveland began again asking Bumpers about his travel plans, the nursing home where his mother was living, and why Bumpers had stayed at a hotel rather than with his family.17 He then asked if Bumpers was carrying anything illegal in his vehicle. Additionally, he asked him if he was carrying large amounts of currency, weapons, explosives, illegal drugs, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, etc.18 After Bumpers responded "No" to each question, Trooper Cleveland asked if he could search his car.19
Bumpers said "Why do you think—May I show you something—Sometimes people think my eyes—I have glaucoma."20 Bumpers then extracted a card from his wallet to show Trooper Cleveland that his eyes were red due to glaucoma.21 Trooper Cleveland responded "I am not worried about your eyes."22
The following exchange then occurred:
Trooper Cleveland: Can I search your car?
Bumpers: I would prefer you didn't.
Trooper Cleveland: Can I search it, though?
Bumpers: I would prefer you didn't.
Trooper Cleveland: Okay, but I am asking you, can I search your car?
Bumpers: (muffled response)
Trooper Cleveland: No? If no say "No."
Bumpers: No.
Trooper Cleveland: What I am going to try to do is get a K-9 to come up here then to do a sniff of your vehicle.23
Once Trooper Cleveland said he was going to call in a K-9 unit, Bumpers offered to show Trooper Cleveland his prescription medication before he called the K-9 unit.24 After asking him several questions about the prescription medication, Trooper Cleveland then asked Bumpers why he would not allow him to search his vehicle.25 Bumpers replied he had always said "No."26 Trooper Cleveland then reconfirmed that Bumpers' answer was still "No" regarding permission to search.27 Bumpers then asked, "Do you think I got drugs?"28 To which, Trooper Cleveland responded that he thought some illegal activity going on.29 Trooper Cleveland next asked a few questions about Bumpers health, and called for a canine unit.30
After calling for the canine unit, Trooper Cleveland asked Bumpers whether he should be driving based on his prescription medications.31 Bumpers did not know of any driving limitations. Trooper Cleveland noted that Bumpers had red eyes, an eye tremor, and dry mouth. In his subsequent police report, Trooper Cleveland also stated that Bumpers had slurred speech.32 As a result, Trooper Cleveland informed Bumpers he was going to run him through some field sobriety tests.33 As Trooper Cleveland began conducting the field sobriety tests, Bumpers asked Trooper Cleveland to give him a breathalyzer test.34 Trooper Cleveland responded that not all drugs show up on a breathalyzer test, so he needed to test his impairment with the field tests.35 Bumpers failed the field sobriety tests, and Trooper Cleveland handcuffed and arrested him. Upon arrest, Bumpers again asked Trooper Cleveland for a breath test.36 He also asked Trooper Cleveland to take a blood test from him so Bumpers could prove that he had nothing in his system to impair him.37
Trooper Cleveland placed Bumpers in his patrol vehicle and then began conducting a search of Bumpers' vehicle while it was on the side of the road.38 Trooper Cleveland stated on the recording that it was an "inventory" search.39 Approximately thirty minutes after Trooper Cleveland said he was going to call for a K-9 unit, and ten minutes after Trooper Cleveland started the "inventory" search, the K-9 unit arrived.40 The officer from the K-9 unit then assisted Trooper Cleveland in searching the vehicle for approximately an additional forty minutes.41
Once the inventory search was completed, the K-9 officer allowed his dog to do an exterior canine sniff.42 Because the officers left the trunk open after their inventory search, the dog also jumped in the trunk to do a sniff.43 The dog later scratched at one of the doors, so the K-9 officer opened it, and the dog entered the vehicle.44 Subsequently, the officers conducted an "investigatory" search for narcotics because the dog had alerted to drugs. During this search, the officers removed door paneling and other parts of the vehicle to conduct a more thorough search. The "investigative" search lasted about an hour, which included the time it took for the officers to replace the car parts back to their original location.45
During these searches, the officers located large, black magic markers, but nothing illegal was found.46 Trooper Cleveland stated in his deposition that he believed the magic markers were used as an inhalant, and that they caused Bumpers' impairment.47 Bumpers later explained at the police station that he uses the magic markers every day to color the gray hairs on his upper lip.48 At the time of the stop, Bumpers had black marker on his upper lip.49
After the two searches were completed, Bumpers' vehicle was loaded onto a tow truck. Trooper Cleveland then transported Bumpers to the police station at 13:13 p.m.—approximately three hours after the initial stop. When Bumpers arrived at the police station, Trooper Cleveland reported that Bumpers "still had the same impairment [sic] signs as he did out on the roadway,"50 and he failed a "finger to nose" test.51 Bumpers then submitted to a drug evaluation, which included being given a breath test and supplying urine and blood samples.52 The breath, urine, and blood tests all were negative for any drugs in Bumpers' system.53 Consequently, Bumpers was released from custody.
"[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."54 Although Trooper Cleveland has invoked the qualified immunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Tufuga
...543 U.S. 405; Bumpers, 653 F.Supp.2d at 1211. [98] Travis v. Park City Mun. Corp., 565 F.3d 1252, 1257-58 (10th Cir. 2009). [99] Bumpers, 653 F.Supp.2d at 1214 (quoting Cty of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 842 (1998)). [100] Amended Complaint ¶ 29 at 7, ¶ 34 at 7, ¶ 35 at 8, ¶¶ 39-40 at 8-9......