Bunch v. Snow

• Decision Date: 17 January 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-cv-02508-MSK-SKC
• Parties: RONNIE DARNELL BUNCH, Plaintiff, v. SGT. SNOW; OFFICER EVANS; and OFFICER TRENERY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

RONNIE DARNELL BUNCH, Plaintiff, v. SGT. SNOW; OFFICER EVANS; and OFFICER TRENERY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-02508-MSK-SKC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

January 17, 2020

Senior Judge Marcia S. Krieger

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Motions of Defendants Ethan Snow ("Officer Snow"), Steven Evans ("Officer Evans"), and Paulmichael Trenery ("Officer Trenery") for Summary Judgment (# 46) and Plaintiff Ronnie Darnell Bunch's ("Mr. Bunch") response¹ (#64). No reply was filed.

FACTS²

This case arises out of a traffic stop that concluded with Mr. Bunch's arrest. The facts, as set forth in Mr. Bunch's pro se³ verified Prisoner Complaint and the summary judgment briefing,are supported by body worn camera video recordings (# 46-2) and the Aurora Police Department's Internal Case File, which includes officer reports and narratives (# 46-1 at 1-48).

On November 22, 2017 at approximately 10:15 p.m., Officer Kenneth Rickelman and Officer Chanos, both City of Aurora Police Officers, responded to a report of a domestic disturbance that occurred at a residence located in Aurora, Colorado. (# 46-1 at 9-10). The officers arrived on the scene and identified the victim as Ms. Sharday Cooks. Ms. Cooks was visibly upset and told the officers that she was sleeping in her bedroom when she awoke to see Mr. Bunch break her bedroom window with a crowbar. Ms. Cooks confirmed that she and Mr. Bunch had been in an intimate relationship. She claimed Mr. Bunch said nothing as he broke the window and left the scene in a white Ford Taurus. (# 46-1 at 9-10).

Ms. Cooks also showed the officers threatening text messages she had received from Mr. Bunch earlier that evening.⁴ Officer Rickelman confirmed Mr. Bunch's identity, and he and Officer Chanos attempted to locate Mr. Bunch in the immediate area but were unsuccessful. However, based on the officers' observation of the broken window and screen, the text messages, and Ms. Cooks' positive identification of Mr. Bunch, Officer Rickelman found probable cause to charge Mr. Bunch with two domestic violence related charges in violation of the City of Aurora's Municipal Code: (i) Injury to Property (94-73) and (ii) Harassment (94-42).Officer Rickelman also completed an application for an Arrest Warrant with a summons for Mr. Bunch. (# 46-1 at 10, 21-29).

Two days later, on November 24, 2017 at approximately 12:52 p.m., Officer Snow and Officer Trenery, City of Aurora Police Officers, were on patrol duty travelling on E. Colfax Avenue in Aurora, Colorado. Officer Trenery observed a white Ford Taurus travel through an intersection while the traffic light was red. Officer Snow also observed the vehicle's tail light was not functioning when the brakes were applied. (# 46-1 at 15-16). The officers initiated a traffic stop by activating the patrol car's overhead lights and audible siren. The white Ford Taurus began to swerve in its lane but instead of yielding to the right, the driver turned into the left turn lane and stopped, blocking the turn lane and partially obstructing the adjacent traffic lane. (# 46-1 at 15).

As he prepared to approach the driver's side window, Officer Snow observed the driver of the Taurus make "several large movements." (# 46-1 at 15). Officer Snow observed the driver, who was later identified as Ronnie Bunch from a Colorado Identification card, reaching for a backpack in the front passenger seat. Officer Snow twice instructed Mr. Bunch to lower the driver's side window; Mr. Bunch did not comply and claimed he was making a telephone call. Then, Officer Snow opened the driver's side door and took Mr. Bunch's hand and left arm and instructed him to exit the vehicle. Officer Snow reported that as Mr. Bunch was arguing with him, Officer Trenery approached Mr. Bunch and pointed his taser at him. At this point, Mr. Bunch became cooperative, exited the vehicle, and Officer Snow searched him and applied handcuffs. It is undisputed that Mr. Bunch informed the officers that he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest related to the domestic incident with Ms. Cooks that occurred on November 22, 2017. The body worn video camera recording also shows Mr. Bunch admitting to bothOfficer Snow and Officer Trenery that he had run the red light: "I didn't run a red light, it was ... I did run a red light. Sure did. I sure did run a red light, man." (Officer Snow Body Worn Video Recording, # 46-2 at 8:57).

About this same time, a woman approached the scene and began yelling at the officers and Mr. Bunch from across the street. She was later identified as Sharday Cooks, the victim from the domestic violence incident. Officer Trenery attempted to find the arrest warrant for Mr. Bunch, but it had not yet been issued. However, Officer Snow located the police report and warrant application completed by Officer Rickelman regarding the November 22, 2017 domestic violence incident. After reading Officer Rickelman's report, Officer Snow agreed with Officer Rickelman that probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Bunch on the domestic violence charges of Injury to Property and Harassment. Officer Snow then arrested Mr. Bunch and transported him to the Aurora Jail where he was held on bond. (# 46-1 at 15-16).

Following Mr. Bunch's arrest, Officer Trenery spoke with Ms. Cooks in an attempt to have her take custody of Mr. Bunch's vehicle, but it was determined that she did not have a valid driver's license. Faced with no viable alternative, Officer Trenery arranged for Mr. Bunch's vehicle to be towed from the scene. (Officer Trenery Body Worn Video Recording, # 46-2 at 14:38).

On October 1, 2018, Mr. Bunch initiated this case by filing a verified Prisoner Complaint (# 1).⁵ Because Mr. Bunch's narrative from the Complaint is brief, the Court quotes it in its entirety:

On or about 11-23-2017 around 3pm MT, I was pulled over by Aurora Police for no reason. Officer's say that I failed to stop at the red light (Officer's didn't give me a ticket for failing to stop) on Colfax and Dayton. Officer's asked for my Driver's License and Registration. Officers came back to my vehicle and asked me if I had any warrants? I said yes, for a misdemeanor. Officer's then asked me to step out of the car, Officers then searched me and my vehicle, Officers arrested me and towed my vehicle. The Officers that are involved in this action are Officer Evans, Officer Trenery, [and] Sgt. Snow of the Aurora Police Department.

My rights that ha[ve] been violated are illegal search and seizure and no probable cause to stop me while I was traveling. Meanwhile my charges were dismissed and found not guilty at Aurora Municipal Courts.

(# 1 at 4).

In subsequent record filings, Mr. Bunch states that on February 17, 2018, his vehicle was auctioned and sold for $400.00. On April 10, 2018, Mr. Bunch was found not guilty of the charges for which he was arrested.⁶ (# 44, # 56 at 3, and #64 at 2).

From Mr. Bunch's allegations in the Complaint, the Court construes it to assert three claims against Officer Snow, Officer Trenery, and Officer Evans:⁷ (i) because the officers had no reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Bunch, his 4^th Amendment rights were violated; (ii) because his arrest was not supported by probable cause, his 4^th Amendment right were violated; and (iii) the towing and eventual sale of Mr. Bunch's vehicle violated his 14^th Amendment rights to due process.

The officers move for summary judgment on Mr. Bunch's claims, asserting the doctrine of qualified immunity. In response, Mr. Bunch contends that the officers did not establish sufficient facts that he failed to yield at a red light. (# 64 at 2).

LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure facilitates the entry of a judgment only if no trial is necessary. See White v. York Intern. Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir. 1995). Summary adjudication is authorized when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Substantive law governs what facts are material and what issues must be determined. It also specifies the elements that must be proved for a given claim or defense, sets the standard of proof and identifies the party with the burden of proof. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. v. Producer's Gas Co., 870 F.2d 563, 565 (10th Cir. 1989). A factual dispute is "genuine" and summary judgment is precluded if the evidence presented in support of and opposition to the motion is so contradictory that, if presented at trial, a judgment could enter for either party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. When considering a summary judgment motion, a court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, thereby favoring the right to a trial. See Garrett v. Hewlett Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 2002).

If the movant has the burden of proof on a claim or defense, the movant must establish every element of its claim or defense by sufficient, competent evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the moving party has met its burden, to avoid summary judgment the responding party must present sufficient, competent, contradictory evidence to establish a genuine factual dispute. See Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10thCir. 1991); Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir. 1999). If there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, a trial is required. If there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, no trial is required. The court then applies the law to the undisputed facts and enters judgment.

If the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial, it must point to an absence of sufficient evidence to establish the claim or defense that the non-movant is obligated to prove. If the respondent comes forward with sufficient competent evidence to establish a prima facie claim or...