Butler v. City of Douglas, CV 514-055
| Decision Date | 29 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | CV 514-055 |
| Parties | TADESSES BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF DOUGLAS, GEORGIA; KERRY MOORE; JOSEPH STEWART; DUSTIN PEAK; and JOSEPH BRACKETT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
This case is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants The City of Douglas, Georgia (the "City"); Kerry Moore ("Moore"); Joseph Stewart ("Stewart"); and Joseph Brackett ("Brackett") (collectively, "Defendants"). Dkt. No. 43.1 Plaintiff Tadesses Butler ("Plaintiff") has filed a Response in opposition to Defendants' Motion, dkt. no. 61, and Defendants have filed a Reply thereto, dkt. no. 69. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion (dkt. no. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks summary judgment in Defendants' favoron all Plaintiff's claims against Stewart and Brackett; all state-law claims against Moore other than the official-capacity unreasonable search and seizure claim; the federal claim against Moore for punitive damages; and all claims against the City other than the claim of unreasonable search and seizure under state law. Defendants' Motion is DENIED insofar as it requests summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal civil rights claim against Moore and state-law claims of unreasonable search and seizure against Moore in his official capacity and the City.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff spent the evening at a bowling alley. Dkt. No. 43-1 (), ¶ 1.2 Plaintiff left the bowling alley around midnight and drove, in his girlfriend's vehicle, to his friend's house in Douglas, Georgia. Id. at ¶ 3; see also Dkt. No. 58-1 (Plaintiff's Declaration, hereinafter "Pl.'s Decl."), ¶ 2. Upon arriving at this friend's house, Plaintiff met a woman named Laura Reliford ("Reliford"), who was a known prostitute having elicited several complaints from local hotel owners about her efforts to solicit their customers. SMF,¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff's friend indicated that he and Reliford had been arguing that night and asked Plaintiff to give her a ride home. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff agreed to his friend's request and left the house with Reliford. Id. at ¶ 8.
In the early morning hours of June 15, 2013, Stewart, a sergeant with the City of Douglas Police Department, was on patrol in the area around Plaintiff's friend's house. Id. at ¶ 10. Stewart noticed Plaintiff's vehicle pull into the driveway of what he believed, at the time, was an abandoned house. Id.3 Stewart observed Plaintiff's vehicle drive around to the rear of the house and, within moments, come back down the driveway. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.
According to Plaintiff, he pulled out of the driveway and had begun heading west when he passed by Stewart's police car travelling in the opposite direction. Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 11. Plaintiff asserts that Stewart immediately turned his car around and activated his blue lights, at which time Plaintiff promptly pulled his vehicle over to the side of the road. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff maintains that his vehicle at that time was located on a public road, rather than a driveway or other private property, just barely past his friend's house. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.
Stewart, by contrast, contends that he saw Plaintiff's vehicle pull out of the driveway and travel further down the road, passing a cross street and reaching a point where the road dead ends at a private driveway. Dkt. No. 49 (Stewart Deposition, hereinafter "Stewart Dep."), 32:1-4, 37:11-25. Stewart states that Plaintiff pulled into the private driveway, which Stewart knew belonged to a prominent member of the community. Id. According to Stewart, it was at that moment that he decided to activate his blue lights and pull Plaintiff over. Id. at 38:25-39:1. Stewart explains that because there had been a lot of burglaries in the area, and Plaintiff's vehicle was entering private property after 2:00 AM, he wanted to check the identity of the operator of the vehicle before allowing it to venture further. Id. at 32:6-7, 39:14-40:8.
Stewart approached the vehicle and asked Plaintiff to exit. SMF, ¶ 18. Plaintiff recalls Stewart mentioning something about an abandoned house, to which Plaintiff responded that the house belonged to his friend, and that he went there to pick someone up. Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 18. Plaintiff handed Stewart his driver's license, and Stewart radioed the dispatcher to have his licensenumber and the vehicle's tag number checked. SMF, ¶¶ 18-19. The dispatcher responded, stating Plaintiff's name and, "[N]o warrants." Dkt. No. 55, 2:43.
Within seconds of hearing the dispatcher's response, Moore called over the radio to Stewart, "1071." Id. at 2:51. "1071" is a code used to warn that an individual is "possibly known for . . . contraband, possibly drugs." Stewart Dep., 42:1-3.4 Moore had heard Stewart call out Plaintiff's name to the dispatcher and immediately recognized it, because Moore had been present when Plaintiff was arrested and convicted of a drug-related offense on a prior occasion. Dkt. No. 50 (Moore Deposition, hereinafter "Moore Dep."), 75:3-76:5. In particular, Plaintiff had pled guilty to selling cocaine in 2009. SMF, ¶ 6. Brackett, who also had heard Stewart's radio call and begun heading in his direction, was pulling up to the scene of the stop when he heard Moore's "1071" warning over the radio. Id. at ¶ 23; see also Brackett Dep., 28:19-29:6.
Stewart, wanting to "investigate further" after receiving the "1071" call, continued speaking with Plaintiff and the female passenger. Stewart Dep., 55:2-5, 57:13-20. Stewartasked the passenger for her name, and she responded, "Bowen." Id. at 41:21-22; see also SMF, ¶¶ 20-21; Pl.'s Resp. to SMF, ¶¶ 20-21. Stewart called in to the dispatcher to run a warrant check for a "Renee Bowen Jowers." Dkt. No. 55, 3:15. The dispatcher advised Stewart that there were no outstanding warrants for a "Renee Jowers." Dkt. No. 61, Ex. 1.
Brackett, who had gotten out of his police car by that time, listened to this exchange. Brackett Dep., 43:23-44:10. According to Plaintiff, Brackett then performed an exterior pat down of Plaintiff's body, "just placing his hands on the outside of [Plaintiff's] clothing." Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 21. Brackett then asked Plaintiff if he could search his vehicle, and Plaintiff agreed. Id. at ¶ 21; Brackett Dep., 44:10-13. Brackett explains that he conducted the search based on Moore's "1071" call. Brackett Dep., 46:14-20. Plaintiff stood at the back of the vehicle while Brackett searched the inside. Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 23.
During this time, Moore arrived at the scene along with Justin Kelly ("Kelly"), an officer whom Moore was training that evening. SMF, ¶ 27.5 Moore instantly recognized the female passenger and asked Stewart whether she had given him her name. Id. at ¶¶ 27-28. When Stewart responded with the name "Bowers," Moore informed him that it was fake, and that "Reliford" was herreal name. Id. at ¶¶ 28-29. According to Moore, he had arrested Reliford for drunkenness and obstruction on a previous occasion, and he was familiar with her history of prostitution and reputation as a drug user. Moore Dep., 62:16-65:19. Based on Moore's identification of Reliford, Stewart arrested her for giving false information to a police officer. SMF, ¶ 29.
Moore approached Plaintiff and asked, "[D]o you have anything on you?" to which Plaintiff said, "No, Sir." Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 25. Moore then inquired, "Do you mind if I search you?" and Plaintiff replied, "[Y]es you can." Id. at ¶ 26; see also SMF, ¶ 30; but see Pl.'s Resp. to SMF, ¶ 30; Pl.'s Dep., 53:4-20.6 Moore reasons that he had no idea whether Plaintiffwas armed and dangerous but suspected that he was, based on his body language at the time, including his perceived nervousness, frequent grabbing of his crotch area, and general stature. Moore Dep., 47:12-48:9.7 Moore patted Plaintiff down and searched his pockets, without finding anything. See Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 26.
Around this time, Plaintiff informed the officers that he was on probation, a fact already known by Moore. SMF, ¶¶ 32-33. Plaintiff understood that, as a condition of his probation, he had waived his Fourth Amendment rights regarding the search of his person and his belongings. Id. at ¶ 34; Pl.'s Dep., 53:17-20. As such, when Moore proceeded to ask, "You don't mind if I search your vehicle?" Plaintiff gave him the "go ahead." Pl.'s Dep., 60:7-13.8 According to Moore, at that time, he was aware of several facts that informed his suspicion that there could have been contraband in the truck: Plaintiff's body language, including not only his nervousness and grabbing of his crotch area but also his posture, eye movements, and shifting of hisweight back and forth9; his prior conviction on a drug-related charge; his repeated warnings to the officers that "if anything was in that truck 'it ain't mine' because he had just bought it"; his travelling with a prostitute, who also was known for drug use and had just lied about her identity; and a known history of drug use and other illegal activity at the friend's house that Plaintiff had just visited. Moore Dep., 51:21-52:11, 55:9-14, 58:20-22, 66:24-67:22. Nevertheless, neither Moore nor any other officer ultimately found any illegal substances in Plaintiff's vehicle. See id. at 100:6-8.
After searching the vehicle, Moore returned to where Plaintiff was standing to conduct a more thorough body search. See Pl.'s Decl., ¶ 28. Moore asserts that even though he knew that nothing was found in the vehicle search, that fact did not affect whether Plaintiff may have had contraband on his body. Moore Dep., 100:13-20. Moore directed Plaintiff to remove his shoes and socks, and, once he had, Moore looked them over. SMF, ¶ 35.
Plaintiff's version of the subsequent events proceeds as follows: Moore then led...
To continue reading
Request your trial