Collik v. Pohlable
| Decision Date | 15 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-307 |
| Parties | LANCE COLLIK, Plaintiff, v. KYLE E. POHLABEL, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT POHLABEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 24); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO 21); AND, TERMINATING THE CASE
This case involves a claim brought by Lance Collik (“Collik”) against Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper Kyle E. Pohlabel (“Pohlabel”) for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from a traffic stop. (Doc. 1.) Pending before the Court are two motions: Plaintiff s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21) (“Plaintiffs MS J”) and Defendant Pohlabel's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc No. 24) (“Defendant's MSJ”).[1] As explained below, the Court finds that Pohlabel is entitled to summary judgment. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Pohlabel is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law concerning the three alleged constitutional violations. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's MSJ, DENIES Plaintiffs MSJ, and TERMINATES this case.
During the early afternoon of November 13, 2019, Collik was driving a vehicle eastbound on Interstate 70 in Preble County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 23 at PageID 112-13.) At that time, trooper Pohlabel was in his patrol cruiser, parked in the median and conducting speed monitoring. (Id.) Pohlabel observed Collik's vehicle-a limousine with windows tinted out except for the front windows and windshield-approach him on the interstate and slow down without braking, with Collik leaning forward over the steering wheel while looking away as he passed Pohlabel. (Id.) Although Collik had not committed any traffic offense, Pohlabel decided to pursue Collik to run the vehicle's tag. (Id. at PageID 123.)
Claiming that he then observed Collik commit a marked lanes violation (traffic infraction), Pohlabel decided to make a traffic stop. (Doc. No. 23 at PageID 124.) The video from Pohlabel's dashboard camera does not show that Collik's tires crossed the white edge line (i.e., the fog line); instead, it shows that Collik's vehicle merely drove on that line. (Video[3] at 12:47:11 - 12:47:19; see also Doc. No. 21 at PageID 75 (Collik asserting that “the tire, at best, touched the edge line but was never outside any portion thereof”).) Pohlabel initiated a traffic stop by pulling behind Collik's vehicle and activating the light bar on his cruiser. (Video at 12:47:23 - 12:47:35.) Pohlabel followed behind Collik's vehicle with his light bar activated for approximately one mile before Collik finally pulled over onto the shoulder and stopped. (Id. at 12:47:35 - 12:48:48.) During the time that Pohlabel was behind Collik's vehicle with his light bar activated, the vehicle in front of Collik pulled over, yet Collik continued driving. (Id. at 12:48:13 - 12:48:18.)
Once their vehicles were stopped on the side of the busy interstate, Pohlabel instructed Collik to exit his vehicle and come towards him. (Video at 12:48:50 - 12:49:12.) Collik exited his vehicle, Pohlabel asked Collik why he did not pull over once Pohlabel's light bar was activated, and Pohlabel asked if there was anyone else in Collik's vehicle. (Id. at 12:49:12 - 12:50:12.) Pohlabel then asked Collik if he could pat him down, Collik consented, Pohlabel conducted a pat-down, and Pohlabel asked Collik about his identification, registration, and insurance. (Id. at 12:50:12 - 12:50:54.) Pohlabel then told Collik that he was going to bring him into his cruiser because it was so cold outside (to which Collik said “Yeah”) and that he didn't want them to get hit on the busy road, so both men got situated in Pohlabel's cruiser. (Id. at 12:50:54 - 12:52:13.) At that point, Pohlabel asked Collik how long he had been driving; Collik indicated that he was driving across the country and discussed his trip-including how he was driving to New York but lives in Colorado. (Id. at 12:52:13 - 12:52:55.) Pohlabel then explained to Collik why he pulled him over, including wanting to make sure that Collik was not falling asleep; Collik told Pohlabel that he had been driving a lot and how much he had been sleeping, and Collik volunteered some details of the route he had taken-including that his trip actually started in Las Vegas and that this was the first time he had been pulled over. (Id. at 12:52:55 - 12:55:19.) Pohlabel then asked Collik if the limousine belonged to him and about some visible damage on it, Pohlabel pointed out that the entire rear end of the vehicle appeared to be weighted down, and Collik provided an explanation for the sagging. (Id. at 12:55:19 - 12:56:36.) Pohlabel then asked how long Collik would be in New York; Collik said that he was “not sure, maybe like a few weeks”; Pohlabel asked if Collik had a job; and Collik explained that he lost his job, since that time he had been trying to find something new, and he wasn't planning on looking for a new job in New York but instead would most likely “head back to the West Coast at some point and get a job out there.” (Id. at 12:56:36 - 12:57:22.)
Pohlabel testified that, at this point in the stop, based on everything that had led up to that point, he believed there was criminal activity going on (, transporting narcotics). (Doc. No. 23 at PageID 154-55, 157.) So, he called another trooper who was nearby (Barhorst) to bring a canine unit to the location. (Id. at PageID 160; Video at 12:57:21 - 12:57:24.) Pohlabel then continued pursuing the marked lanes violation-asking Collik about his Colorado driver's license number, calling information into dispatch, asking Collik about his address, waiting for information from dispatch, looking for his warning slips, asking Collik about the year of his vehicle, and filling out the warning slip-while also talking with Collik. (Video at 12:57:45 - 13:03:33; Doc. No. 23 at PageID 179, 181-184.) During this time, Barhorst arrived, his canine conducted a free air sniff of Collik's vehicle, and the canine alerted. (Id.) The officers then searched Collik's vehicle (including its trunk), which resulted in Collik being detained for a total duration of over an hour. (Video at 13:03:33 - 14:05:40.)
On July 27, 2020, Collik filed his complaint in this case, alleging deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (Doc. No. 1.) In the Complaint, Collik asserts three violations of his constitutional rights. (Id. at PageID 7-9.) First, that the initial traffic stop violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because Pohlabel “lacked a particularized and objective basis for suspecting [him] of criminal activity or violation of a traffic law.” (Id.) Second, that Pohlabel violated Collik's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the traffic stop was made. (Id.) Third, that Pohlabel violated Collik's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because searching the trunk of Collik's vehicle exceeded the scope of any probable cause that Pohlabel had to search Collik's vehicle. (Id.)
On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs MS J and Defendant's MS J were filed. (Doc. Nos. 21 and 24.) On December 3, 2021, the parties each filed a response in opposition to the other party's motion. (Doc. Nos. 30 and 31.) On December 17, 2021, Pohlabel filed a reply in support of Defendant's MS J. (Doc. No. 32.) Collik did not file a reply in support of Plaintiff s MS J, and the time to do so has now passed. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). Plaintiffs MSJ and Defendant's MS J are ripe for review.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Alternatively, summary judgment is denied “[i]f there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1374 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)).
The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). In opposing summary judgment, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings or merely reassert its previous allegations. Id. at 248-49. It also is not sufficient to “simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rule 56 “requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the [unverified] pleadings” and present some type of evidentiary material in support of its position. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
A party's failure “to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c)” can result in the court “considering] the...
To continue reading
Request your trial