Cox v. City of Indianapolis
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-01393-JMS-DLP |
| Parties | ASHLEY COX, individually and as next best friend of minor children K.C. and K.R., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, RANDY WEITZEL, and MICHAEL O'CONNOR, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
On March 8, 2017, Ms. Cox was driving her daughters K.C. and K.R. home from a birthday party when she was pulled over by the police, ordered out of her car at gun point, handcuffed, placed in the back of a police cruiser, and questioned. She filed this lawsuit against the City of Indianapolis (the "City") and two of the officers involved in the incident, alleging violations of her and her daughters' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution; and under Indianapolis Ordinance § 581-101 (the "Ordinance"). Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 87], which is now ripe for the Court's decision.
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As the current version of Rule 56 makes clear, whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions, documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Failure to properly support a fact in opposition to a movant's factual assertion can result in the movant's fact being considered undisputed, and potentially in the granting of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, while there may be facts that are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate if those facts are not outcome determinative. Harper v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 433 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir. 2005). Fact disputes that are irrelevant to the legal question will not be considered. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
On summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the factfinder. O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court need only consider thecited materials, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has "repeatedly assured the district courts that they are not required to scour every inch of the record for evidence that is potentially relevant to the summary judgment motion before them." Johnson, 325 F.3d at 898. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial is resolved against the moving party. Ponsetti v. GE Pension Plan, 614 F.3d 684, 691 (7th Cir. 2010).
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Court notes at the outset that several important facts are disputed by the parties, and the following factual background is set forth pursuant to the standards detailed above. The facts stated are not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light most favorable to "the party against whom the motion under consideration is made." Premcor USA, Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2005).
On March 8, 2017, Ms. Cox's five-year old daughter K.R. and seven-year old daughter K.C. went to their second cousin's Hello Kitty themed birthday party at the Forest Ridge Apartment Complex. [Filing No. 89-1 at 58-59; Filing No. 89-3 at 34-37.] Ms. Cox arrived at the apartment complex around 8:20 p.m., parked in the apartment complex parking lot, and went inside to the party. [Filing No. 89-3 at 37.] Ms. Cox's daughters were already at the party. [Filing No. 89-3 at 37.] Ms. Cox was wearing a white scrub shirt with teddy bears on it and a light blue jacket; her daughters were wearing hot pink clothes. [Filing No. 89-3 at 84.]
After "about 10, 15 minutes" at the party, Ms. Cox left with her two daughters and returned to her car—a gold Mercury Sable with the license plate 333TSE—and began driving home. [Filing No. 89-3 at 37-38; Filing No. 95-1 at 5.]
At 8:37 p.m. on March 8, 2017, Nathan Bunghi called 9-1-1 and reported that he had been robbed at gunpoint by a black male in a brown hoodie in the parking lot of the Forest Ridge Apartment Complex. [Filing No. 89-4 at 2.] Mr. Bunghi told the 9-1-1 operator that the suspect fled in in a silver or gold Ford Taurus with the license plate VEN331. [Filing No. 89-4 at 2.] The license plate number provided by Mr. Bunghi was registered to a gold Mercury owned by Gregory Weber. [Filing No. 89-4 at 2.]
Mr. Bunghi pursued the suspect's car in his own car, and remained on the call with the 9-1-1 operator the entire time, updating the 9-1-1 operator of their locations as they drove. [Filing No. 89-4 at 2-4.] He assured officers that he never lost sight of suspect's car. [Filing No. 89-1 at 78.]
Ms. Cox noticed a regular car following her for a while, but then at some point, there weren't any cars behind her. [Filing No. 89-3 at 39.] She didn't notice any police officers following her until she was a few miles from the apartment complex and about ten blocks from where she was eventually pulled over. [Filing No. 98-3 at 39.]
Meanwhile, at approximately 8:30 p.m. that night, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") Officer Randy Weitzel was parked at Harcourt Elementary School, and a few minutes later he received a dispatch call about an armed robbery at 79th Street and Township Line Road, i.e., the intersection where the Forest Ridge Apartment Complex is located. [Filing No. 89-1 at 31-36.] He waited at the school—which was a few blocks awayfrom the address provided by dispatch1—to receive more information on the direction that the relevant individuals were traveling. [Filing No. 89-1 at 36.] That information was not relayed to him as quickly as he would have liked, so Officer Weitzel traveled north to 79th Street to see if he could find the vehicles in which Mr. Bunghi and the alleged assailant were traveling. [Filing No. 89-1 at 36.] Eventually, dispatch provided several updated locations, and Officer Weitzel drove to those locations "trying to catch up." [Filing No. 89-1 at 37.]
Ms. Cox's route home included a turn on to College Avenue, and it was then that she first noticed a police car behind her. [Filing No. 98-3 at 39.] While driving south on College Avenue, a police car passed Ms. Cox on the left at a high rate of speed, and she made eye contact with the officer as he passed her. [Filing No. 89-3 at 40.] Having passed Ms. Cox, the police car switched lanes to the lane in which Ms. Cox was driving and began to slow down, causing Ms. Cox to eventually pass the police car on the left, once again making eye contact with the police officer inside the car. [Filing No. 89-3 at 40-41.] The police officer then pulled behind Ms. Cox's car and followed her. [Filing No. 89-3 at 41.]
Meanwhile, after relaying several locations, dispatch updated Officer Weitzel that the vehicles involved were "next to the KeyBank at about the same time [Officer Weitzel was] passing the KeyBank." [Filing No. 89-1 at 40.] Officer Weitzel noticed two cars traveling very close to each other in the left lane as he was passing them, but observed that neither vehicle had their hazard lights on, and the drivers were not attempting to flag him down. [Filing No. 89-1 at 40.] When Officer Weitzel realized he was passing the vehicles he had been searching for, he "stopped and waited for them to pass [him] again at about the same time [the 9-1-1 caller]announced they were at 63rd and College," which was the exact location where Officer Weitzel was waiting. [Filing No. 89-1 at 40.] Officer Weitzel testified that at that point, he thought, "yeah, I have them." [Filing No. 89-1 at 40.]
1. Events prior to Ms. Cox getting out of her car
After Ms. Cox passed Officer Weitzel and Officer Weitzel pulled behind Ms. Cox, he began yelling "Get out the car" on the intercom to Ms. Cox, even though Ms. Cox was still driving and he had not turned on his lights or siren. [Filing No. 89-3 at 41-43.] Only after yelling at Ms. Cox to get out of the car did Officer Weitzel activate the red and blue lights on his car. [Filing No. 89-3 at 41.] Ms. Cox eventually found a safe place to pull over by turning onto 61st Street off of College Avenue. [Filing No. 89-3 at 43.] Because cars were parked along 61st Street, Ms. Cox stopped her car in the street. [Filing No. 89-3 at 44.]
While Mr. Bunghi was following Ms. Cox's car, IMPD Officer Michael O'Connor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial