Crews v. Martinez
| Docket Number | 19-cv-3277 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Parties | DAVID CREWS, Plaintiff, v. VINCENT MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff David Crews brings this action against Defendants Vincent Martinez and Joshua Blankenship pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment [59]. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion [59] is denied. This case is set for a telephonic status hearing on April 13, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. The Courtroom Deputy will place the call-in information on the docket in a separate minute entry.
The facts are taken from the parties' respective Local Rule 56.1 statements and supporting exhibits [61, 64]. The Court is also entitled to consider any material in the record, even if it is not cited by either party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). “When we cite as undisputed a statement of fact that a party has attempted to dispute, it reflects our determination that the evidence cited in the response does not show that the fact is in genuine dispute.” NAR Bus. Park, LLC v. Ozark Auto. Distribs., LLC, 430 F.Supp.3d 443, 446-47 (N.D. Ill.).
On May 20, 2017, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Illinois State Troopers Vincent Martinez and Joshua Blankenship (“Defendants”) were patrolling the southbound lanes of I-94 in Chicago near the 95th Street exit. [61 at ¶ 1.] At that time, Plaintiff was driving nearby in a Silver Chevrolet Impala traveling southbound in the rightmost lane of I-94. [61 at ¶ 2; 65 at ¶ 1.] Defendants state that they saw from their vehicle that Plaintiff was operating his vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. [61 at ¶ 2.] Plaintiff does not recall whether he was, in fact, wearing a seatbelt at that time. [61 at ¶ 4; 64 at ¶ 2.] Plaintiff contends that the officers were never traveling alongside him and instead were three traffic lanes away from him. [64 at ¶ 2.] Plaintiff questions the officers' ability to see whether he was wearing a seatbelt from such distance and through the car's heavily tinted windows. [Id.]
Defendants initiated a traffic stop and Plaintiff pulled over into the right shoulder lane. [61 at ¶ 3.] Once both cars were stopped in the shoulder lane, Defendants exited their patrol vehicle and approached Plaintiff's car. [Id. at ¶ 10.] As Defendants approached Plaintiff's car none of the car windows were rolled down, but when Defendants reached the vehicle, Plaintiff put both the front driver- and passenger-side windows all the way down. [Id. at ¶ 11.] Plaintiff asked why he had been stopped. Defendants replied that he had been pulled over because he was not wearing a seatbelt. [Id. at ¶ 12; 65 at ¶ 2.] Defendant Martinez, who was standing next to Plaintiff by the driver-side window [65 at ¶ 5], asked Plaintiff for his license and proof of insurance. [61 at ¶ 13.] Plaintiff provided proof of insurance but was unable to provide his license or other form of identification. [Id.] Martinez then told Plaintiff that he could just tell Martinez his name, which Plaintiff did. [Id. at ¶ 14.] Martinez returned to the patrol vehicle to perform a LEADS inquiry check of Plaintiff's name and date of birth, as well as a Secretary of State image check to confirm Plaintiff's identity. [Id. at ¶ 19.] Plaintiff believes that while verifying Plaintiff's identity, Martinez also discovered that Plaintiff possessed a valid FOID card, but Defendants dispute this assertion. [69 at ¶ 17.]
Martinez returned to Plaintiff's car after confirming his identity. According to Martinez, as he approached the vehicle, Plaintiff's “breathing also became elevated and his hands began to shake uncontrollably, ” making him appear extremely nervous. [61 at ¶ 17; 61-1 at 3.] Martinez asked Plaintiff why he was nervous, since he looked like he was shaking. [61 at ¶ 17; 64 at ¶ 17.] Plaintiff responded: “I don't think I'm shaking.” [64 at ¶ 17; 61-3 at 24:1-13.] Martinez then told Plaintiff that he smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the car. [61 at ¶ 15; 65 at ¶ 11.] Martinez noted in his field report that he “noticed several pieces of cannabis residue on the seat and floorboard of the vehicle” [id. at ¶ 16], but Martinez neither recovered nor inventoried any residue [65 at ¶ 16; 69 at ¶ 16]. When Martinez asked Plaintiff to exit his vehicle, Plaintiff complied. [61 at ¶ 18.]
Martinez then proceeded to conduct a search of Plaintiff's car. [Id. at ¶ 20.] At some point during the search, Defendant Blankenship placed Plaintiff into the back seat of Defendants' patrol vehicle. [61 at ¶ 21.] Blankenship informed Plaintiff that he was being detained because his car smelled like marijuana. [Id.] While in the patrol car, Plaintiff could see Martinez searching the entire car, including under the seats and in the trunk of the car, which Plaintiff later characterized as Martinez and Blankenship “doing their job.” [Id. at ¶ 22; 61-3 at 30:20-25 - 31:1-23.] While searching under the driver's seat, Martinez located a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol with a light/laser attachment and a magazine with ten live rounds. [61 at ¶ 23.] The gun was uncased, and there was nothing obscuring Martinez's view of it. [Id.]
After discovering the firearm, Martinez returned to the patrol car and asked Plaintiff who owned the gun; Plaintiff responded that the gun was his. [61 at ¶ 26.] Martinez asked if Plaintiff had a FOID card and, according to Martinez, a concealed carry license, though Plaintiff does not remember Martinez asking him about a concealed carry license. [Id. at ¶ 27.] Plaintiff informed Martinez that he had a FOID card. [Id.] On the date of these events, May 20, 2017, Plaintiff held a valid FOID card but did not have a concealed carry license. [Id. at ¶ 25.] Defendants arrested Plaintiff for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and his car was towed. [Id. at ¶ 28.]
Plaintiff was taken to the Chicago Police Department 1st District Headquarters for fingerprinting and processing. [61 at ¶ 29.] After arriving at the 1st District Headquarters, Martinez contacted Felony Review and spoke with Assistant State's Attorney Maurice Alayo and relayed the events of Plaintiff's traffic stop. [Id. at ¶ 30-31.] ¶ 12:08 a.m. on May 21, 2017, ASA Alayo approved felony charges pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(3)(B-5). [Id. at ¶ 31.] Plaintiff was also issued a citation for not wearing a seatbelt and for driving without having his driver's license on his person. [Id. at ¶ 32.]
On June 8, 2017, the State's Attorney of Cook County sought a Bill of Indictment of Plaintiff for the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon related to the May 20, 2017 traffic stop. [61 at ¶ 34.] Martinez testified before a grand jury [id. at ¶ 35] and the grand jury returned a True Bill of indictment against Plaintiff for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon [id. at ¶ 36].
Plaintiff moved to suppress the firearm, and a hearing on the motion took place on September 26, 2018, in the Circuit Court of Cook County Criminal Division. [61 at ¶ 37.] Martinez and Blankenship both testified. [Id.] Following testimony and argument, the Court sustained the motion. [Id.] The court rendered its decision as follows:
Once the trooper learned that the defendant or we should say motorist has a valid driver's license, he issues the citation. He doesn't engage in a search of the car looking for the gun, which I believe the Defense was more accurate in his argument that when he found out he had a valid driver's license, he also found out that he had a valid FOID card because those things are linked together within that computer system, and at that point, he went looking for a gun. So his search exceeded the scope of that stop. Motion to suppress sustained.
[61-2 at 36:3-12.] Following the court's ruling, the State dismissed the case nolle prosequi. [61 at ¶ 38.]
After the termination of his criminal case, Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on May 15, 2019. [1.] Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff's sole remaining count[1] asserts that Defendants violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by (a) arresting him without probable cause; (b) falsifying information to facilitate his arrest; and (c) conspiring with other officers to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. [1 at ¶¶ 17-25.]
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine questions of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Green v. Whiteco Indus., Inc., 17 F.3d 199, 201 (7th Cir. 1994). “Once a party has made a properly-supported motion for summary judgment, the opposing party may not simply rest upon the pleadings but must instead submit evidentiary materials that ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099, 1104 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court will construe all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Bell v. Taylor, 827 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2016).
To continue reading
Request your trial