Darrow v. Schumacher

Decision Date27 May 1992
Docket NumberNo. 17689,17689
Citation495 N.W.2d 511
PartiesRaymond M. DARROW, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Donnie SCHUMACHER, Individually and in his official capacity; City of Deadwood, South Dakota, Defendants and Appellees. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Scott D. McGregor of Viken, Viken, Pechota, Leach & Dewell, Rapid City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Steven M. Christensen, Deadwood, for defendants and appellees.

WUEST, Justice.

This is an appeal by Raymond Darrow (Darrow) from a judgment entered in favor of Officer Donnie Schumacher (Schumacher) and the City of Deadwood (City). We affirm.

In August 1989, Darrow, who was then residing in Denver, Colorado, returned to the City of Deadwood, South Dakota to attend his twenty-year class reunion. The annual Days of '76 Celebration was also in progress. On the afternoon of August 5, 1989, Darrow drove into Deadwood to find some former classmates. Officer Schumacher and Officer Russ Eisenbraun were directing traffic at the intersection of Deadwood Street and U.S. Highway 14-A. Eisenbraun was several yards away from Schumacher. Approximately 125 feet away from Schumacher, two volunteer firemen were standing near the firehall entrance.

The day before the incident involved in this case, the Chief of Police had directed officers to allow traffic to proceed directly across Highway 14-A in a westerly direction. Highway 14-A travels through the center of Deadwood to Main Street. On the day of the incident, the Chief directed officers to channel traffic either left or right at the intersection, but not to allow traffic to proceed straight across the intersection.

On August 5, traffic was very heavy after the Days of '76 parade and prior to the start of the rodeo. At approximately 12:30 P.M., Darrow approached the intersection where Schumacher was working. The day before, at the same intersection, another officer had permitted Darrow to travel west straight across Highway 14-A to Main Street. On the 5th, however, Schumacher, pursuant to the Chief's directive, directed Darrow to turn left. Darrow indicated he wanted to go forward instead. Schumacher, via hand signals, directed Darrow to go left. Darrow turned left, went one block south, turned right and went one block west and eventually parked in a hotel parking lot approximately one block from Schumacher's position. Darrow then walked back to the intersection where Officer Schumacher was directing traffic.

The parties' versions of the subsequent events differ. Darrow testified he joined a group of ten to twelve people waiting to cross Highway 14-A. After Schumacher directed this group of pedestrians to cross the street, Darrow approached Schumacher. Darrow stopped a couple feet short of Schumacher and, "with his hands clasped behind him[,] Darrow leaned over and attempted to read Schumacher's name tag." According to Darrow, he asked, in a calm, conversational tone, "what's your name?" In response to his inquiry, Schumacher told Darrow to "get the [expletive] out of here." Darrow testified he began to walk away, and as he did, told Schumacher, "you've got a problem." Whereupon Darrow asserts Schumacher came after him, grabbed him by the arm and ushered him to the sidewalk. Schumacher then allegedly shoved Darrow, telling him to put his nose and chest against the wall and not to move or turn around. Darrow states the officer again used profanity toward him.

Schumacher then told Darrow to put his hands behind his back so he could be handcuffed. In response, Darrow says he told Schumacher there was no need to handcuff him, that he was not attempting to resist in any way or to escape. When Darrow stiffened his arms, Schumacher called Eisenbraun over to assist him in handcuffing Darrow. Darrow testified he eventually relaxed his arms and allowed Schumacher to handcuff him. After Darrow was handcuffed, Eisenbraun resumed directing traffic. Darrow alleges Schumacher then pounded on the cuff on Darrow's left wrist to tighten it. Darrow states he advised Schumacher the cuff was too tight and extremely painful. He asked Schumacher to loosen it. According to Darrow, Schumacher's reaction was to rotate the cuff around his left wrist four to six times and then cuff his right wrist. At that point, Darrow asserts Schumacher grabbed the chain linking the two cuffs and twisted it, jerking Darrow's arms up behind his back.

Officer Schumacher has a considerably different version of what occurred. Officer Eisenbraun testified Darrow, not Schumacher, initiated the confrontation. Schumacher testified Darrow's demeanor was far from conversational and he was, in fact, yelling at him. Schumacher admitted he may have sworn at Darrow. However, he asserts Darrow used a very loud, confrontational tone of voice and refused to abide by his instructions. The two volunteer firemen testified they could hear Darrow yelling over the din of traffic despite their being over 125 feet away. Moreover, Eisenbraun testified that, had Schumacher cuffed Darrow as tightly as Darrow claims, it would have been impossible to rotate the handcuff around Darrow's wrist. Eisenbraun testified he saw no injury to Darrow's wrist, nor did Darrow complain of any injury.

Darrow was ultimately arrested for obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was transported to the Lawrence County Jail. The jailor on duty testified Darrow was being "mouthy and loud." He did not see any blood or cuts on Darrow, nor did Darrow complain to him about any kind of injury. Darrow was held at the jail for about two hours.

Approximately five days later, Darrow sought medical treatment for his left wrist. He complained that his hand had become numb. Dr. John Herbst, Darrow's treating physician, advised Darrow he had suffered some damage to a nerve structure within his wrist. He classified the injury as a "nerve compression" in Darrow's left hand. Dr. Herbst testified "this was a really minor situation" and that "most people have injuries like this almost on a daily basis."

After his return to Denver, Darrow sought further medical attention. Dr. Thomas Fry, a hand specialist, testified by deposition that Darrow had suffered injuries to the superficial radial nerve directly related and attributable to the handcuffing process.

A grand jury indicted Darrow for obstructing a police officer. Just prior to the trial, the Deputy State's Attorney reduced the charge to a class two misdemeanor--disorderly conduct. Darrow was acquitted.

Darrow then sought damages from Schumacher and City for injuries allegedly suffered when he was arrested by Schumacher. Darrow brought causes of action based on excessive use of force, emotional distress, false arrest and imprisonment, and violation of Darrow's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Darrow also sought punitive damages from Schumacher for willful, wanton and malicious conduct. Schumacher and City denied Darrow's allegations and asserted affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and various immunities which are not before this court.

The trial court refused to admit evidence regarding Darrow's acquittal on criminal charges. In addition, the trial court precluded City from introducing evidence regarding probable cause for Darrow's arrest. The civil jury was, in essence, allowed to determine for itself whether Schumacher had probable cause to arrest Darrow. Finally, the court precluded Darrow from offering any evidence or in any manner referring to Schumacher's prior employment with Wharf Mining Company (Wharf).

At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of City on Darrow's Sec. 1983 action against it. With Darrow's consent, City had been dismissed as a party Defendant with respect to the other counts in Darrow's complaint.

All four counts against Officer Schumacher--excessive use of force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest and imprisonment and the Sec. 1983 claim--were submitted to the jury, together with a claim for punitive damages. The jury received instructions on each count alleged by Darrow. Separate ballots were provided to the jury for each count charged. The jury found in favor of Schumacher on all counts.

Darrow appeals alleging four grounds of error:

(1) Whether the trial court incorrectly granted City's motion for directed verdict on Darrow's Sec. 1983 claim.

(2) Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the intent element of the Sec. 1983 claim.

(3) Whether the trial court erred in disallowing evidence concerning Schumacher's prior employment with Wharf.

(4) Whether the trial court erred in disallowing evidence of Darrow's acquittal on the ultimate criminal charge of disorderly conduct.

We will discuss further facts as they become pertinent to each issue addressed.

I. DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE Sec. 1983 CLAIM.

In directing a verdict in favor of City on Darrow's Sec. 1983 claim, the trial court stated: "There does not appear to be any evidence to show that the city engaged in any policy that resulted in the deprivation of civil rights to [Darrow]." Darrow argues substantial evidence was produced at trial that City had engaged in a pattern and practice amounting to an official policy as to the manner in which law enforcement would be conducted during the annual Days of '76 Celebration.

Darrow asserts there was a pattern and practice by City which amounted to an intentional policy of omission, inaction and inattentiveness to law enforcement needs during the celebration. Darrow points to testimony by Schumacher that he never received any particularized training with respect to the performance of his duties during the City's annual celebration. The Police Chief at the time of the incident also testified City had never done anything above the ordinary to handle the Days of '76 Celebration. Darrow asserts, because of this pattern and practice, law enforcement officers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • City of Sioux Falls v. Kelley
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1994
    ...an allegedly erroneous ruling." However, such an offer refers to the exclusion of evidence. Hedges, 209 N.W.2d at 664; Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511 (S.D.1993). The trial court was not excluding evidence here. Contrary to the majority opinion, any burden required here belongs to On t......
  • Swedlund v. Foster
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 15, 2003
    ...Amendment's guarantee to citizens of the right "to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable ... seizures." Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511, 519 (S.D.1993). [¶ 22.] The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to be free from excessive force6 are ......
  • Sander v. Geib, Elston, Frost Professional Ass'n
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1993
    ...error to the effect that under the evidence, the jury might and probably would have returned a different verdict." Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511, 518 (S.D.1993); Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 825 (S.D.1991) (internal quotations omitted). Further, the party alleging error "must sh......
  • Sommervold v. Grevlos
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1994
    ...instructions, in all probability, had some effect upon the final result and affected Darrow's rights." Darrow v. Schumacher, 495 N.W.2d 511, 524 (S.D.1993) (Henderson, J., dissenting). Similarly, the refusal to give a jury instruction on the applicable statutory law was prejudicial error wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT