Farkarlun v. Hanning, Civil No. 10–452 ADM/JJK.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. 10–452 ADM/JJK.
• Citation: 855 F.Supp.2d 906,87 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1112
• Parties: Trisha K. FARKARLUN, Plaintiff, v. Deputy J.M. HANNING, individual; Sgt. Peterson, individual; Deputy B. Novotny, individual; Deputy Sommerfeld, individual; County of Hennepin, Minnesota; Chao Lee, in his individual capacity; Karina Landmesser, in her individual capacity; Marjane Khazraeinazmpour, in her individual capacity; Mark Lanasa, in his individual capacity; Joseph Klimmer, in his individual capacity; Sgt. Daniel Swalve, in his individual capacity; and the City of Minneapolis, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

855 F.Supp.2d 906

87 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1112

Trisha K. FARKARLUN, Plaintiff,

v.Deputy J.M. HANNING, individual; Sgt. Peterson, individual; Deputy B. Novotny, individual; Deputy Sommerfeld, individual; County of Hennepin, Minnesota; Chao Lee, in his individual capacity; Karina Landmesser, in her individual capacity; Marjane Khazraeinazmpour, in her individual capacity; Mark Lanasa, in his individual capacity; Joseph Klimmer, in his individual capacity; Sgt. Daniel Swalve, in his individual capacity; and the City of Minneapolis, Defendants.

Civil No. 10–452 ADM/JJK.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

March 2, 2012.

Jill Clark, Esq., Jill Clark PA, Golden Valley, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.

Toni A. Beitz, Esq., Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants Deputy J.M. Hanning, Sgt. Peterson, Deputy B. Novotny, Deputy Sommerfeld, and County of Hennepin.

Timothy S. Skarda, Esq., Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants Chao Lee, Karina Landmesser, Marjane Khazraeinazmpour, Mark Lanasa, Joseph Klimmer, Sgt. Daniel Swalve, and the City of Minneapolis.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 12, 2011, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendants County of Hennepin (“Hennepin County”), Deputy Jodie Hannig ¹ (“Hannig”), Deputy B. Novotny (“Novotny”), Sgt. Peterson (“Peterson”), and Deputy Sommerfeld's (“Sommerfeld”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 35] (“Hennepin County's Summary Judgment Motion”) and on Defendants Chao Lee (“Lee”), Karina Landmesser (“Landmesser”), Marjane Khazraeinazmpour (“Khazraeinazmpour”), Mark Lanasa (“Lanasa”), Joseph Klimmek ² (“Klimmek”), Sgt. Daniel Swalve (“Swalve”), and the City of Minneapolis's (“Minneapolis”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 44] (“Minneapolis's Summary Judgment Motion”). Plaintiff Trisha K. Farkarlun (“Farkarlun”) opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, Hennepin County's Summary Judgment Motion is granted and Minneapolis's Summary Judgment Motion is granted.

II. BACKGROUND³

Plaintiff Farkarlun brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of her constitutional rights by Defendants during a September 30, 2009 incident. Integral to her present claims, however, is a separate incident of alleged police misconduct, the subject of a separate lawsuit, that she suggests motivated the law enforcement officers here to retaliate against her.

Farkarlun alleges that on July 28, 2007, two Minneapolis Police Department (“MPD”) officers, Barnes and Gillies, raped her. Decl. of Jill Clark, Esq. filed in Opp. to Summ. J. [Docket No. 54] (“Clark Decl.”) Ex. 9 ¶¶ 19–21. She went to the hospital for examination that same day, after which a nurse reported the incident to the MPD. Id. ¶¶ 22–24. After investigating her rape claims, Farkarlun was criminally charged for making a false complaint of police misconduct. Decl. of Adam S. Richardson Filed in Opp. to Summ. J. [Docket No. 51] (“Richardson Decl.”) ¶ 1. After a jury trial, Farkarlun was convicted of the false report charge. Richardson Decl. ¶ 2. Around the time of her sentencing in July 2009, Farkarlun initiated a civil lawsuit based on the rape allegations. Richardson Decl. ¶ 3; Clark Decl. Ex 9. Farkarlun appealed her criminal conviction and in December 2010, the statute under which she was convicted was invalidated by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds. Clark Decl. Ex. 6. Her criminal trial and civil lawsuit received media attention, particularly from the Minneapolis Star Tribune and law enforcement-oriented internet blogs. See Richardson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.

On September 30, 2009, some two months after her sentencing and commencing a civil lawsuit against the MPD, Farkarlun joined friends in a downtown Minneapolis bar. Clark Decl. Ex. 17 (“Farkarlun Dep.”) 30:11–31:13. After leaving the bar around 1 a.m., the car in which Farkarlun was riding was stopped by MPD Officers Defendants Lanasa and Lee. Aff. of Timothy S. Skarda [Docket No. 47] (“Skarda Aff.”) Ex. 1 (“CAPRS Report”) 6–7; Farkarlun Dep. 30:11–15.

Lanasa and Lee allege they observed, over live video cameras at the MPD's First Precinct, someone drop a small object on the street, someone else quickly retrieve that object, and then both people making a hand-to-hand transaction, i.e. activity indicative of possible drug dealing. CAPRS Report 6–7; Aff. of Toni A. Beitz [Docket No. 41] (“Beitz Aff.”) Ex. F (“Lanasa Dep.”) 16:12–18:24, 33:15–25; Beitz Aff. Ex. G (“Lee Dep.”) 12:10–14:3, 15:1–16:9. The people engaging in this activity had no other apparent purpose; they were in an area of downtown Minneapolis that had no brick-and-mortar businesses. See Lanasa Dep. 33:3–8. Lanasa and Lee claim that they immediately left the First Precinct to arrest the suspect, and were informed over radio that the suspect had departed the area in a vehicle bearing Minnesota license plate number VMC–973. CAPRS Report 7. Lanasa and Lee were also given a description of the vehicle as a “dark compact car” via radio. CAPRS Report 6; Lee Dep. 23:4–6.⁴ The vehicle ultimately stopped by Lanasa and Lee, and in which they found Farkarlun, was a dark green compact sedan bearing license plate number VMC–973. CAPRS Report 4.

Farkarlun disputes Lanasa and Lee's version of the events. First, Farkarlun denies being the person that dropped anything on the ground. Farkarlun Dep. 32:8–16. Second, it appears Farkarlun disputes that anyone dropped anything on the ground. While stopping short of directly stating that Lanasa and Lee retaliated against her by targeting her for a new arrest, implicit in her claim is an allegation that Lanasa and Lee never had probable cause to suspect drug dealing because Lanasa and Lee were aware of the rape allegations. The only support for her contention that Lanasa and Lee knew of the rape allegations is Farkarlun's proffer that Lanasa admitted he knows who Officer Gillies is and Lee's admission that he previously knew Officer Barnes. Lanasa Dep. 10:19–20; Clark Decl. Ex. 18 32:13–25. Farkarlun also relies on the timing of the incident, two months after her sentencing and its attendant media coverage. Pl.'s Mem. Filed in Opp. to Summ. J. 6. Farkarlun argues Lanasa and Lee's stop of the vehicle she was in after only half a block of travel suggests the officers could not have been at the First Precinct in time to do so. Id. at 7. She also claims no radio communication exists relaying the plate number of the vehicle, as the officers claim. Pl.'s Reply to City–Defs. Reply 2–3. Farkarlun has offered a reproduction from an internet blog of an email from MPD discussing the allegations addressed to “All.” Richardson Decl. Ex. A at 25–26.

When Lanasa and Lee stopped the vehicle Farkarlun was riding in that night, a male passenger admitted to having a small amount of marijuana. CAPRS Report 6. Lee searched him and recovered two small individually wrapped baggies of suspected marijuana. CAPRS Report 6. Additionally, Lanasa observed an open can of alcohol. CAPRS Report 7. Lanasa searched Farkarlun. Farkarlun Dep. 35:11–20. He removed her shoes and socks, looked in her mouth, shook her clothing including her bra, and patted her body over her clothing. Farkarlun Dep. 35:14–19. Farkarlun claims that during Lanasa's search he pulled down her pants leaving them unbelted and unzipped. See Farkarlun Dep. 38:11–16. The shaking of her bra eventually broke it. Farkarlun Dep. 37:2–5. Lanasa found no evidence of a crime.

Lanasa's account of the same events varies greatly. To begin, Lanasa denies ever searching Farkarlun at all. Lanasa Dep. 46:8. Next, Lanasa claims that Farkarlun was “moving frantically” as he approached the car. CAPRS Report 7; see also Lanasa Dep. 37:9–39:21. Lanasa also claims that he did not unzip or unbelt Farkarlun's pants, but rather that her pants were unzipped as she exited the vehicle. Lanasa Dep. 47:4–10.

Lanasa and Lee radioed for a female officer to assist them in searching Farkarlun. Lee Dep. 28:15. Defendants Klimmek and Khazraeinazmpour, also MPD officers, arrived at the scene. CAPRS Report 9. Khazraeinazmpour, a female officer, searched Farkarlun again but more intrusively—using her gloved hand to search underneath Farkarlun's bra and clothing along Farkarlun's waistline. Farkarlun Dep. 38:21–25, 111:24–112:2, 112:24–113:3. Khazraeinazmpour did not reach into Farkarlun's groin area. Farkarlun Dep. 112:3–4. This search occurredon the sidewalk in downtown Minneapolis. Lee Dep. 29:14–18. Khazraeinazmpour did not find any evidence. The officers' supervisor, MPD Sergeant Defendant Swalve, also arrived on the scene and authorized a strip search of Farkarlun based on Lanasa's version of events. CAPRS Report 9; see also Skarda Aff. Ex. 6 (“Swalve Dep.”) 10:12–15.

Farkarlun was then taken to the First Precinct. Farkarlun Dep. 39:2–3. Upon arriving, the outside of her clothing and her pockets were searched again by a male officer. Farkarlun Dep. 40:1–17. No strip search was done, however, because Khazraeinazmpour, the only female officer present, had not been trained in strip searches, and Farkarlun indicated she would refuse any further searching. CAPRS Report 9; Farkarlun Dep. 41:7. Farkarlun was taken to Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (the “ADC”), where additional female officers, trained to conduct strip searches, were present to assist Khazraeinazmpour. CAPRS Report 9.

Farkarlun arrived at the ADC around 2:20 a.m. Clark Decl. Ex. 3. Just prior to arriving, Lanasa had filled out paperwork authorizing the detention of Farkarlun. Clark Decl. Ex. 1. The paperwork specified that Farkarlun would be “tab-charged,” i.e. charged without a complaint drafted by a Hennepin County prosecutor, for a municipal misdemeanor—loitering with intent to buy or sell narcotics. Id. In addition, Farkarlun was to be detained overnight, purportedly to prevent further...