Freeland v. Simmons
| Decision Date | 27 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 4:09cv01384-WOB |
| Parties | SAMUEL NATHAN FREELAND PLAINTIFF v. TROOPER JONATHAN SIMMONS And CORPORAL JOSEPH DORIO DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28). The Court heard oral argument on this motion by telephone on January 6, 2012 and thereafter took the motion under submission. (Doc. 68). The Court now issues the following Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.
This lawsuit arises from a traffic stop and Plaintiff Samuel Freeland's ("Freeland") subsequent arrest for driving under the influence ("DUI") in the early morning hours of November 29, 2008. Earlier the previous evening, Freeland and his wife had a fight, and after his wife and his children were in bed, Freeland decided to meet some friends at Remedies, alocal bar. (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 14-15). Freeland admits to having three beers at home, as well as two or three mixed drinks and one beer while at Remedies.2 (Id. at 17).
Mrs. Freeland later awoke and discovered that her husband was not at home. (Doc. 65-2, Dedi Freeland Depo., at 12). After several unsuccessful attempts, she eventually reached Freeland and learned he was at a bar. (Id.). Based on the way he spoke, Mrs. Freeland assumed he was intoxicated. (Id.). She then accused Freeland of being irresponsible and expressed concern that he would be driving while intoxicated and could get a DUI. (Id. at 13).
After the conversation ended, Mrs. Freeland contacted the Horry County Police Department dispatch and asked to speak with Officer Scott McCarthy, whom she knew from South Strand Ambulatory Care Center, where she worked as a nurse. (Id. at 9, 13, 27). When dispatch informed her that Officer McCarthy was not on duty, she asked to speak with Corporal Joseph Dorio ("Dorio"), another officer she knew from her employment. (Id. at 14). She provided the dispatcher with her telephone number and asked that Dorio contact her. (Id.).
Dorio was on patrol that evening with a trainee, PFC Christopher Peterson. (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 2). The dispatcher contacted Dorio through his in-car laptop computer and relayed the message that Dedi Freeland had asked that Dorio call her. (Id.). Unfamiliar with the name, Dorio blocked his cell phone number and called the number provided by dispatch. (Id. at ¶ 3). After identifying herself and how she knew him, Mrs. Freeland informed Dorio that her husband was intoxicated at a bar and would likely be driving home. (Doc. 65-2, Dedi Freeland Depo., at 14-15); (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 4). She specifically requested that Dorio findFreeland and arrest him for driving under the influence.3 (Doc. 65-2, Dedi Freeland Depo., at 14-15).
Dorio explained the financial consequences of a DUI arrest and suggested various alternatives, but Mrs. Freeland pressed the DUI complaint. (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 5); (Doc. 65-2, Dedi Freeland Depo., at 14-15). Dorio responded that he would investigate. (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 5).
Dorio proceeded to Remedies Bar and parked in plain view near Freeland's car, hoping to deter Freeland from driving. (Id. at ¶ 6). This attempted deterrent was unsuccessful, and when Freeland left the bar, he eventually drove north on the Highway 17 Bypass. (Id. at ¶ 7); (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 17). Dorio began following the vehicle, and Freeland quickly pulled into a McDonald's drive-through line. (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 17); (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 6). To maintain sight of the vehicle, Dorio pulled into an adjacent parking lot. (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 6). Freeland did not stay in line long and left without ordering any food. (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 34). Dorio continued to follow him, keeping in contact with Mrs. Freeland.4 (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶¶ 8-10).
Although the parties disagree as to several intervening events, they agree that Freeland ultimately went to the Sun Up, another local bar.5 (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 20, 35); (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 11). Dorio parked across the street and contacted Trooper Jonathan Simmons ("Simmons") with the South Carolina Highway Patrol for assistance. (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 11). Simmons, unlike Dorio, was fully certified to conduct a breathalyzer test and was a member of the DUI task force.6 (Id.). Upon his arrival, Dorio informed Simmons of a suspected intoxicated individual driving a white SUV. (Doc. 28-5, Simmons Aff., at ¶ 2).
Shortly after Simmons met with Dorio, Freeland left the Sun Up bar, and Simmons began following him, with Dorio following behind him. (Doc. 28-4, Dorio Aff., at ¶ 12); (Doc. 65-3, Simmons Depo., at 8). Simmons averred that he observed Freeland weave out of his lane, at which time he activated his dash camera. (Doc. 28-5, Simmons Aff., at ¶ 4). Simmons then saw Freeland fail to signal when turning into his subdivision, prompting Simmons to turn on his blue lights to initiate a traffic stop. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5).
Freeland did not stop his vehicle until he pulled into the driveway of his residence. (Id. at ¶ 5). He asked Simmons why he had been stopped, and Simmons responded that he saw Freeland swerve into the other lane and wanted to make sure that he got home safely.7 (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 23). Although Freeland contends that he did not give Simmons any reasonto pull him over, he has conceded, and the dash cam video clearly shows, that he failed to signal when turning into his subdivision.8 (Id. at 76).
Simmons testified that, when he approached Freeland, he detected a strong odor of alcohol on Freeland's breath, and noted that Freeland's eyes were red, glassy, and bloodshot. (Doc. 28-5, Simmons Aff., at ¶ 6). Simmons asked Freeland if he had been drinking, and Freeland admitted that he had "had a few." (Id., Exhibit C, dash cam video, at 3:54:55-3:55:27). Simmons then informed Freeland of his Miranda rights and requested that he perform standard field sobriety tests. (Id., Simmons Aff., at ¶ 7).
First, Simmons administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and, according to Simmons, Freeland swayed and had nystagmus in all phases. (Id. at ¶ 8). Second, Simmons administered the Nine Step Walk and Turn. According to Simmons, Freeland used his arms for balance, would not look at his feet, and stepped out of line several times, (id. at ¶ 9), and Freeland admitted stumbling during this test. (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 77). Third, Simmons administered the One-Leg Stand. Simmons observed Freeland put his foot down, use his arms for balance, and nearly fall over, (Doc. 28-5, Simmons Aff., at ¶ 10), and Freeland admitted to putting his foot down and taking a few steps back, although he claims this is because he slipped on water. (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 77-78). Finally, Simmons asked Freeland to recite the portion of the alphabet from the letter "D" to the letter "U," which Freeland admits he could not successfully complete after two attempts. (Doc. 28-5, Simmons Aff., at ¶ 11); (Doc. 65-1, Freeland Depo., at 79). Based on Freeland's performance on all four tests,9 Simmonsconcluded that Freeland was intoxicated, and so he arrested Freeland and transported him to the Myrtle Beach Police Department. (Doc. 28-5, Simmons Aff., at ¶ 12).
When he arrived at the police department, Freeland refused to provide a breath sample and, therefore, he was issued a citation for driving under the influence in violation of South Carolina Code section 56-5-2930. (Id. at ¶ 13). Because Freeland refused to give a breath sample, his license was automatically revoked, although it was ultimately reinstated.
Freeland's DUI prosecution was handled by Lauree Richardson ("Richardson"), Assistant Solicitor for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. (Doc. 28-7, Richardson Aff., at ¶ 1). At the time of this prosecution, the DUI statute required the recording of the incident to "begin not later than the activation of the officer's blue lights." (Id. at ¶ 3). However, the video footage received by Richardson began just before Freeland performed the field sobriety tests, well after the blue lights had been activated.10 (Id.). For reasons of "prosecutorial and judicial economy," Richardson decided to dismiss the charges, nolle prosequi. (Id. at ¶ 2). According to Richardson, there was never a judicial finding that Freeland was innocent of the DUI charge or that Simmons lacked probable cause for the arrest, (id.), but the notification of dismissal sent to the Jury Court listed the reason for dismissal as "Defendant Innocent." (See Doc. 38).
In December 2008, Freeland filed a complaint with the Horry County Police Department's Office of Professional Standards, alleging that Dorio was having an affair with his wife, had followed him, and had him arrested so that Dorio could be with his wife. An investigation occurred, resulting in a determination that the complaint was unfounded. (Doc. 28-8, Vaught Aff., at ¶¶2-4). Freeland then filed the instant lawsuit on May 27, 2009 alleging the same general theory.
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended December 1, 2010, provides in relevant part that: "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment 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). Amended Rule 56(c)(1) further provides that:
To continue reading
Request your trial