Gillespie v. Pa. State Police
| Decision Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-4948 |
| Citation | 574 F.Supp.3d 272 |
| Parties | Rodney GILLESPIE, et al., Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Deborah Lynn Nixon, Freedman & Lorry PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Nolan B. Meeks, PA State Police Office of Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, PA, Daniel C. Beck, Governor's Office of General Counsel, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant Johnson Christopher S.
II. BACKGROUND...278
A. The Traffic Stop...278
B. Events After the Stop...280
C. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss...281
D. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Briefing on the Dashcam Footage...281
IV. ANALYSIS...284
A. All claims against Defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State Police will be dismissed pursuant to Eleventh Amendment Immunity...284
B. Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for malicious prosecution because Mr. Gillespie was detained prior to the issuance of any charges...284
C. The Pennsylvania Equal Protection claim against all Defendants will be Dismissed because Plaintiffs did not produce any comparators...285
D. The Motion to Dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim will be granted because Plaintiffs do not assert any negligent action done by Trooper Johnson...287
E. The dashcam footage cannot be considered at the Motion to Dismiss stage...288
F. The Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Complaint for false imprisonment will be converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment because it relies on the dashcam recording...289
G. The dashcam footage must be considered in order to determine whether Trooper Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity...289
H. The Motion to Dismiss the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim will be converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment...290
I. Whether Trooper Johnson is entitled to sovereign immunity will be decided at the Summary Judgment stage...291
I. INTRODUCTION
This case involves the concerns of an African American family living in suburban America who come in contact with police officers. Rodney Gillespie, Angela Gillespie, and Jaida Gillespie (collectively "Plaintiffs") allege that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop in such a setting. They claim that during and after the traffic stop, they were falsely imprisoned in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (See Doc. No. 1 at 38—40.) In addition, Plaintiff Rodney Gillespie asserts that he was subject to malicious prosecution, also in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 40-42.) Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, as well as the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, are also alleged by them.
Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 1.) Named as Defendants are the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("Defendant Commonwealth"), Pennsylvania State Police ("Defendant State Police"), and Defendant State Trooper Christopher S. Johnson ("Defendant Johnson"), who did the traffic stop.
On December 9, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Doc. No. 2.) On January 22, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a response. (See Doc. No. 6) On February 12, 2021, Defendants filed a reply. (See Doc. No. 9.) Supplemental briefing regarding the authenticity of the dashcam footage from Trooper Johnson's vehicle was also filed (Doc. No. 16) and Defendants’ filed a reply. (Doc. No. 17.) A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 29, 2021. (See Doc. No. 21.) Supplemental briefing, as requested by the Court, on the Pennsylvania Equal Protection claim were filed by both parties. (See Doc. Nos. 22, 23). For reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 2) will be granted in part. The Motion to Dismiss the claims that remain will be converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d).
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Traffic Stop
On or about July 8, 2019, between 12:30 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., Plaintiffs were stopped by Trooper Johnson while driving home to Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania after visiting relatives in Lambertville, New Jersey. (Doc. No. 1 at 7.) Rodney Gillespie was driving the car, a sports utility vehicle (SUV). His wife, Angela Gillespie ("Mrs. Gillespie"), was in the front passenger's seat and their seventeen-year old daughter, Jaida, was in a back seat. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiffs had just returned to the United States after a six-year hiatus due to Mr. Gillespie's job with AstraZeneca in South Africa.1 (Id. at 8.) The SUV was a rental car, a 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (Id. ) Plaintiffs are African American. (Id. at 5.)
Initially, Defendant Johnson, driving a marked police vehicle, began to follow the SUV on Route 1 South in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 11.)2 Plaintiff made a right turn on Route 1 South onto Webb Road. (Id. at 8.) Webb Road is a dark, unlit, two-lane road with barely any shoulder.3 (Id. ) While driving on Webb Road, Johnson observed Plaintiffs’ SUV cross the double yellow line.4 (Id. at 14.) Johnson then attempted to initiate a traffic stop by turning on his lights and siren, but Plaintiffs continued driving, turning onto Atwater Road. (Id. at 8.) Atwater Road is not lit and does not have a shoulder.5 (Id. ) Mr. Gillespie did not increase the SUV's speed after hearing the commands from Johnson's vehicle. (Id. ) Plaintiffs traveled for about forty-nine seconds before coming to a stop in the driveway of their home on Atwater Road. (Id. )
After stopping, Mr. Gillespie turned off the SUV, rolled down the windows, and placed his hands on the steering wheel.6 (Id. ) Johnson and a fellow State Trooper, Voetelink, approached the car and yelled (Id. at 9.) The Troopers then asked Mr. Gillespie why he did not immediately pull over. (Id. ) Gillespie responded that he had stopped at his own house and Johnson asked Gillespie how old he was and told him to turn the car off. (Id. ) Gillespie then said, "Ya'll kill Black people, I don't want to get killed," to which Trooper Johnson responded, "knock off that nonsense."7 (Id. ) Trooper Johnson then yelled and ordered him out of the car. (See Dashcam Footage at 2:34.)
Thereafter, Defendant Johnson asked Mr. Gillespie more questions, such as "do you have any weapons on you?" and "what do you think it means when you're not stopping for me?" Gillespie replied by saying that he did not stop initially because he was concerned for his family's safety. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.)
After ordering him out of the SUV, Trooper Johnson told Mr. Gillespie to put his hands behind his back and frisked him for weapons. (Id. at 10.) No weapons were found. (Id. ) Gillespie was then informed that he was the subject of an "official police investigation" and was being "detained," at which point he was handcuffed for more than seven minutes. (Id. at 10-11.)
During this time, Trooper Voetelink began to question Mrs. Gillespie, who was still in the passenger's seat. (Id. at 11.) Mrs. Gillespie explained that she was Mr. Gillespie's wife and the house they were stopped at was their home. (Id. ) Trooper Voetelink next informed Mr. Gillespie that break-ins have been occurring involving people driving and then parking on dark secluded roads. (Id. at 14.) He told Mr. Gillespie that, just the night before, he and Trooper Johnson were involved in a car chase. (Id. at 14.) Voetelink then said to Mr. Gillespie, referring to Mrs. Gillespie and their daughter, Jaida. (Id. ) During this time, two unidentified back-up Troopers arrived at the scene and a third was waived away.8 (Id. at 15.)
The back-up troopers began to question Mrs. Gillespie and again asked if the house belonged to them. (Id. at 16.) As one of the back-up troopers explained to her: 1) there had been an uptick in burglaries in the area, 2) cars were being stolen from dealerships, 3) there was a police chase the night before involving guns, and 4) perpetrators often used their "girlfriends" as accomplices. (Id. ) Trooper Johnson then approached Mrs. Gillespie and asked her a series of questions:
(Id. at 17.) Further, one of the back-up troopers stated to her that crossing over the center line could be a sign of impairment. (Id. )
The stop concluded with Defendant Johnson issuing two traffic citations to Mr. Gillespie: 1) "Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic," in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309 and 2) "Duty of Driver on Approach of Emergency Vehicle," in violation of 75 C.S.A. § 3325 (collectively "the Citations"). Throughout the entire stop, Mr. and Mrs. Gillespie both repeatedly expressed their concern for their safety. (See, e.g., id. at 18) ("Mrs. Gillespie again expressed her and her family's concerns for their safety ...")
B. Events After the Stop
On July 16, 2019, Mr. Gillespie appeared in a Magisterial District Court to dispute the Citations. (Id. at 21.) At the hearing, the representative of Defendant State Police dismissed the citation for Failure to Stop. (Id. ) Mr. Gillespie then pleaded guilty to the charge involving the lane change. (Id. at 22.) He filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. (Id. ) On November 19, 2019, at the hearing on the appeal, no representative from the State Police appeared. (Id. ) The Judge therefore reversed Mr. Gillespie's Driving Lane Change charge. (Id. ) Around this time, news outlets were...
To continue reading
Request your trial