Giron v. City of Alexander

• Citation: 693 F. Supp.2d 904
• Decision Date: 05 March 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:07-CV-00568 GTE.
• Parties: Arnoldo GIRON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ALEXANDER, Arkansas, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

693 F. Supp.2d 904

Arnoldo GIRON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ALEXANDER, Arkansas, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:07-CV-00568 GTE.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

March 5, 2010.

Reggie Koch, Koch Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiffs.

John Lennon Wilkerson, Arkansas Municipal League, North Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

GARNETT THOMAS EISELE, District Judge.

                Table of Contents
                  I. OVERVIEW ............................................................ 910
                 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................... 911
                III. FINDINGS OF FACT .................................................... 912
                     A. The Setting ...................................................... 912
                     B. Alexander's Financial Problems ................................... 913
                        1. Lorraine Hatcher .............................................. 914
                        2. Pat Marshall .................................................. 915
                        3. Causley Edwards ............................................... 915
                     C. The Citations Issued by Officer Tommy Leath ...................... 916
                        1. Witness Jamie Guardado ........................................ 916
                        2. Plaintiff Ruben Duarte ........................................ 918
                        3. Plaintiff Edvin Giron ......................................... 919
                        4. Plaintiff Roberto Giron ....................................... 920
                        5. Plaintiff Jose Gutierrez ...................................... 920
                        6. Plaintiff Francisco Arevalo ................................... 920
                        7. Plaintiff Florenico Villanueva ................................ 922
                     D. Leath Intentionally Targeted Hispanics ........................... 923
                        1. Direct Evidence ............................................... 924
                           a. Joshua Hubbard ............................................. 924
                           b. Cain Maxheimer ............................................. 927
                           c. Credibility Determination .................................. 927
                        2. Numerical Evidence Regarding Citations ........................ 928
                           a. The Numbers ................................................ 928
                           b. Significance of the Numbers ................................ 929
                     E. The City's Knowledge ............................................. 931
                     F. The Lawsuit and the City's Response .............................. 932
                IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................... 936
                    A. Equal Protection .................................................. 937
                       1. Individual Liability ........................................... 937
                          a. Defendant Tommy Leath ....................................... 937
                          b. Defendant Allen Spears ...................................... 939
                       2. Municipal Liability ............................................ 942
                    B. § 1981 Claim ...................................................... 943
                    C. Fourth Amendment .................................................. 944
                       1. Windshield Obstruction Traffic Stops ........................... 945
                       2. Turn Signal Traffic Stop ....................................... 950
                       3. Seizure at Residence ........................................... 950
                

                    D. Conversion and Trespass to Chattels ............................... 953
                 V. DAMAGES .............................................................. 953
                    A. Compensatory Damages .............................................. 953
                    B. Punitive Damages .................................................. 954
                VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................... 957
                

I. OVERVIEW

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

— Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, signed by Defendant Leath on January 8, 2007. See Defendant's Exhibit 3.

For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Defendant Alexander Police Officer Tommy Leath, contrary to his own sworn oath, violated the constitutional rights of each of the Plaintiffs whose claims were tried in this proceeding. Officer Leath engaged in racial profiling prohibited by Arkansas statute, the Arkansas Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the City of Alexander's own written policy. Officer Leath also illegally seized one of the Plaintiffs, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution. Chief Spears, who supervised Officer Leath and ran the Alexander Police Department ("Department"), was deliberately indifferent to ongoing and systemic racial profiling of which he was aware. Additionally, municipal liability is imposed on the City of Alexander because it permitted Office Leath to establish and to carry out a custom and practice of engaging in racial profiling.

It is useful to define the term "racial profiling" as used in this case. The term does not refer to a situation in which a person's race or ethnic characteristics are legitimately considered by an officer in deciding whether to apprehend an actual suspect in a known crime.¹ Nor does it present the more difficult and complex issues arising when factors such as race, nationality, sex, religion, language, and certain personal characteristics—and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom—may rationally and reasonably be considered to narrow the focus of an investigation, or to help in the identification of likely suspects. Assuming such factors have been validated by objective, scientifically or statistically based data, investigators in such situations are not required to close their eyes (or minds) to those facts and circumstances any rational investigator would consider, along with all other pertinent information, in preventing or solving crime.

Arkansas law reflects this dichotomy by defining the term "racial profiling" as follows:

(a) For purposes of this subchapter, "racial profiling" means the practice of a law enforcement officer's relying to any degree on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial routine investigatory activity.

(b) "Racial profiling" does not include reliance on the criteria in connection with other identifying factors when the law enforcement officer is seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the description of the suspect and the description is thought to be reliable and locally relevant.²

This statute also prohibits all Arkansas law enforcement officers from engaging in racial profiling.³

Here it is clear, based on the Court's findings, that Officer Leath's true objective was not to enforce traffic laws prohibiting people from driving with their vision obstructed or other minor infractions. Rather, the neutral traffic laws were used as a pretext for harassing Hispanics (whether here legally or illegally),⁴ for obtaining money through fines and towing charges for the financially troubled City of Alexander, and to provide an incentive for Hispanics to move out of the area—clearly illegitimate objectives.

II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The action was originally filed by ten Hispanic Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that they were victimized by the Defendants' "routine and continuing practice of race and national origin-based traffic stops, detentions, searches, charges, and discriminatory and oppressive vehicle towing policies."⁵ The named Defendants in the action are the City of Alexander ("City" or "Alexander"), Alexander Police Chief Allen Spears ("Spears"), and Alexander Police Officer Tommy Leath ("Leath"). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, the Arkansas Constitution, and the Arkansas common law torts of trespass to chattel and conversion. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages against all Defendants, and also seek an award of punitive damages against Defendants Spears and Leath. During the summary judgment phase, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process claims, but permitted all other claims to proceed.⁶ The Court requested additional briefing on the Fourth Amendment claims. In response, Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court took the motion under advisement and did not resolve it before trial.⁷

The trial began with seven Plaintiffs: (1) Edvin Giron; (2) Roberto Giron; (3) Jose Gutierrez; (4) Ruben Duarte; (5) Jose Llamas; (6) Francisco Arevalo; and (7) Florencio Villanueva. Plaintiffs Arnoldo Giron and Juan Carlos Jauregui were non-suited on the first day of trial and dismissed without prejudice.⁸ Jose Llamas was dismissed without prejudice at the conclusion of the Plaintiffs' case after he did not appear for trial.⁹

Although the parties originally had requested a jury trial, shortly before trial they waived that right and asked that the case be tried to the Court. The bench trial began on October 26, 2009, and concluded on October 28, 2009.¹⁰

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court took the case under advisement and requested additional briefing from the parties. The Court left the record open for either party to submit additional information regarding the Hispanic population living or driving in Alexander and the surrounding area. The Court asked Defendants to provide a list of all...