Hart v. Mannina
| Decision Date | 17 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1347.,14–1347. |
| Citation | 798 F.3d 578 |
| Parties | Carlton HART, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Christine MANNINA, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Kevin W. Betz, Attorney, Sandra L. Blevins, Attorney, Benjamin Conard Ellis, Attorney, Betz + Blevins, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Amanda J. Dinges, Attorney, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Allowing a reality television program to film an ongoing murder investigation is a recipe for trouble. It is easy to imagine a detective with a looming television deadline cutting a corner to ensure that a suspect is arrested in time for the final episode. Without an arrest, the show has no resolution to satisfy the audience.
The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) participated in this sort of reality television program called The Shift. The film crew followed a team of homicide detectives as they investigated a deadly home invasion in November 2008. Two victims were shot. One was killed; the other survived. Police eventually arrested plaintiff Carlton Hart, and his arrest was the centerpiece for the final episode of the program's first season. As it turned out, though, Hart was the wrong man. After he had spent nearly two years in jail awaiting trial, the charges were dismissed and Hart was released. The audience of The Shift was none the wiser.
Hart filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several detectives in their individual capacities and against the City of Indianapolis alleging a variety of constitutional violations. The core of his complaint is that he was arrested without probable cause and that the lead detective on the case made false or misleading statements in her probable cause affidavit for his arrest. The district court granted defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on two claims and, after discovery,' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
There are many troubling aspects of IMPD's investigation, and this case should warn police departments about having their detectives moonlight as television stars. But on this record, we must affirm. Even the troubling aspects of the investigation do not add up to evidence of a violation of Hart's constitutional rights. A reasonable trier of fact could not find that police lacked probable cause to arrest him. Nor could a reasonable jury find that the lead detective, defendant Christine Mannina, made false or misleading statements in her probable cause affidavit. Four surviving witnesses from the home invasion separately identified Hart as one of the men who attacked them. None of the police had any reason to doubt these identifications when they arrested Hart.
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, examining the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferencesin his favor. E.g., Carter v. Chicago State Univ., 778 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir.2015). Summary judgment is appropriate only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Plaintiff Carlton Hart was arrested and charged with murder and related crimes stemming from a deadly home invasion that took place on November 3, 2008. Five people were at the home: Richard Miller, Duane Miller, Ricky Bluiett, Tamela Daniels, and Kourtney Glasscock. Richard and Duane were brothers, Bluiett was the Millers' stepbrother, Daniels was Duane's friend, and Glasscock was Bluiett's girlfriend.
According to statements from the surviving eyewitnesses, three men were involved in the home invasion. When the incident began, Glasscock and Bluiett were sitting in a car parked in the driveway. Three armed men approached the house. One man took Glasscock to the side of the house and held her captive. The other two men entered the residence with Bluiett at gunpoint. Inside the house, the two men encountered Richard in the foyer and Duane and Daniels in a back bedroom. One gunman shot Richard. He died from his wounds
that evening. The other gunman shot Duane, but he survived. Bluiett, Daniels, and Glasscock were left unharmed when the gunmen fled.
Defendant Detective Christine Mannina and several other detectives conducted interviews with the four surviving eyewitnesses on November 3 and 4. During these initial interviews, all four witnesses identified the perpetrators as black men wearing dark hooded sweatshirts, but none of the witnesses knew who the men were. The investigation made little progress until November 13, 2008, when there was a breakthrough.
Bluiett contacted Detective Mannina and told her that the man who shot Richard looked like a man he had seen on the social media website MySpace.com. He identified the man as Samuel Swavely. Five days later, Duane called Mannina and told her he recognized another man from a video on the internet as the person who shot him. Duane explained that after his mother had learned that Swavely was a possible suspect in Richard's murder, she looked at Swavely's MySpace page and came across a hyperlink to a music video. She showed Duane the video, and he recognized the man who shot him (who was not the same man Bluiett had identified as the man who shot and killed Richard).
The next day, Detective Mannina visited Duane Miller and watched the video herself. Duane repeated that the man in the video was the man who shot him. Mannina took a picture of the man in the video with the hope of identifying him later.
Three days later, on November 22, 2008, Mannina formally interviewed Duane Miller, Bluiett, Glasscock, and Daniels, each for a second time. Mannina was the only police officer present with the witnesses during the November 22 interviews. All of the interviews were conducted separately; the witnesses did not discuss their interviews with one another either beforehand or afterward.
Each witness identified Hart in the photo array as one of the people involved in the home invasion. Bluiett identified Hart as the man who pointed a gun at him and who shot Duane. Glasscock identified Hart as the man who told another attacker to shoot her if she moved while she was held captive. Daniels identified Hart as the man who shot Duane. And Duane himself identified Hart as the man who shot him.
After the four surviving witnesses identified Hart as one of the attackers, Mannina drafted a probable cause affidavit for his arrest in which she swore to the underlying facts. She met with prosecutor Denise Robinson to decide whether to move forward. Robinson and Mannina reviewed the affidavit and the accompanying case file. Robinson then met separately with Duane Miller, who confirmed that Hart was the man who shot him.
After meeting with Mannina and Duane, Robinson concluded there was sufficient evidence to arrest Hart for his involvement in the home invasion. Robinson approved Mannina's affidavit of probable cause, and the arrest warrant was sought and issued. Police arrested Hart on December 3, 2008. He was detained pending trial. Swavely was also arrested and charged, but he is not a part of this civil case.
In December 2009, a year after Hart's arrest and a week before Hart's and Swavely's trial was scheduled to start, Bluiett contacted the prosecutor's office and expressed reservations about his earlier identifications of Hart and Swavely. He said he was “pretty sure but not completely sure” Hart and Swavely were involved in the home invasion. Defendant Detectives Jeff Breedlove and Kevin Kelly re-interviewed Bluiett on December 11, 2009.
The detectives asked Bluiett about his earlier identifications. At one point, they asked him whether he signed the photo array with Swavely's picture in it. Bluiett said yes, but he explained: He added: The detectives asked Bluiett to explain, and he said:
Breedlove and Kelly then asked Bluiett whether he had ever told Mannina he was not completely sure of the identification. Bluiett said yes, explaining that he had told Mannina he was unsure about his identifications sometime earlier in the investigation when Mannina came to his house to follow-up on something. Critically, this conversation with Mannina occurred after Hart and Swavely had already been arrested. This is how Bluiett described that conversation:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. City of Peoria
...falsified Brooks’s statement to justify Coleman’s arrest when he already possessed an eyewitness identification. Cf. Hart v. Mannina , 798 F.3d 578, 587 (7th Cir. 2015) (an identification by a single eyewitness can support probable cause for arrest).Third, Coleman argues Rabe must have know......
-
Rivera v. Guevara
...¶¶ 85, 91, 92.Defendants analogize this record to the summary judgment record in a Fourth Amendment false arrest case, Hart v. Mannina , 798 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2015). Officers Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 17, ECF No. 304. After expressing some initial reluctance, four eyewitnesses identified th......
-
Gregory v. Fresno Cnty.
...under section 1983 would exist, it would be governed by state law. Cook v. Sheldon, 41 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 1994); Hart v. Mannina, 798 F.3d 578, 593 (7th Cir. 2015) Erikson v. Pawnee Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 263 F.3d 1151, 1155 n.5 (10th Cir. 2001). The essence of an abuse of process clai......
-
Tobey v. Chibucos
...as to city and police board where they were sued on a theory that they were liable for police officer’s conduct); Hart v. Mannina , 798 F.3d 578, 596 (7th Cir. 2015) (where court properly dismissed section 1983 claims against police officers, claims against supervisors also fail); Hamilton ......