Higdon v. Wells County Sheriff's Office
| Citation | 426 F.Supp.2d 854 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:04-CV-064WCL.,1:04-CV-064WCL. |
| Parties | Dewayne HIGDON, Plaintiff, v. WELLS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Bluffton Police Department, Ryan Mounsey, Randy Steele, Greg Steele, Kyle Randall, and Brent Archbold, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Robert O. Vegeler, Vegeler Law Office LLC, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.
Kenneth A. Collier-Magar, Liberty L. Roberts, Collier-Magar & Roberts PC, Indianapolis, IN, Andrew S. Williams, Linda A. Polley, Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendants.
Before the Court are two Motions for Summary Judgment filed by defendants. The first motion was filed on November 7, 2005 by defendants Bluffton Police Department, Greg Steele, Kyle Randall, Brent Archbold, and Farrell Swindell (collectively, "the Bluffton Officers"). A second summary judgment motion was filed on November 16, 2005 by the Wells County Sheriffs Office, Ryan Mounsey, and Randy Steele (collectively, "the County Defendants"). Plaintiff, Dewayne Higdon ("Higdon"), responded jointly to the motions on December 19, 2005 to which the Bluffton Defendants replied on January 3, 2006 and the County Defendants replied on January 13, 2006. For the following reasons, the defendants' motions will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
On February 20, 2004 at approximately 4:50 p.m. Deputy Randy Steele ("Steele") of the Wells County Sheriffs Department served a felony arrest warrant for Higdon at 201 East Townley Street, Bluffton, Indiana. Higdon resided at that home and paid rent to its owner, Keith Archbold ("Archbold")1, who also resided there.
When Deputy Steele arrived at Higdon's residence, he approached the back door of the home which was situated on a wooden deck and rang the doorbell. The back door opens into an enclosed back porch that is being converted into a utility room. A black curtain separated the back porch/utility room from the interior of the house.
Archbold answered the back door and Deputy Steele indicated that he was looking for Higdon. Archbold told Deputy Steele that Higdon was inside the home and told him to wait outside the back door while he located Higdon. (Archbold Dep. at 51).
A few minutes later, Higdon arrived at the door and Deputy Steele confirmed his identity. Deputy Steele informed Higdon that he was under arrest. Higdon responded "okay" and requested to put on his shoes which were within a few feet of the back door. At that point, Deputy Steele entered the residence and walked past Higdon into the middle room of the home and eventually into the kitchen. (Higdon Dep. at 34; Archbold Dep. at 54). Archbold then asked Deputy Steele what he was doing and Deputy Steel responded that he could smell marijuana while standing at the back door and thus, he entered to investigate further. (Archbold Dep. at 54). Both Archbold and Higdon told Deputy Steele he had no permission to enter he house and told him to leave. Deputy Steele then handcuffed Higdon and told him to sit at the kitchen table. According to Higdon's testimony, "Mr. Steele stood in the kitchen with me — or stood in the kitchen area where I was sitting, I believe, the whole time." (Higdon Dep. at 34-35). Deputy Steele then radioed for backup. (Archbold Dep. at 55).
While this was ongoing, officers from the Bluffton Police Department began arriving on the scene. At 4:54 p.m., Bluffton Police Detective Kyle Randall arrived at Higdon's residence. Within the next several minutes, other Bluffton Police Officers, including defendant Officers Swindell and Brent Archbold ("Officer B. Archbold"), arrived at the residence as well.
When the Bluffton Officers entered the residence, they too averred that they smelled the odor of marijuana and, in addition, they observed what they believed to be several burnt marijuana cigarettes, a small amount of a green leafy substance believed to be marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, including an aluminum cylinder, all in plain view on a table in the living room. (B. Archbold Aff. at ¶ 9, Swindell Aff. at ¶ 9, Randall Aff. at ¶ 9). During this time both Archbold and Higdon (still handcuffed) were sitting in chairs in the kitchen.
From this point onward, there exist two different versions of the facts. According to the Defendants, Deputy Steele began calling to obtain a search warrant. Because of the unavailability of a judge, he was unable to immediately obtain a search warrant but was advised by the Wells County Prosecutor that the officers could seize contraband in plain view. Following this advice, the Bluffton officers allege that they seized several burnt marijuana cigarettes a small leafy substance believed to be marijuana and a pair of hemostats with burnt ends.2 Other than to seize the drug-related items, the officers aver that they did not remove any other items from the residence nor did they conduct a full-scale search of the residence. Further, they aver that they saw no Bluffton Officer or officers of the Wells County Department, conduct a search of the residence.
In contrast to the Defendants version of the above facts, there is testimony in the record from Higdon and Archbold that the officers on the scene did more than observe objects in plain view and seize them. According to Higdon and Archbold, the officers conducted a full scale search of the residence without a warrant. (Higdon Aff. ¶ 38). In his deposition, Higdon described the events as follows:
Other Officers had came into the house. I know there was an Officer Archbold, I know that — in what sequence, who came in where, I don't know. I saw Kyle Randall, I saw Mounsey, Officer — Deputy Sheriff Mounsey, I saw Officer Swindell, and I believe it was Officer Mounsey go toward the front of the house, toward the living room. And, there again, I am not 100 percent sure, because it could have been the other Officer Steele [Officer Greg Steele] and it could have been the Archbold officer, I don't know. Two officers went into the front. I was watching them through the doorway. Officer Steele stood in the doorway, tried to block my view, and then when . . . Archbold would look from the other side, he would try to block his view, but we could clearly see that they were going through things inside the house. They went into — I seen them open my dresser drawers, I asked them what they were doing in my room, I explained to them that I didn't want them going through my property. They said they had the right to do what they want because they had a warrant . . . Officer [B.] Archbold arrived, and I believe Steele walked me to the back door, out onto the back porch, where he then handed me over to Archbold. [Officer B.] Archbold put me in a car, and we left. I went in there, straight into the jail, posted the bond and came back. When I came back, I saw Officer Randall, Officer Steele, and one other officer, and I believe it could have been Mounsey, looking on the workbench and into vehicles that were sitting in the driveway and inside the garage when I walked up.
(Id. at 34-36).
Archbold testified similarly to Higdon and stated that Officers Greg Steele,3 Randy Steele and B. Archbold "just started looking around in the house." (Archbold Dep. at 18). According to Archbold he (Id. at 19).
At some point, Higdon was taken to jail, posted bond, and returned to the house. Higdon and Archbold testified that upon Higdon's return from jail, the Defendant officers were still at the residence searching through the garage. It is unclear whether officers were still inside the home. Higdon contends that the officers were present at the residence for approximately four hours, although the Defendants appear to contend that they were present for only 2 hours.
Approximately two hours prior to Deputy Steele's arrival to execute the arrest warrant, Higdon's brother had dropped the home and given him $2,000 in cash which Higdon placed in his dresser in his bedroom. After his arrest, Higdon claims that this money was missing and that one of the defendants must have removed it. However, Higdon has not identified which, if any, of the officers he believes to have taken this money nor did he witness any the defendants removing the money from the premises. Moreover, all of the defendants deny that money was removed from the residence.
Based upon these facts, Higdon filed suit claiming that the actions of the defendants infringed upon his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendants have filed their motions for summary judgment arguing that Higdon cannot establish a constitutional violation and, even if he did, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. After review of the standards governing summary judgment, these contentions will be considered.
Summary judgment is proper "if pleadings, depositions, answers to inter rogatories, and admissions is on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). However, Rule 56(c) is riot a requirement that the moving party negate his opponent's claim. Fitzpatrick v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 916 F.2d 1254. 1256 (7th Cir.1990). A scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is not sufficient to successfully oppose summary judgment; "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendricks v. City of Griffith
...the plaintiff must demonstrate that each individual defendant violated his or her constitutional rights. Higdon v. Wells Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 426 F.Supp.2d 854, 863 (N.D. Ind. 2006). Allegations of actual knowledge or acquiescence, personal direction, or acting or failing "to act with a ......