In re Garcia
| Decision Date | 03 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 15-00471 RB/KK,CIV 15-00471 RB/KK |
| Parties | JOSE V. GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. CLARENCE DAVIS, LAWRENCE MONTANO, and FRANK V. CHAVEZ, JR., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Probable Cause to Arrest Jose Garcia, filed on January 19, 2016 (Doc. 50) and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on All Counts of the Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 64). Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Having considered the submissions of counsel and relevant law, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion and GRANT IN PART Defendants' motion.
Plaintiff was arrested on October 19, 2012 as part of a "buy-bust" operation that began near and ultimately ended on Plaintiff's property in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The state court trial judge found the officers did not have probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest, and the State later dismissed the criminal case against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 32, 35.)
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in this Court alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pursuant to Bivens v. VI Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for (1) unreasonable seizure and detention (arrest without probable cause) in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (2) malicious prosecution and related denials of due process in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights; (3) unreasonable search of his home in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (4) unreasonable search of his person in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; and (5) unreasonable search of his cell phone in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id. ¶¶ 40-69.) The parties filed their cross motions for summary judgment and later stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of Officer Lawrence Montano. (Docs. 50, 51, 64, 65.)
In evaluating the cross motions for summary judgment, "the Court will 'consider all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the parties opposing summary judgment.'" AT & T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1169, 1172 (D.N.M. 2015), aff'd, No. 15-2069, 2016 WL 873398 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2016) (quoting Ron Peterson Firearms, LLC v. Jones, 760 F.3d 1147, 1154 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted)). The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.1
Defendant Davis, a task force officer with the Albuquerque Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Region 1 Drug Task Force, served as the for a buy-bust operation executed on October 19, 2012. (Docs. 51 ¶ 2; 51-A at 56:13-19; 54-2 at 35:1-5; 54-3 at 4:8-23.) Defendants Davis and Chavez were acting at all relevant times under color of federal law as Task Force Officers for the DEA. (Docs. 64 ¶ 1; 64-A at 4:16-18, 67:8-13, 104:22; 64-B at 8:6-14, 16:1-3, 82:19-21; 66 at 2, ¶ 1.) Defendant Davis had an established relationship with a cooperating source (CS), a person who is paid to infiltrate drug-trafficking organizations. (Doc. 51-A at 55:3-9.) The CS approached Defendant Davis with knowledge of an individual named Juan Ramon Prieto who had bragged about being able to get large quantities of cocaine. (Id. at 55:17-24.) The CS and Prieto had a series of conversations, and Prieto ultimately gave the CS the name and phone number of someone named Lazaro Quintero-Rosas (Quintero). (Id. at 56:10-12, 59:1-14.)
Defendant Davis instructed the CS to call Quintero. (Id. at 59:18-20.) Quintero and the CS negotiated a transaction involving the sale of a kilogram of cocaine for a price of $30,000. (Doc. 54-1 at 10:8-17.) There is no evidence that the CS mentioned Plaintiff's name during the conversations with Defendant Davis, Prieto, or Quintero prior to the transaction. (Doc. 34 (Answer) ¶ 18; Doc. 51-A at 55:15-56:9, 59:7-9.) Quintero asked the CS to meet him to conduct the transaction at 314 Mitchell, the address for a commercial lot in Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12; Doc. 51-A at 59:18-22.) Plaintiff owned the property at 314 Mitchell, which is a fenced and gated commercial lot comprised of a building Plaintiff owned and used to store tools (he had previously operated a business out of the building),2 a residential trailer where helived, and other space he rented out to various individuals. Quintero rented the building at 314 Mitchell from Plaintiff.
Defendant Davis did not want to conduct the transaction at 314 Mitchell; he believed the cul-de-sac outside of the property would be difficult for the officers to secure. (Docs. 54-4 ¶ 4; 64-A at 39:20-40:9.) He had safety concerns, because agents surveilling the location prior to the transaction advised him they had seen other individuals going and coming from the building. (Docs. 54-1 at 18:8-16; 54-4 ¶ 4; 64-A at 41:8-11.) Defendant Davis had experience3 conducting investigations in that area of town, and he knew it to be a high crime area due to drugs and violence. (Docs. 54-1 at 18:17-25; 54-4 ¶ 5; 64-A at 41:13-24, 87:4-8.) In fact, another DEA agent informed Defendant Davis that he and other DEA officials had been to that building during a previous drug investigation. (Doc. 64-A at 41:13-17, 49:13-14, 52:11-22.) Finally, Defendant Davis knew that drug traffickers often protect their drugs with firearms, and there was a serious danger of violence toward law enforcement personnel at the transaction due to the large quantity of drugs and money present. (Docs. 54-4 ¶ 6; 64-A at 88:8-16.)
Despite the CS's attempts to move the transaction to a public parking lot or similar area (Docs. 51-D at 55:2-5; 54-3 at 85:14-22; 64-A at 40:5-24), Quintero would only agree to the transaction at 314 Mitchell (Docs. 51-D at 55:2-10; 54-3 at 40:10-25, 85:14-86:1). Once the CS arrived at the street in front of the building, the CS continued to ask to move the transaction awayfrom that location, but Quintero encouraged the CS to move the transaction inside of the building at 314 Mitchell, assuring the CS that only he and his "boss" were present. (Docs. 51-D at 55:9-12; 64-A at 41:4-6, 85:2—86:1.)
At approximately 1:15 p.m. on October 19, 2012, Quintero attempted to sell a kilogram of cocaine to the CS on the street outside of Plaintiff's building at 314 Mitchell. (Answer ¶ 12.) Officer Montano4 conducted aerial surveillance during the transaction, and several other officers, including Defendant Davis, were on the ground and in radio contact with Officer Montano At some point during the transaction, Officer Montano communicated to the other officers that there was an individual (whom we now know was Plaintiff) at the back door or "bay door" of the building. (Docs. 54-1 at 131:4-6; 54-3 at 43:5-11.) Officer Montano may have referred to the individual as a lookout. (Doc. 54-1 at 131:7-8.) While the bay door was on the south side of the building, opposite of where the transaction took place on the "east/north" side of the building (Doc. 51-C at 21:5-11), Defendant Davis—who could not see Plaintiff or the property at that time—assumed Plaintiff was watching the transaction (Doc. 51-A at 77:4-17). Officer Montano later admitted that it would likely have been impossible for Plaintiff to have seen the transaction because he was on the opposite side of the building from the transaction, and there were no doors or windows Plaintiff could have seen through. There is no testimony, however, that Officer Montano, Defendant Davis, or any other officer was aware of this at the time of the transaction. They were working under the assumption that Plaintiff was acting as a lookout. (Docs. 51-A at 77:6-12; 51-C at 21:5-15; 54-1 at 131:7-8.)
At some point during the transaction, a "bust signal" was given, and law enforcement personnel drove to the location to interrupt the transaction. (Docs. 54-5 at 80:1-5; 66-7 at 23:19-25.) When the DEA agents and Task Force Officers attempted to arrest Quintero on the street near 314 Mitchell, Quintero fled into Plaintiff's building and tossed the cocaine into the bed of a pickup truck Plaintiff owned. (Answer ¶ 16; Docs. 66-1 at 13:10-14:2; 66-3 at 4:3-9; 66-8 at 2 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff asserts that certain unidentified officers entered the building, pointed their weapons at him, and asked him to get on the ground. (Doc. 66-2 at 17:17-18:1.) Plaintiff testified that he did not go to the ground because he did not know what was going on; consequently, an unidentified officer grabbed Plaintiff by his neck and put him on his knees. (Id. at 17:19-18:10.) Officers handcuffed and detained both Quintero and Plaintiff, but it is not clear from the record who handcuffed Plaintiff; Defendant Davis testified he cannot remember whether he handcuffed Plaintiff or Quintero. Defendant Chavez did not participate in the initial decision to detain Plaintiff; by the time he arrived at the building, both men were already handcuffed. (Docs. 54-5 at 80:7-8; 64-B at 80:9-12.)
Quintero admitted to Defendants Davis and Chavez5 that he had attempted to sell the cocaine to the CS, but Quintero did not admit to ownership of the cocaine. (Docs. 64-A at 42:22-23; 66-3 at 1:5-6, 3:25-4:25, 5:36-42.) Quintero identified Plaintiff as the owner of the building and indicated that he (Quintero) worked at the building doing "mechanical things." (Doc. 66-3 at 5:16-30, 6:30-7:5; see also Doc. 51-D at 52:5-10.) Quintero never verbally implicated Plaintiffas being involved in the transaction; when Defendant Davis asked Quintero if Pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial