Jonas v. Bd. Of Comm'rs Of Luna County
| Decision Date | 10 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 09-0091 JB/WPL.,CIV 09-0091 JB/WPL. |
| Citation | 699 F.Supp.2d 1284 |
| Parties | Joyce JONAS, Plaintiff,v.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LUNA COUNTY, Luna County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Sheriff Donnie Daniels, and Deputy Sheriff Don Hoolan, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael E. Mozes, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.
Erika E. Anderson, Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the County Defendants' Motion in Limine No. I: the Exclusion of Evidence at Trial Regarding Defendant Deputies' Use of Force in Prior and Subsequent, Unrelated Incidents, Police Standard Operating Procedures, Training and Less Intrusive Alternatives, filed February 25, 2010 (Doc. 55). The Court held a hearing on March 5, 2010. The primary issue is whether the Court should exclude, pre-trial, all policies found in the Manual of Operating Procedures for the Luna County Sheriff's Department. Plaintiff Joyce Jonas largely consented to the granting of this motion. With respect to the remaining issue, because the Court finds that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has created a high burden to prove admissibility of standard operating procedures, and Jonas has failed to meet that burden, the Court will grant the Defendants' motion in limine.
Jonas would like to present as evidence portions of a Manual of Operating Procedures written by Sheriff Raymond Cobos for the Luna County Sheriff's Department. The provisions she seeks to proffer that are relevant to this motion are these:
R. Cobos Manual of Operation Procedures: Luna County Sheriff's Department (Jan.2006).
On January 28, 2009, Jonas filed a complaint against the Board of Commissioners of Luna County, the Luna County Sheriff's Office, and two Luna County Sheriff's Office deputies, based on alleged actions by Defendants Donnie Daniels and Don Hoolan-the two named deputies. The Complaint asserted the following claims: (i) unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; (ii) use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (iii) false imprisonment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (iv) violation of the Fifth Amendment; (v) negligent supervision and training; (vi) violation of Jonas' liberty interests and right to substantive due process; (vii) malicious abuse of process; and (viii) violations of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. See Complaint for Damages From Violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights, the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, and New Mexico Common Law, filed January 28, 2009 (Doc. 1). Since that time, several of the claims have dropped out, but the claims about which this motion seems most relevant-unlawful seizure and excessive force-are still a part of the case. See Unopposed Motion for Order Dismissing Certain Claims, filed February 22, 2010 (Doc. 49); Stipulated Order Dismissing Certain Claims, filed February 26, 2010 (Doc. 59); Unopposed Motion for Order Dismissing Certain Claim, filed March 3, 2010 (Doc. 64).
The Defendants filed this motion on February 25, 2010. Jonas did not file a response. At the hearing, Michael Mozes, Jonas' counsel, consented to the Court granting the motion in large part. See Transcript of Hearing at 8:18-9:21 (taken March 5, 2010)(“Tr.”)(Mozes).1 The only evidence to which Jonas opposes the motion are passages from the Manual of Operating Procedures for the Luna County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Mozes argued that, because those passages do not set forth policies or procedures relating to the use of force, the general prohibition on introducing standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) into evidence did not apply. See Tr. at 12:23-13:9 (Mozes). Ms. Anderson disagreed, arguing that the prohibition on SOP evidence applied equally to all SOPs. See Tr. at 10:3-12:16 (Court, Anderson). She stated that the Defendants would not agree to admission of the provisions that Mr. Mozes provided, but stated that she believed that Jonas would be able to get substantially the same evidence in the form of testimony from Daniels and Hoolan. See Tr. at 10:13-17 (Anderson)( ). The Court agreed to research the issue whether the SOPs unrelated to excessive use of force should also be excluded as evidence in a civil-rights action such as this one.
Rule 404(a) provides that “[e]vidence of a person's character or trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” Fed.R.Evid. 404(a). Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1044 (10th Cir.1986) ().
Moreover, rule 404(b) states that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). To admit other crimes, wrongs, or acts under rule 404(b), the proponent must provide a clear and logical connection between the alleged earlier offense or misconduct, and the case being tried. See United States v. Hogue, 827 F.2d 660, 662 (10th Cir.1987) (). A party introducing 404(b) evidence must show that: (i) the evidence is introduced for a proper purpose; (ii) the evidence is relevant; (iii) the evidence has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice; and (iv) the party introducing the evidence must precisely articulate the purpose for which the evidence is offered. See United States v. Hardwell, 80 F.3d 1471, 1488 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988)).
The Tenth Circuit has found that evidence of prior use of force fails to satisfy the four-factor test required to introduce 404(b) evidence. See Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 402 F.3d 1039, 1046 (10th Cir.2005) (); Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1167-68 (10th Cir.2005) (). In Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, the Tenth Circuit examined the admissibility of prior decisions of defendant Andrew Lehocky, a K-9 officer, to use his police service dog in cases which were unrelated to the plaintiff's claim. See 402 F.3d at 1046. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Honorable William P. Johnson, United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico, to exclude evidence of “other incidents in which arrestees claimed [the defendant] used excessive force in deploying [the police service dog] Bart.” Id. at 1046. The plaintiff in that case had argued that these other incidents demonstrated absence of mistake as well as modus operandi and contended that the district court should admit the prior incidents under rule 404(b). See 402 F.3d at 1046. Concluding that the evidence was not offered for a proper purpose, and in upholding the district court's decision to exclude these prior incidents, the Tenth Circuit stated and explained that:
Although [the plaintiff] argues that inquiry into these other incidents should have been permitted to show absence of mistake...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. Velasquez
...constitutional rights, because they are not relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis. See Jonas v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Luna Cty., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1299 (D.N.M. 2010) (Browning, J.).Next, drawing from the 911 Call and the Defendants’ lapel camera recordings a factual record which the Cou......
-
O'Farrell v. Bd. of Comm'rs for the Cnty. of Bernalillo
...Fourth Amendment does not require an officer to use the least or a less forceful alternative." Jonas v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Luna Cty., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1296 (D.N.M. 2010) (Browning, J.). See, e.g., Blossom v. Yarbrough, 429 F.3d 963, 968 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d......
-
Tanner v. San Juan Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...the Fourth Amendment does not require an officer to use the least or a less forceful alternative.” Jonas v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Luna Cnty., 699 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1296 (D.N.M.2010)(Browning, J.). See, e.g., Blossom v. Yarbrough, 429 F.3d 963, 968 (10th Cir.) (quoting Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d at ......
-
Mata ex rel. J.A.M. v. City of Farmington
...did not follow the FPD's or other generally accepted SOPs and police training. As the Court stated in Jonas v. Board of Commissioners of Luna County, 699 F.Supp.2d 1284 (D.N.M.2010): “The clearly established law also does not permit a plaintiff to establish a constitutional violation with e......