Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches

• Decision Date: 18 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 91-4702,91-4702
• Parties: Monique Lavette LAMPKIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, et al., Defendants, Jim Vanover, Police Officer, and Keith Shotwell, Police Officer, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 430

7 F.3d 430

Monique Lavette LAMPKIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, et al., Defendants Jim Vanover, Police Officer, and Keith Shotwell, Police Officer, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 91-4702.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1993.

William S. Helfand, Hirsch, Glover, Robinson & Sheiness, Houston, TX, for defendants-appellants.

Curtis Bradley Stuckey, Stuckey & Garrigan, Nacogdoches, TX, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before JONES and WIENER, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE ¹, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity to two police officers of the City of Nacogdoches, Texas. ² The officers detained appellees Monique Lampkin and Richard Daniels for a period ranging somewhere from 12 to 30 minutes while they investigated whether Lampkin and Daniels might be connected with a threatened drive-by shooting. Lampkin contends that the officers smashed her VCR, and Daniels also contends that they hit his head on the car causing a lump and severe headaches. Questions

                of qualified immunity are presented at two levels:  whether the officers' apprehension and detention of appellees was justified as an arrest or an investigatory stop;  and whether the alleged personal and property injuries represented excessive force under the circumstances.   As the officers did not clearly seek qualified immunity concerning the damage to the VCR or excessive force allegedly used on Daniels, we do not comment on those claims.   We do hold that there are material fact issues in dispute concerning the basis for the officers' actions.   Those issues must be resolved so that it can be determined whether the officers effected a constitutionally sound investigatory stop or arrest of appellees and, if not, whether they were shielded by qualified immunity.   We have held that "if disputed factual issues material to summary judgment are present, the district court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of immunity is not appealable."  Feagley v. Waddill, 868 F.2d 1437 (5th Cir.1989);  see also, Johnson v. Odom, 910 F.2d 1273, 1277 (5th Cir.1990).   We therefore have no jurisdiction over the appeal and dismiss
                

I. BACKGROUND

On the evening of July 4, 1990, Plaintiffs-Appellees Lampkin and Daniels, residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, drove a few blocks from their home to visit Lampkin's mother, who also lived in Nacogdoches. ³ When the visit ended--approximately at midnight--Lampkin and Daniels drove home in their 1978 white Chevrolet Nova, which had a black vinyl top and gold trim. The drive was short, as the home in which Lampkin and Daniels cohabited was located only a few blocks from Lampkin's mother's home. That Daniels and Lampkin had not committed any crime on or before July 5, 1990, for which they would be subject to arrest, is undisputed.

While Lampkin and Daniels were driving back to their home, two Nacogdoches police officers, Jim Vanover and Mark Lamonte, each driving alone in a separate police car, began to follow them. When Daniels and Lampkin pulled into the driveway of their home and parked, the two police officers pulled their squad cars up to the entrance of the driveway from opposite directions, quickly exited, shielded themselves with their respective vehicles, and pointed their service revolvers at Daniels and Lampkin. The officers ordered the two to exit their car and proceed to the back of that vehicle with their hands raised. Within a matter of moments, other Nacogdoches police officers, including Officer Keith Shotwell, arrived on the scene. What transpired next is disputed.

The affidavits and pleadings submitted by Daniels and Lampkin state that, "for no reason," they were frisked, handcuffed, and placed in the back seats of separate police cars. Meanwhile, their car was searched by Officers Vanover and Shotwell. According to Lampkin and Daniels' affidavits, "we remained handcuffed and under arrest for fifteen to thirty minutes." During the course of the encounter, Vanover and Shotwell "tore up [Ms. Lampkin's] VCR and slammed Mr. Daniel's head against the car with great force, causing Mr. Daniels significant injury, including a lump on his head, and [Daniels] has complained of bad headaches." Lampkin and Daniels also stated in their affidavits that "[i]t seemed to us like the whole police force was at our house waiving guns at us. They would not even let us check the kids." In their joint complaint, Lampkin and Daniels alleged that Daniels suffered "extreme physical pain, injuries to [his] head, temporary disability, extreme mental pain and anguish, severe emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment." Ultimately, the police released Lampkin and Daniels at the site of that incident.

Officers Vanover and Shotwell's story--as recounted in their pleadings, affidavits, and deposition testimony, as well as in affidavits offered by other police officers--is considerably different. According to affidavits of two Scott Hamilton died during the afternoon of July 3, 1990. After Hamilton's death, his uncle informed Lufkin police that no retaliation would occur, but shortly thereafter Lufkin Police Lieutenant Alton Lenderman was informed by another Lufkin police officer ⁵ that the decedent's brother, Brian Hamilton, "was on his way to Nacogdoches and that he had left fifteen minutes" earlier. Lenderman's affidavit does not identify the source of Officer Parrott's information about Brian Hamilton. Hamilton was reported to be driving a blue and white 1978 Nova and carrying at least one handgun and a shotgun. Lieutenant Lenderman immediately relayed this information, including the name of the suspect, to the Nacogdoches Police Department.

                Lufkin, Texas 4 police officers, on July 1, 1990, Scott Hamilton, a black youth, was fatally shot during a gang-related fight in Lufkin.   The Lufkin police there became concerned that Hamilton's relatives or fellow gang members would avenge the shooting.   One Lufkin officer, Detective Rich Harrison, was informed by unnamed relatives of Scott Hamilton that "black youths" from Lufkin were planning to drive to Nacogdoches to commit a drive-by shooting of one or more black youths responsible for shooting Scott Hamilton.   No information was provided about when the shooting was supposed to occur, where in Nacogdoches it would occur, or who the victims would be.   Harrison also heard that the "youths" would possibly be driving a red Chevrolet Camaro, a silver Ford Ltd, or a blue and white 1978 Chevrolet Nova.   Harrison passed this information on to the Nacogdoches Police Department, which in turn relayed it to all of its officers
                

The affidavits and deposition testimony of Officers Vanover and Shotwell generally comport with the affidavits of the two Lufkin police officers, although they differ in certain significant respects. Vanover and Shotwell did not claim that they were told that an individual named Brian Hamilton was coming to Nacogdoches during the afternoon of July 3, 1990; neither did they claim that they were earlier informed that black "youths" were planning to commit a drive-by shooting. Rather, they simply stated that they were informed that black "males" were planning to perpetrate the crime. Vanover and Shotwell also claimed that they were specifically informed by Lufkin police that the drive-by shooting was scheduled to occur "late" July 4, 1990, or "early" July 5, 1990. The affidavits provided by the Lufkin police officers, however, did not state that they had ever specified when the shooting was supposed to occur, other than reporting that Brian Hamilton allegedly was driving to Nacogdoches on the afternoon of July 3, 1990. Vanover also stated in his affidavit that he was informed by Lufkin police that the suspects would be carrying "several semi-automatic pistols and a semi-automatic rifle". The affidavit from Lufkin Lieutenant Lenderman stated that Brian Hamilton was armed with "at least a handgun and a shotgun."

Officer Vanover's affidavit and deposition testimony recount that he was driving in his patrol car at 11:08 p.m. on July 4, 1990, when he noticed a car that he believed was a blue and white Nova which possibly could have been a 1978 model. ⁶ Because the car had tinted windows, Vanover could only make out that there were two black persons of undetermined gender and age riding in the car. Although he does not state the duration of the period that he followed the car, his affidavit indicates that he did so for as much as a few minutes. ⁷ During that time, Vanover radioed a police dispatcher and requested a registration check on the Nova's license plate number. Before the check could be completed, however, the Nova pulled into the driveway of a private residence. Officers Vanover and Lamonte, in separate patrol cars, pulled According to Officer Shotwell's affidavit and deposition testimony, he arrived at 11:04 p.m. ⁸ in a third patrol car after the initial stop-and-frisk was complete. According to Shotwell, while Vanover was explaining to Daniels and Lampkin why they had been stopped and frisked, he (Shotwell) glanced inside the Nova, either through an open window on the driver's side or--according to Vanover--through an open door of the car. At any rate, Shotwell states that he observed a white substance that he believed was "crack" cocaine on the passenger's seat. Before actually entering the Nova's passenger compartment to inspect further, he immediately reported to Vanover that he had discovered "crack" cocaine. Vanover proceeded to handcuff Daniels and place him in the back of his patrol car. Shotwell handcuffed Lampkin and placed her in his patrol car. Shotwell then searched inside the front compartment of the Nova and discovered that the "crack" was in fact a piece of mint candy. A bag of similar candies was discovered nearby. The officers immediately called off their search of the Nova...