Loomis v. Diddick

• Decision Date: 19 August 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:20-CV-1610
• Parties: KRYSTLE LOOMIS, Plaintiff v. JOSHUA DIDDICK, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

KRYSTLE LOOMIS, Plaintiff
v.
JOSHUA DIDDICK, Defendant

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1610

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 19, 2022

MEMORANDUM

Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff Krystle Loomis brings a civil rights claim against defendant Officer Joshua Diddick pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Officer Diddick moves for summary judgment on Loomis's claim. We will deny the motion.

I. Factual Background & Procedural History^[1]

On January 30, 2018, Loomis had a protracted encounter with Officer Diddick at a Dollar General in Montrose Borough, Susquehanna County. (See Doc. 32-1 at 4). The encounter began around noon when Officer Diddick activated his cruiser lights to initiate a traffic stop on a vehicle operated by Loomis. (See Doc. 32-1 at 4). After Diddick flashed his lights, Loomis pulled her vehicle into the parking lot of

1

Dollar General and exited her vehicle, unaware that the flashing lights were meant for her. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 11;^[2] see also Doc. 32-1 at 4; Doc. 32-2, Loomis Dep. 190:7191:12). Officer Diddick parked his cruiser, exited, and confronted Loomis as she was walking into Dollar General. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 13; Doc. 32-1 at 4; Doc. 32-3, Stanziale Dep. 66:16-71:22).

Why Officer Diddick's commenced the encounter is disputed. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 11; Doc. 40 ¶ 11). According to Officer Diddick's police report, he spotted Loomis driving with an inoperable taillight. (See Doc. 32-1 at 4). However, after Loomis pulled her car into the parking lot, Officer Diddick describes spotting “a small thin object” in Loomis's hand that was white in color and “appeared to be thinner in size th[a]n a cigarette,” i.e., a marijuana joint. (See id.; see also Doc. 32 ¶ 17). Loomis contends that her taillight was not inoperable and that Officer Diddick only invented the taillight justification midway through their encounter. (See Loomis Dep. 31:15-33:10, 182:7-183:14). According to Loomis's testimony, Officer Diddick repeatedly stated throughout their encounter that he pulled her over because he saw her smoking a “joint.” (See Loomis Dep. 73:18-20, 182:9-15, 188:14-18; see also

2

Doc. 32-1 at 6). Loomis vehemently denies smoking or possessing a joint at the time of the stop. (See Loomis Dep. 81:2-3, 84:11-12, 91:19-22, 182:2, 201:6-11, 210:3-10).

Whatever Officer Diddick's reason for initiating the encounter might have been, the parties agree Officer Diddick ordered Loomis to “get on the ground.” (See Doc. 32 ¶ 13; see also Loomis Dep. 36:1-4, 70:4-71:1). When Loomis inquired as to the reason she needed to get on the ground, Officer Diddick informed her that she “had drugs” and again ordered her on the ground. (See Doc. 32 ¶¶ 14-15; Loomis Dep. 71:15-22). Officer Diddick then forced Loomis onto the ground. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 16; Loomis Dep. 72:16-22, 95:6-8). Once on the ground, Loomis demanded a second officer be present. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 15; Loomis Dep. 72:19-73:10, 73:20-21). Officer Diddick ultimately allowed Loomis to stand up, ordered her to stay with her vehicle, and put in a request for a second officer. (See Loomis Dep. 72:19-73:10, 73:22-25; see also Doc. 32 ¶¶ 15-16).

At some point, Officer Diddick returned to Loomis and informed her that he was going to search her vehicle. (See Loomis Dep. 74:1-11). The factual basis for Officer Diddick's decision to search Loomis's vehicle is disputed. According to his police report, Officer Diddick observed, upon initially approaching Loomis's vehicle, “suspected marijuana residue” strewn across the dashboard, center console, and both front floor wells. (See Doc. 32-1 at 4). He claims that when he returned to Loomis's vehicle after addressing administrative matters in his own vehicle, he noticed Loomis had suspiciously cleaned the residue off the dashboard. (See id.) Loomis disputes the existence of any visible marijuana residue and flatly

3

denies ever cleaning anything off the dashboard. (See Loomis Dep. 81:8-14, 199:1021, 204:13-16, 206:22-207:12).

Eventually, a second officer, Jim Smith, arrived. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 17). Officer Smith informed Loomis that Officer Diddick had seen her smoking a joint and that he was going to join in searching her vehicle. (See id.; see also Loomis Dep. 74:111). Loomis's vehicle was packed with personal items because she was in the process of moving. (See Loomis Dep. 194:12-17, 194:20-195:13, 204:19, 220:11-221:8). The density of personal items in the vehicle resulted in a protracted search process that stretched out for approximately an hour. (See id. at 92:5-7, 157:22-158:6, 182:1923, 194:8-14, 221:6-8). The search produced a marijuana grinder, a small amount of marijuana, and some marijuana residue. (See Doc. 32 ¶¶ 5-7, 18). Officer Diddick additionally searched Loomis's purse and person. (See Loomis Dep. 193:24-194:11, 209:11-22). Officer Smith administered a sobriety test, which Loomis passed. (See Doc. 32 ¶ 26). None of the searches produced a marijuana joint. (See Doc. 32-1 at 45; Stanziale Dep. 23:4-20; Loomis Dep. 92:12-15, 108:4, 183:8-9, 205:5-6, 205:11-12, 220:21-23, 223:2-3).

While the vehicle search was ongoing, Officer Smith summoned a female deputy in the employ of the Susquehanna County Sheriff, Katherine...