Maples v. Vollmer, CIV 12-0294 JB/RHS
| Decision Date | 31 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 12-0294 JB/RHS,CIV 12-0294 JB/RHS |
| Parties | JUSTIN MAPLES, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW VOLLMER, an Officer of the Albuquerque Police Department, Individually, DAVID FOX, an Officer of the Albuquerque Police Department, Individually, CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a municipality organized under the laws of the State of New Mexico, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4: Exclusion of Testimony and Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Prior Criminal History, filed February 28, 2013 (Doc. 35)("Motion in Limine"). The Court held a hearing on March 5, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should prohibit the defendants from inquiring into Plaintiff Justin Maples' criminal history at the trial. The Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion in Limine. That Maples has been arrested and handcuffed in the past, and the number of times he has been handcuffed and arrested, is relevant to his assertion that he did not know he was supposed to stop when Defendants Matthew Vollmer and David Fox (the "Individual Defendants") ordered him to do so, and is also relevant to his assertion that he ran because his experiences in the past caused him to believe that the officers would not listen to his explanation why Sarah Lane called police. As all of these past encounters with law enforcement involvedAlbuquerque Police ("APD") officers, the number of incidents and that it was APD who arrested him is also admissible to show his bias against the Defendants in this case. Additionally, whether Maples alleged that officers used excessive force in the past is relevant to whether and why he contends Fox's force was excessive. Because Vollmer was previously called to 1111 Major Avenue Northwest, Albuquerque, New Mexico, the house at which the underlying incident took place, and encountered Maples upon that call, evidence of Vollmer's knowledge about Maples' criminal conduct is relevant to and highly probative of Maples' Fourth Amendment claims, and is thus admissible. Substantial evidence about the nature of his past arrests, however, becomes unfairly prejudicial to Maples. The Court will thus allow Vollmer to testify as to his knowledge about Maples' criminal history derived from encounters with Maples, and will allow the Defendants to inquire into whether Maples has been handcuffed in the past, whether he has been arrested in the past, the number of times that he has been arrested, whether it was APD that executed those arrests, and whether he has alleged that officers used excessive force in any of those past incidents, but will allow no further discussion of the nature of Maples' past arrests. If, however, Maples opens the door for admission of further relevant information about his criminal history by adhering to his decision to pursue emotional-distress damages at trial, the Court will allow the Defendants to bring out the circumstances in two probative prior incidents so that the Defendants can use those incidents to provide context in rebutting Maples' alleged emotional-distress damages.
On January 26, 2010, Vollmer and Fox, APD officers, were dispatched to 1111 Major, Maples' residence, because of a 911 call made by Sarah Lane, the daughter of Maples'then-boyfriend. See Complaint for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus ¶ 12, at 3, filed in state court on January 26, 2012, filed in federal court March 22, 2012 (Doc. 1-1)("Complaint"). Maples was standing in his front yard when the officers arrived and tried to walk away from them. See id. ¶¶ 13-14, at 3. Vollmer and Fox chased after Maples, and Maples then fled from the officers. See id. ¶¶ 17-18, at 3. Vollmer and/or Fox tackled Maples when they caught up to him. See id. ¶ 19, at 3. Maples alleges that Vollmer and Fox used "excessive and unnecessary force" against him, id. ¶ 20, at 4, and "caused him to suffer damages," id. ¶ 21, at 7. Vollmer placed Maples in handcuffs, arrested him, transported him to the prisoner transport center, and booked him. See Affidavit of Matthew Vollmer ¶¶ 16-17, at 3, filed December 20, 2012 (Doc. 19-1).
APD officers had arrested Maples at least fifteen times before this incident. See Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4: Exclusion of Testimony and Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's Prior Criminal History, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53)("MIL Response"). At the time of Maples' arrest, there was a hazard alert placed on the 911 call Computer-Aided Dispatch ("CAD") report, indicating to Vollmer and Fox that there had been prior police response to 1111 Major for violence and/or suicidal behavior. See Premise Information for 1111 Major Av NW, Alb at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-1). Also, Vollmer had been dispatched to 1111 Major once before the January 26, 2010, incident, in response to allegations that Maples was causing a disturbance at the residence, including exhibiting violent and/or suicidal behavior. See APD Report, Case No. 07-106432 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-2). In addition, Maples has had numerous encounters with police, including six incidents where he allegedly fled from police officers, and one incident in which he alleged police brutality.See APD Report No. 04-91362 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-3); APD Report No. 04-109248 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-5); APD Report No. 04-130413 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-6); APD Report No. 05-44552 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-7); APD Report No. 05-38158 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-8); APD Report No. 05-80526 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-9); APD Report No. 05-88170 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-10); APD Report No. 05-118271 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-11); APD Report No. 06-51814 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-12); APD Report No. 07-94444 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-13); APD Report No. 08-35438 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-14), APD Report No. 090062171 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-15), APD Report No. 090116927 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-16), APD Report No. 090116957 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-17), APD Report No. 100020847 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-18); APD Report No. 100041244 at 1, filed March 4, 2013 (Doc. 53-19).
Maples instituted this lawsuit in state court on January 26, 2012, and the Defendants removed the case to this federal court on March, 22, 2012. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). Maples alleges that Defendants Vollmer, Fox, and the City of Albuquerque violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force in arresting him on January 26, 2010, at 1111 Major, and falsely imprisoning him following his arrest. Maples states that the "City of Albuquerque is sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages under a theory of municipal liability for failure to adequately train [sic] supervise Defendant Matthew Vollmer and/or Defendant D. Fox and for its customs, policies, and/or practices." Complaint ¶ 3, at 2. Maples also sues the City of Albuquerque "under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act[, N.M.S.A. 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -30("NMTCA"),] . . . for damages under a theory of respondeat superior." Complaint ¶ 4, at 2. Maples states that "[t]his is a civil action for monetary damages, arising from Plaintiff's claims that he was illegally arrested, illegally imprisoned, suffered excessive force, and was otherwise wronged by Defendants Matthew Vollmer and D. Fox . . . ." Complaint ¶ 10, at 3. Maples alleges nine counts against the City of Albuquerque pursuant to the NMTCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Complaint ¶¶ 22-72, at 4-11.
On February 28, 2013, Maples filed this Motion in Limine, asking that, pursuant to rules 402, 403, 404, 608, and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, "the Defendants and their witnesses be prohibited by Court Order from disclosing to the jury, directly or indirectly, any evidence, argument, opinion, or other testimony concerning, Plaintiff's prior criminal history." Motion in Limine at 1. Maples anticipates that the Defendants will seek to introduce testimony about his criminal history, which includes "arrests arising out of domestic dispute and driving while intoxicated." Motion in Limine at 1. According to Maples he has not been convicted of a felony or a crime of dishonesty. See Motion in Limine at 1-2. Maples asserts that he believes the Defendants will likely introduce this evidence of his criminal history to impeach him and to show that his emotional damages are limited, because he has previously been arrested and incarcerated. See Motion in Limine at 2. He contends that the danger of unfair prejudice to him that introduction of his criminal history has substantially outweighs any probative value this evidence has on these two issues. See Motion in Limine at 3. Maples argues that, with regard to the issue whether his prior arrests lessen his emotional distress damages claims, the arrest here is substantially more troubling, because he was arrested from the home in which he resided. See Motion in Limine at 4 (citing Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, Inc., No. CIV 07-0591 JB/RHS, 2009WL 1325440 (D.N.M. Apr. 6, 2009)(Browning, J.)). He thus asks the Court to exclude "all evidence, testimony, or argument regarding [his] criminal history." Motion in Limine at 5.
On March 4, 2013, the Defendants filed their MIL Response. The Defendants assert that Maples' prior criminal convictions and his past encounters with police not ending in conviction are "probative of (1) Defendants' defense against Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims; (2) Plaintiff's bias against law enforcement; (3) Plaintiff's lack of credibility; and (4) Plaintiff's claim for damages." MIL Response at 1-2. The Defendants assert that the evidence is also admissible under rules 404(b) and 406. The Defendants assert that Maples' past encounters with law enforcement at 1111 Major, even if they did not result in...
To continue reading
Request your trial