Mears v. McCulley
| Decision Date | 19 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. CV–09–S–2540–NE. |
| Citation | Mears v. McCulley, 881 F.Supp.2d 1305 (N.D. Ala. 2012) |
| Parties | Jacob O'Neal MEARS, Plaintiff, v. Brett McCULLEY, and City of Huntsville, Alabama, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James C. Alison, Attorney at Law, Huntsville, AL, for Plaintiff.
C. Gregory Burgess, Michael L. Fees, Allison B. Chandler, Fees & Burgess PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants.
Jacob O'Neal Mears commenced this action against the City of Huntsville and one of its police officers, Brett McCulley, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama.Based upon the fact that plaintiff's state-court complaint appeared to assert at least two claims based upon the United States Constitution,1defendants timely filed notice of their intent to remove the action to this court based upon federal question jurisdiction.See28 U.S.C. §§ 1441,1446.
The case now is before the court on defendants' motions to enter summary judgment in their favor on all claims alleged in plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint,2 which asserts six claims against Officer McCulley—three of which are based upon the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 19833—and seven claims against the City of Huntsville, four of which are based upon the Fourth and FourteenthAmendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4
Upon consideration of the pleadings, briefs, and evidentiary submissions, the court concludes, for the reasons stated in the remainder of this opinion, that both motions for summary judgment are due to be granted.
A white male entered the Regions Bank branch located at 2015 Sparkman Drive in Huntsville, Alabama, at 9:50 a.m. on November 26, 2008, and slid a note in front of bank teller Jermaine Edwards that read: 5Edwards gave the robber $4,352 in United States currency, and he fled the scene.6
Officers from the Huntsville Police Department, including defendantBrett McCulley, responded to the bank's alarm.The bank teller gave a verbal and written statement describing the perpetrator as a white male in his mid–30s, approximately 6'2? tall, and wearing a blue jacket and baseball cap.7
Sherry and William Johnson are the aunt and uncle of plaintiff, Jacob Mears.They viewed a television news broadcast that included coverage of the bank robbery that had occurred earlier in the day.A photograph of the robber taken by the bank's surveillance camera was included in the broadcast.The Johnsons remarked to one another that the perpetrator resembled Sherry Johnson's nephew.8Utilizing a feature on their television set that allowed live broadcasts to be recorded and “rewound,” the Johnsons viewed the news story several more times.9Eventually, William Johnson telephoned the Huntsville Police Department and spoke with a dispatcher.10He said: 11Johnson provided his name and telephone number, and the dispatcher said that she would have a police officer contact him.12The dispatcher conveyed the substance of William Johnson's report to defendantBrett McCulley, who immediately returned the call and arranged to meet both Johnsons in the parking lot of a school near their home.13
When Officer McCulley arrived at the school, he first showed the Johnsons a photograph of plaintiff.(The photograph contained identifying information below the image, but the record is unclear as to whether the photograph was a “mug shot,” or a driver's license photograph of plaintiff.)Both Sherry and William Johnson identified the individual depicted in the photograph as Sherry's nephew.Officer McCulley then showed the Johnsons a photograph snapped by the bank's surveillance camera.14William Johnson stated that he was not certain that the person depicted in the surveillance photograph was their nephew, but he resembled plaintiff.15Specifically, he said that he“wasn't 50 percent sure ... fifty to seventy-five percent sure maybe” that plaintiff was the perpetrator.16He also stated that the clothing worn by the robbery suspect “looks like about what style [plaintiff would] wear.”17In like manner, Sherry Johnson said that she was not certain that the person depicted in the bank surveillance photographs was her nephew, but agreed with her husband that the suspect looked “a lot similar” to Jacob Mears.18
Officer McCulley returned to his office, where he determined that plaintiff's home address was in Limestone County, Alabama.He also discovered that plaintiff previously had been convicted of armed robbery: he had pled guilty in February of 2001 to a charge of robbery in the second degree, for robbing a grocery store while armed with a knife.19
Officer McCulley then contacted the Limestone County Sheriff's Office, and arranged for two deputies to meet him at a location in Athens, Alabama.McCulley arrived in his unmarked automobile, accompanied by two City of Huntsville uniformed patrol officers driving a marked police cruiser.They met Lieutenant Jay Stinnett and Deputy Jonathan Hinton of the Limestone County Sheriff's Office at a golf course outside Athens at 7:35 p.m. Lieutenant Stinnett and Deputy Hinton were in two marked patrol cars.20
Officer McCulley informed Lieutenant Stinnett and Deputy Hinton that Jacob O'Neal Mears was a suspect in the Huntsville bank robbery that had occurred earlier that day because Mears's uncle had seen the surveillance-camera photograph of the perpetrator broadcast during a television news account of the robbery, and telephoned police to say that it was his wife's nephew.21McCulley showed Stinnet and Hinton a photograph taken by the bank's surveillance camera, and asked whether they recognized the perpetrator.Lieutenant Stinnett, who knew plaintiff from booking him into the Limestone County Jail during a period that Stinnett had worked as a jailer, said that the individual in the photograph looked like Mears.Deputy Hinton, who knew plaintiff from living and working in the community in which plaintiff resided, agreed.22
The five officers—Officer McCulley, the two Huntsville uniformed police officers, Lieutenant Stinnett, and Deputy Hinton—proceeded to plaintiff's home in Limestone County, outside the corporate limits of the City of Huntsville.They arrived about 7:45 p.m. Plaintiff was at home with his long-time girlfriend (and, later, wife), Bridget Gatlin, and their two children.23He was seated in the living-room at the front of the house, watching television.The front-entrance to the residence consisted of a glass exterior door and a solid interior door.The solid door was open, allowing persons outside to see into the house, and vice-versa.24When plaintiff saw the law enforcement vehicles arrive and park in the driveway and along the street in front of his house,25he ran towardthe back of the house, and hid in the laundry room.While running, he instructed Gatlin to tell the officers that he was not home.26
Officer McCulley looked through the glass door as he approached the house, and saw plaintiff run to the back.27McCulley and the other officers entered the home with their weapons drawn.28McCulley asked Bridget Gatlin where plaintiff was, and she said that he was not home.29McCulley walked toward the rear of the house, in the direction that he had seen plaintiff run, and found him hiding in a dark laundry room.McCulley handcuffed plaintiff.30The officers then searched “everything in the house,” including several closets and a box in which plaintiff's children stored their toys.31Bridget Gatlin asked whether the officers had a search warrant, but McCulley said they“didn't need one.”32The search did not uncover any items that appeared to be related to the Regions Bank robbery.33The officers, nevertheless, walked plaintiff out of the house and placed him in the back of a police cruiser.The officers asked Bridget Gatlin about plaintiff's activities that day.She initially said that plaintiff had returned home from work between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., but later changed her story to say that it had been earlier, at about 2:30 p.m. Gatlin provided McCulley with the names and telephone numbers of plaintiff's supervisor, William Young, and the person who gave plaintiff a ride to work that day, Dale Wise.34
Plaintiff was transported to the Huntsville Police Department's North Precinct and placed in an interrogation room.Officer McCulley read plaintiff his “Miranda” rights and warnings.Plaintiff waived his rights, and agreed to speak to McCulley.He related his activities during the day, and explained that it would not have been possible for him to commit the robbery because he was working in Franklin County, Alabama, at the time.35Plaintiff wrote a statement containing the same information, and reading as follows:
I left for work at 5:30 or 5:45 and dale wise piked me up[.]we went to the store[,] got me a cup of coffee[,] and went to the Bp in Moulton and got the diesals and went to franklin county recycling[.] ran track hoe until about 11:30/or 12:00[.] left[,] went back to the Bp station in Moulton [.] dropped our load and got our checks from inside the store and the guy cashed my $500 dollar check for me and we left and went to a muffler shop behind burger king on Hyway 67 in priceville to get a muffler fixed[.] left truck there and we left and ate at burger king beside it and then we went to my house[.]he dropped me off[,] and I sat at my house until I guess 1 or 2 and went to mom & dad's to go deer hunting[,] and then at dark I went home[,] and then about an hour or less [later]...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Cutino v. Untch
... ... crimes, conducting searches, and making arrests are legitimate job-related functions within the discretionary authority of police officers.” Mears v. McCulley, 881 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1318–19 (N.D.Ala.2012) (footnote citations omitted). Here, the Officers were performing such duties when they ... ...
-
Carroll v. White
... ... City of Alpharetta, Ga., 112 F.3d 1522, 1530 (11th Cir. 1997). Section 1983 is a remedial statute, not a stand-alone cause of action. See Mears v. McCulley, 881 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1317 (N.D. Ala. 2012) ("42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a remedial vehicle: that is, it provides a means to seek redress ... ...
-
Ryan v. City of Detroit
... ... ) (“A police officer's decisions regarding whom to investigate and how to investigate are matters that necessarily involve discretion.”); Mears v. McCulley, 881 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1318–1319 (N.D.Ala.2012) (“Investigating crimes, conducting searches, and making arrests are legitimate ... ...
-
Severe v. City of Miami, Case No. 17-22153-CIV-GAYLES
... ... Carrasquillo , 152 F. Supp. 3d 1364, 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (quoting Mears v ... McCulley , 881 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1318-19 (N.D. Ala. 2012)) (holding that stop fell within police officer's discretionary authority because he ... ...
-
POLICING SUSPICION: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND "CLEARLY ESTABLISHED" STANDARDS OF PROOF.
...Velasquez, 271 at 366-69, 372-74. (112) United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d 719, 729 (1st Cir. 1995). (113) Mears v. McCulley, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1320 (N.D. Ala. 2012). (114) Hernandez v. City of Albuquerque, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1189 (D.N.M. 2015). (115) Kinlin v. Kline, 749 F.3d......