Patel v. City of Madison, Case No.: 5:15-CV-0253-VEH
| Decision Date | 19 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 5:15-CV-0253-VEH |
| Parties | SURESHBHAI PATEL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MADISON, ALABAMA, and ERIC SLOAN PARKER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a case about the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It arises from a takedown where Defendant Officer Parker, an officer in Defendant City of Madison's (the "City") police department (the "MPD"), used a leg sweep maneuver to put Plaintiff Sureshbhai Patel, an elderly Indian male, on the ground. As a result of this takedown, Patel suffered injuries, including permanent partial paralyzation.
Before the Court are several motions for summary judgment by the City (Doc. 99), Patel (Doc. 103), and Officer Parker (Doc. 104). Part of the City of Madison's motion was a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 99). All of the motions are ripe for this Court's review.
For the reasons herein stated, the motions are GRANTED in part and otherwise DENIED, as set out herein.
For the three-month period from November 1, 2014, until February 6, 2015, there were 100 burglaries in the City, two-thirds of which occurred between approximately 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Doc. 100 at ¶5); (Doc. 115 at 20 ¶5). OfficerParker initially worked as a patrol officer for the MPD, serving for approximately two years in that position. He began working as a field training officer about two months before the events of February 6, 2015. (Doc. 100 at ¶8); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶8). Approximately four weeks prior to February 6, 2015, Officer Parker was assigned to train new MPD Officer Andrew Slaughter. Officer Slaughter had two days left in his training with Officer Parker as of February 6, 2015. (Doc. 100 at ¶9); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶9). Prior to February 6, 2015, Officer Parker observed that Officer Slaughter had difficulty in face-to-face interactions with subjects or citizens and was sometimes nervous in these encounters. (Doc. 100 at ¶ 10); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶10). On the morning of February 6, 2015, Officer Parker and Officer Slaughter began their patrol shifts at 6 a.m. At the beginning of their shift, the two officers first drove through neighborhoods, ran radar in school zones, and conducted several traffic stops. They then traveled to an abandoned house for a training exercise. (Doc. 100 at ¶11); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶11).
On February 6, 2015, Jacob Maples called the MPD in Madison, Alabama. He provided his name, address, and telephone number to the dispatcher with whom he spoke. (Doc. 107 at ¶1); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶2); (see also Doc. 100 at ¶12). Maples reported seeing an individual in his neighborhood, Hardiman Place Lane in Madison,who was standing in driveways, going into people's yards, and looking in garages and windows. Maples had lived in the neighborhood for four years, and had never seen the person before. He felt nervous leaving his wife and child at home while the man was about the neighborhood. (Doc. 107 at ¶2); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶2); (see also Doc. 100 at ¶12). Maples gave a description of the individual to the dispatcher. He described the individual as a skinny black male, wearing a white or light-colored sweater, jeans, and a toboggan hat. (Doc. 107 at ¶3); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶3); (see also Doc. 100 at ¶12).
Officer Eric Parker was on duty for MPD that morning. He was working as the field training officer ("FTO") for Officer Andrew Slaughter. (Doc. 107 at ¶4); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶4). Officer Slaughter was driving Officer Parker's patrol car. Over the MPD radio, they were informed of a "check subject" call. (Doc. 107 at ¶5); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶5). The subject was described as a skinny black male, wearing a white or light-colored sweater, jeans, and a toboggan hat. The dispatcher also relayed the suspect's activities of walking in yards, standing around driveways, and looking in garages. Maples's name was provided as well, making him a known caller. (Doc. 107 at ¶6); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶6). Officer Spence also responded to the dispatch call. (Doc. 100 at ¶13); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶13). Based on the information received from the dispatcher, Officer Parker believed the suspect's activities were in sequence withburglary activities, particularly someone checking out the area and casing the houses, about which MPD had received several calls. (Doc. 107 at ¶7).3
The dispatcher sent updates to the mobile data terminal located in the patrol unit used by Officers Parker and Slaughter as they were en route. Specifically, the information sent to the mobile data terminal stated that the subject in question was a skinny black male wearing a toboggan, blue jeans, and a white or light colored sweater; that the subject was last seen heading northbound on Hardiman Place Lane; that the subject was walking into yards, standing in driveways, and looking around garages; and that Mr. Maples advised that he had lived there for four years, had never seen the subject, and was nervous about leaving his wife and child at home with the way the subject was acting. The information sent to the mobile data terminal also provided Mr. Maples's name, address, and phone number. (Doc. 100 at ¶14); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶14). Officer Parker reviewed these details and read them aloud as Officer Slaughter drove toward the subject's reported location. (Doc. 100 at ¶15); (Doc. 115 at 20, ¶15).4 Officer Parker testified that as he reviewed the information sent bydispatch, he concluded that the caller's decision to identify himself contributed to reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been in progress. (Doc. 100 at ¶17); (Doc. 115 at 21, ¶17). Officer Parker testified that under the MPD's policies and pursuant to his training, when a known caller gives articulable information that indicates a crime may be in progress or have been committed, reasonable suspicion exists to detain the subject and conduct an investigatory stop to look into the situation further. (Doc. 100 at ¶18); (Doc. 115 at 21, ¶18). Officer Parker has indicated that he believed this neighborhood was a high crime area. (Parker Depo. at 316:2 to 316:14). From his experience and training as a patrol officer, Officer Parker also understood that burglars will sometimes case houses early in the morning, when most people have left their houses for work. (Doc. 100 at ¶22); (Doc. 115 at 21, ¶22). Officer Spence testified that he independently concluded that the subject in question might be involved in a burglary. (Doc. 100 at ¶25); (Doc. 115 at 22, ¶25).
Based on the available information, Officer Parker testified that he and Officer Slaughter agreed that Officer Slaughter would stop the subject and find out his name, address, and reason for being in the area. If the subject provided that information, the plan of action was to write a "miscellaneous" report describing the encounter and then return to patrol duties. (Doc. 100 at ¶27); (Doc. 115 at 22, ¶27).
The officers arrived at Hardiman Place Lane, where they saw a male individualwearing a white sweater, jeans, and a toboggan hat, matching the given description. They also recognized him as thin and dark-skinned. Officer Slaughter parked the patrol car a few feet behind the individual, who they later learned was plaintiff Sureshbhai Patel, as he was walking down the sidewalk. (Doc. 107 at ¶8); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶8). Officer Slaughter switched on the patrol vehicle's dashboard COBAN video system on his belt, which causes the system to begin recording audio from a microphone on his person. (Doc. 100 at ¶32); (Doc. 115 at 22 ¶32).
The officers got out of the patrol vehicle to speak with Patel. At first, Patel waved at them, but continued walking. He had one hand in his pocket. (Doc. 107 at ¶9); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶9); (see also Doc. 100 at ¶33, 34). Officer Slaughter called out to him, asking to talk to Patel and for him to "come here." Patel walked towards where the officers were standing. (Doc. 107 at ¶10); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶10). Patel recognized the officers were, in fact, police officers by the way they were dressed. (Doc. 107 at ¶11); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶11); (Doc. 100 at ¶35). Officer Slaughter asked plaintiff what was going on. Patel responded by saying "India" and "no English." Patel then walked away from the officers, taking two steps. (Doc. 107 at ¶12); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶12). Officer Slaughter asked Patel to "come here" again. Patel again responded with "India" and "no English." (Doc. 107 at ¶13); (Doc. 115 at 13, ¶13).
Officer Slaughter attempted to begin the investigation, asking Patel where hewas headed, for his address, and generally where he lived. Patel told the officers, "my house, my house, 148, walking." He also pointed off in the opposite direction of the officers. Then, Patel walked away a second time, taking seven steps this time. (Doc. 107 at ¶14); (Doc. 115 at 14, ¶14); (see also Doc. 100 at ¶¶ 43-45).
Officer Slaughter ordered Patel to stop walking. This time, the officers had to walk over to reach Patel, as he did not walk back to them as before. (Doc. 107 at ¶15); (Doc. 115 at 14, ¶15).Officer Slaughter asked Patel for identification. Patel responded "no English"5 and "India." (Doc. 107 at ¶16)6; (Doc. 115 at 14, ¶16); (see also Doc.100 at ¶48). Officer Slaughter asked Patel again if he lived in the neighborhood. In response, Patel raised his right arm and pointed off in the distance. (Doc. 107 at ¶17); (Doc. 115 at 14, ¶17). Patel's hands can be seen moving at his midsection and by his sides on the video. (Doc. 107 at ¶18); (Doc. 115 at...
To continue reading
Request your trial