Ransaw v. Bornhoft
| Decision Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-cv-03584-NYW |
| Parties | CAROL ANN RANSAW, Plaintiff, v. MARC BORNHOFT, in his individual capacity, CHRISTOPHER PADILLA, in his individual capacity, UNKNOWN COLORADO STATE PATROL TROOPERS, in their individual capacities, TYSON R. KERR, in his individual and official capacity, MATTHEW WILLIAMS, in his individual capacity, BRETT L. POWELL, in his individual capacity, and UNKNOWN LOGAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES, in their individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
This matter comes before the court on the following motions:
The undersigned considers the Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(c) and the Order of Reference dated January 29 2021 [Doc. 22]. Briefing on this matter is concluded, and this court finds that oral argument would not materially assist the court in its adjudication. For the following reasons, the Sterling Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; Defendant Powell's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and the State Defendants' Motion Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND[1]
Plaintiff Carol Ann Ransaw (“Ms. Ransaw” or “Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Marc Bornhoft (“Defendant Bornhoft”), Christopher Padilla (“Defendant Padilla, ” and together with Defendant Bornhoft, “State Defendants”), Unknown Colorado State Patrol Troopers, Tyson R. Kerr (“Defendant Kerr”), Matthew Williams (“Defendant Williams, ” and together with Defendant Kerr, “Sterling Defendants”), Brett L. Powell (“Defendant Powell”), and Unknown Logan County Sheriff's Deputies (collectively, “Defendants”)[2] by filing her Complaint on December 7, 2020, alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See [Doc. 1]; see also [Doc. 59]. Ms. Ransaw's claims are premised on events that transpired on the evening of December 7, 2019, when Ms. Ransaw was pulled over for driving more than 30 miles over the speed limit, was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence, and was detained for approximately 48 hours at the Logan County Detention Center (“LCDC”). See generally [Doc. 59].
I. Relevant Factual Background - Third Amended Complaint
Shortly after 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2019, Defendant Padilla stopped Ms. Ransaw on Highway 76 in Sterling Colorado for travelling approximately 30 miles over the speed limit. [Doc. 59 at ¶¶ 14, 24]. Ms. Ransaw was travelling with a friend in the passenger's seat. [Id. at ¶ 26]. When Defendant Padilla walked to the driver's side door to hand Ms. Ransaw a speeding citation, Defendant Padilla smelled alcohol in the car. [Id. at ¶ 28]. Defendant Padilla then investigated the smell, including ordering Ms. Ransaw out of her vehicle, and administering a breathalyzer test and field sobriety tests. [Id. at ¶¶ 29-32, 34, 36, 39]. Ms. Ransaw verbally denied that she had consumed alcohol. [Id. at ¶¶ 29, 41]. Her breathalyzer test “revealed 0.0 alcohol” in her system. [Id. at ¶ 31].
Defendant Padilla administered four field sobriety tests as well. See [id. at ¶ 39]. Ms. Ransaw alleges she performed the tests “satisfactorily” while Defendant Padilla characterized her performance as a “complete failure.” [Doc. 59 at ¶¶ 36, 53]. On the “Eye-tracking” test, Ms. Padilla does not state how she performed. [Id.]. On the “30-second estimate” test, which required Ms. Ransaw to estimate when 30 seconds had passed, she “estimated 30 seconds had transpired when only 16 seconds had transpired”; Ms. Ransaw claims she was distracted “during this particular assessment [by] loud traffic and loud radio transmissions” and her surrounding environment. [Id.]. On the “Heel-Toe walk” test, Ms. Ransaw alleges that she completed this test “without error” when Defendant Padilla “finally gave clear instructions” after he initially provided “halting and confusing instructions.” [Id.]. And on the “One leg stand” test-which required Ms. Ransaw to stand on one leg while counting until instructed to stop-Ms. Ransaw began counting from 1001 and made it to 1012 before she “slip[ped] back to 1008.” [Id.]. Ms. Ransaw claims that she became “distracted at that moment by very fast and loud approaching and passing truck traffic, ” and that Defendant Padilla denied her request to start over. [Id.].
During the tests, Ms. Ransaw explained to Defendant Padilla that “she was in the process of driving her friend from Aspen, Colorado to Ransaw's home in New York, ” that the two had been on the road all day, that Ms. Ransaw was tired, and she was “scared and upset by the transpiring events.” [Id. at ¶¶ 37-38]. Defendant Padilla informed Ms. Ransaw that she did not satisfactorily complete the field sobriety tests and that he believed Ms. Ransaw “might be under the influence of some other substance.” [Id. at ¶ 42]. Ms. Ransaw “denied intoxication or drug use” and informed Defendant Padilla “how upset she was and began to openly cry” during their conversation. [Id.]; see also [id. at ¶ 44].
Shortly after the tests, while Ms. Ransaw was waiting at her car, Defendant Padilla called Defendant Bornhoft, a “sergeant in the Colorado State Patrol, ” [id. at ¶ 13], who was not physically present at the scene. [Id. at ¶ 48]. Defendants Padilla and Bornhoft discussed the circumstances of Ms. Ransaw's stop and the results of her eye-tracking and 30-second estimate tests, which Defendant Padilla “characterized . . . as a ‘complete failure.'” [Id. at ¶¶ 48-56]. Defendant Padilla informed Defendant Bornhoft that he (Defendant Padilla) did not feel “confident” or “right” regarding the results of Ms. Ransaw's field sobriety tests. [Id. at ¶¶ 55-56]. After that conversation ended, Defendant Padilla placed Ms. Ransaw under arrest for driving under the influence. [Id. at ¶¶ 57-58]. Defendant Padilla found “no alcohol and no other drugs or drug paraphernalia” when he performed a search of Ms. Ransaw's car. [Id. at ¶ 59].
Sometime shortly thereafter, Defendant Padilla contacted Defendant Williams to request that he (Defendant Williams) conduct additional sobriety tests on Ms. Ransaw, to occur after Defendant Padilla transported Ms. Ransaw to the LCDC. [Id. at ¶ 61]. Defendant Padilla transported Ms. Ransaw to the Sterling Regional Medical Center to obtain a blood sample to test for other intoxicating substances. [Id. at ¶ 62]. While awaiting a phlebotomist, Ms. Ransaw alleges that Defendant Padilla “insisted” that she was intoxicated. [Id. at ¶ 63]. Defendant Padilla transported Ms. Ransaw to the LCDC after the phlebotomist drew her blood. [Id. at ¶ 66]. After they arrived at the LCDC, Defendant Williams completed a Drug Influence Evaluation (“DIE”) of Ms. Ransaw. [Id. at ¶ 67]. The DIE sheet that Defendant Williams completed reflected that Ms. Ransaw had “bloodshot and reddened conjunctiva, normal eyelids, equal pupils, that she was able to follow stimulus, and had equal ocular tracking, ” and “there was minor lack of convergence of the right eye.” [Id.]. Ms. Ransaw alleges that Defendant Williams also “ran essentially the same tests” on Plaintiff that Defendant Padilla had conducted. [Id. at ¶ 68]. Ms. Ransaw also alleges that she again informed Defendants Padilla and Williams “that she suffered from significant fatigue, fear, and stress” and informed Defendant Williams that “she had been using bottled oxygen to battle altitude sickness” and “she had a cold and was taking over the counter cold medication.” [Id. at ¶¶ 71-72]. Defendant Williams ultimately concluded that Ms. Ransaw was “under the influence of cannabis.” [Id. at ¶ 74 (quotations omitted)].
A bond of $750 was set for Ms. Ransaw's release. [Id. at ¶ 77]. Ms. Ransaw alleges she was “not permitted to immediately pay the bond and was denied access to her purse and telephone to retrieve cash or arrange for bond.” [Id.]. According to Ms. Ransaw, she was “denied the opportunity . . . to effectively contact anyone that could pay her bond” and “only permitted to use the jail phone system.” [Id. at ¶¶ 78-79]. Ms. Ransaw also alleges that part of her formal booking into the LCDC included “a strip search that was conducted by a female officer” and the toilet in Ms. Ransaw's cell “was exposed to the open area of the jail [where] male officers could see her when she disrobed to use the toilet.” [Id. at ¶¶ 80-81]. Further, Ms. Ransaw alleges that the computer station in her cell (from which inmates may arrange for bond) did not work, and no LCDC employees resolved this issue. [Id. at ¶ 83]. That night, Ms. Ransaw was eventually able to “alert” her husband that she had been arrested and was being held at the LCDC. [Id. at ¶ 84].
In addition, Ms. Ransaw, a vegetarian, alleges that Unknown Logan County Sheriff's Deputies denied her request for a vegetarian meal during her detention. [Id. at ¶ 86]. And when Ms. Ransaw responded that “she would rather not eat, ” the Sheriff's Deputies “threatened to place her on suicide watch if she failed to eat the meat-based meal the[y] insisted...
To continue reading
Request your trial