Rawlings v. Kunnath
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | CV 19-97-BLG-TJC |
| Parties | JOHN RAWLINGS, Plaintiff, v. STEVE KUNNATH, in his official and individual capacities, JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacities, CITY OF LIVINGSTON, MONTANA, and JAY PORTEEN, in his individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Plaintiff John Rawlings (“Rawlings”), brings this action against Defendants Steve Kunnath (“Kunnath”), the City of Livingston, Montana (“Livingston”) and Jay Porteen (“Porteen”), (collectively “Defendants”) alleging violation of his civil rights and various state law claims arising from a DUI investigation, arrest and prosecution. (Doc. 1.)
Presently before the Court are Defendants Livingston and Porteen's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32), and Defendant Kunnath's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42.) The motions are fully briefed and ripe for the Court's review.
Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds the motions should be GRANTED.
On the evening of January 16, 2019, Livingston Police Officer Steve Kunnath and other City of Livingston Police Officers were conducting a criminal investigation concerning an incident unrelated to Rawlings that occurred earlier that evening. The live and ongoing criminal investigation began when the Livingston Police Department received a 9-1-1 call regarding a group of people fighting at a local gas station. All four officers on duty at the time responded. While en route to the gas station, Kunnath was notified that the individuals involved in the physical altercation had left the scene in separate vehicles, and one of the suspect vehicles had been stopped near the intersection of Lewis and 11th Avenue in Livingston. Kunnath changed course to respond to that location as a backup officer.
When Kunnath arrived, he stayed back and monitored the surrounding area to provide safety for the situation and the officers on the scene. The suspect vehicle that had been stopped had only one occupant. The other individuals involved in the fighting incident had not been located. The suspect who was involved in the traffic stop was known to police to be involved in drug-related activity.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., Rawlings was driving his 2016 Jeep Cherokee on West Park Street when he encountered the traffic stop. He “circled back” to where the police had initiated the stop, then pulled his car over on the side of the street. Rawlings parked his vehicle facing east on West Lewis Street, about one city block from the police officers standing by their vehicles at the intersection of South 11th and West Lewis Street. He was parked in front of a closed restaurant. Kunnath observed Rawlings parked there.
Based on Kunnath's training and experience, an onlooker approaching an ongoing criminal investigation can present an officer safety issue, and there can be concern that an onlooker is involved with the potential illegal activity and criminal investigation. The fact that Rawlings' vehicle was parked near the criminal investigation; the nearby restaurants and businesses were closed; there were no houses in the immediate area; and Rawlings' vehicle did not drop anyone off and no one got out of the vehicle, raised some concern for officer safety.
After sitting and watching the officers for approximately 10 minutes, Rawlings drove his car around the triangle shaped city block and repositioned his vehicle facing south on S. 11th Street, which was closer in proximity to the officers' location near the intersection of S. 11th and W. Lewis Street. Rawlings' vehicle was positioned so that the headlights were pointed directly at the officers standing nearby. Rawlings disputes that his headlights were on but acknowledged in his deposition testimony that there was a possibility they were on. He further acknowledged that an officer could be concerned that a car shining its headlights towards the officer could present some risk to officer safety.
Rawlings' conduct was concerning to Kunnath and the other officers, and raised their suspicions about his potential involvement with the earlier incident, his possible involvement with other illegal activity, and the potential threat to officer safety. Therefore, after waiting few minutes, Livingston Police Sergeant Wayne Hard instructed Kunnath and Officer Jason Gunderson to approach Rawlings' vehicle.
Kunnath and Gunderson walked up to Rawlings' car and engaged him in conversation. Rawlings acknowledged that the officers had a good reason to approach his vehicle. Kunnath advised Rawlings that the officers saw him pull up and they wanted to make sure he was not involved with the prior incident or the suspect in the traffic stop. Rawlings explained that he was “seeing what was going on.” Kunnath told Rawlings that it was okay for him to watch.[2]
Kunnath was standing very close to Rawlings during the exchange, and he observed Rawlings' watery bloodshot eyes and smelled the odor of alcohol. Kunnath also noticed an open beer container in Rawlings' center console which had a cork in it. Rawlings told Kunnath that he used the beer bottle as an ashtray. Kunnath further indicated that Rawlings appeared a little confused during their interaction. Gunderson also smelled alcohol and observed alcoholic beverage containers in Rawlings' back seat, which appeared to be Guinness beer. Rawlings purports to dispute that the officers could have smelled alcohol.[3]
Kunnath asked Rawlings if he had consumed alcohol, and Rawlings stated he had one drink at the Chop House around 5:00 or 7:00 p.m. that evening. Kunnath knows from his training and experience that individuals who have been driving under the influence of alcohol may downplay or minimize the amount of alcohol they consumed prior to driving. Rawlings later conceded at his deposition that it was possible that he had one martini and another vodka drink that night.
Based on his observations, Kunnath suspected Rawlings may have been driving while under the influence of alcohol. Kunnath, therefore, asked Rawlings to exit his vehicle so that he could perform field sobriety tests. First, Kunnath performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test on Rawlings. Kunnath observed six out of six clues indicating impairment.[4] Four are needed to fail the test. Next, Kunnath instructed Rawlings to perform the walk and turn test. Kunnath observed that Rawlings stepped off the line, made an improper turn and stopped during the test. He scored Rawlings as exhibiting three out of eight observable clues to impairment. Two are needed to fail the test. Kunnath then instructed Rawlings to perform the one-leg stand maneuver. Kunnath did not score Rawlings any points on the test because he believed Rawlings was not performing the test correctly.
After administering the field sobriety tests, Kunnath conferred with Gunderson who also observed Rawlings perform the tests. Following their discussion, Kunnath requested that Rawlings take a preliminary breath test (PBT). Rawlings responded that he “would prefer not to.” Both Kunnath and Gunderson concluded there was probable cause to arrest Rawlings for Driving Under the Influence. Rawlings was therefore placed under arrest.
Kunnath transported Rawlings to the Park County Detention Center, where Rawlings was again provided the opportunity to take a breath test on the intoxilyzer at the jail. Rawlings again declined. Rawlings was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, first offense.
Immediately following his release from jail, Rawlings obtained an independent blood test, which came back negative for all substances, including alcohol. The following day, Rawlings, through his attorney, supplied the blood test results to Defendant Porteen, the city prosecutor. Porteen declined to dismiss the charge.
Rawlings appeared in the City Court of Livingston on or about January 22, 2019 and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. The charge was later dismissed on the request of the prosecutor on May 21, 2019.
On September 17, 2019, Rawlings filed this action. (Doc. 1.) Rawlings alleges civil rights claims under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment against Kunnath (Count I), Livingston (Count III) and Porteen (Count V), and state law claims for false imprisonment against Kunnath (Count II), respondeat superior against Livingston (Count IV), actual malice/punitive damages against Porteen (Count VI), and negligence against Porteen (Count VII).
Livingston and Porteen now move for summary judgment as to Rawlings' claims in Counts III, IV, V, VI and VII. (Doc. 32.) Kunnath moves for summary judgment on Rawlings' claims in Counts I and II. (Doc. 42.)
Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56(c) where the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. “Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial