Robinson v. Miller, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-00330
Decision Date | 10 September 2015 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-00330 |
Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia |
Parties | GREGORY ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. S.W. MILLER, et al., Defendants. |
Pending before the Court are Defendants S.W. Miller, E.M. Peterson, E.R. Moyer, and City of South Charleston's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion"), (ECF No. 34), and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants S.W. Miller, E.M. Peterson, and E.R. Moyer, (ECF No. 36). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion, (ECF No. 36), and DENIES Defendants' Motion, (ECF No. 34), in its entirety.
This case arises out of the actions of Defendants Miller, Peterson, and Moyer (together, the "Individual Defendants") seeking arrest warrants for Plaintiff and then executing those warrants. "Plaintiff . . . resides in Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia, and is a citizen of the State of West Virginia." (ECF No. 1, Ex. 1 ¶ 1.) Defendant Miller "is a patrolman with the South Charleston Police Department" (the "Police Department"). (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendants Peterson andMoyer are "detective[s] with the [Police Department]." (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant City of South Charleston ("Defendant City") "is a political subdivision of the State of West Virginia located in Kanawha County, West Virginia." (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant City "operates the [Police Department] and employs, oversees, and supervises the conduct of its officers, consisting primarily of patrol officers and detectives." (Id. ¶ 5.)
Defendant Miller "was dispatched to the Walmart Supercenter in South Charleston, West Virginia" (the "Walmart Store") on "July 16, 2012 . . . in response to a report of employee theft." (ECF No. 39 at 2; see ECF No. 97 at 1.) When he arrived at the Walmart Store, Defendant Miller met with Paul Higginbotham—the Walmart Store's Asset Protection Manager (the "Walmart APM"). (ECF No. 39 at 2; ECF No. 97 at 1.) The Walmart APM reported to Defendant Miller that surveillance video showed three employees stealing Apple iPods. (ECF No. 39 at 2; ECF No. 97 at 1.) The Walmart APM then showed Defendant Miller surveillance video of two thefts. (ECF No. 39 at 3.)
The first surveillance video was of a theft that occurred on July 6, 2012. (ECF No. 97 at 1.) This video included images of two Walmart Store employees—Jeremy Hartwell and Jirald Davis—and shows Hartwell removing iPods from a display case at the Walmart Store. (Id. at 1-2.)
The second video showed an additional theft that occurred on July 10, 2012. (Id. at 2.) This video included images of three Walmart Store employees—Hartwell, Davis, and Plaintiff—and again showed Hartwell removing iPods from a display case.1 (Id.; see ECF No. 39 at 3.)
"Shortly after reviewing the videotape, [Defendant] Miller interviewed . . . Davis at the [Walmart Store]." (ECF No. 39 at 3.) Defendant Miller later testified that Davis provided a statement to him at this time, in which Davis noted that "he knew . . . Hartwell was taking the iPods and even offered to give [Davis] one." (ECF No. 34, Ex. C (Miller Dep.) 42:19-43:22.) Defendant Miller did not speak with either Hartwell or Plaintiff before leaving the Walmart Store, as they "were both off work that day." (ECF No. 39 at 3.)
On July 18, 2012, Defendant Miller "applied for a warrant for . . . Hartwell." (ECF No. 97 at 2.) "[Defendant] Miller executed the warrant and arrested Hartwell on" the same date. (Id.) Either on or after this date, Hartwell provided the following signed statement on a Police Department investigative statement form (the "Hartwell Statement"):
[Plaintiff] and [Davis] talked me into doing it again. They were suppose [sic] to cover me and block the cameras under the agreement I would give them each one of the Ipods.
(ECF No. 34, Ex. G.) The Hartwell Statement is not dated. (See id.)
Defendant Miller "applied for arrest warrants for Davis and Plaintiff on July 19, 2012." (ECF No. 97 at 2; ECF No. 37 at 2.) To procure a warrant for Plaintiff's arrest, Defendant Miller submitted a criminal complaint with an accompanying affidavit (the "First Warrant Application"). This criminal complaint alleges that, "[o]n or about 07-12-2012 in Kanawha County, West Virginia," Plaintiff committed the offenses of embezzlement in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-3-20 and fraudulent schemes in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-3-24d. (Id. at 1.) This criminal complaint further states that the"complaint is based on" an attached affidavit (the "First Warrant Affidavit"). (See id.) The First Warrant Affidavit "was in all respects identical" to the affidavits Defendant Miller submitted to procure the arrests of Hartwell and Davis. (ECF No. 97 at 2.) The First Warrant Affidavit provides the statutory language for the offenses of embezzlement and fraudulent schemes. (ECF No. 34, Ex. A at 2.) The First Warrant Affidavit also includes a "facts" section, which provides the following, in its entirety:
(Id. at 2-3.) Defendant Miller did not provide any additional oath or affirmation detailing the facts surrounding these incidents other than the First Warrant Affidavit—and the accompanying criminal complaint—when procuring an arrest warrant for Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 35 at 2; ECF No. 97 at 2.)
A Kanawha County magistrate judge subsequently issued warrants for Hartwell, Davis, and Plaintiff. (ECF No. 35 at 2.) The magistrate judge issued the warrant for Plaintiff (the "First Warrant") based on the First Warrant Application. (Id.) "Plaintiff was on vacation from July 13, 2012 to July 27, 2012 and voluntarily turned himself in on July 30, 2012." (Id.) "Plaintiff's preliminary hearing was scheduled for August 8, 2012." (Id.) "Neither [the Walmart APM] nor [Defendant] Miller appeared at the preliminary hearing and the charges were dismissed" without prejudice. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial