Ross v. City of Helena-West Helena
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-cv-00031 KGB |
| Parties | MARKEE ROSS and CHADRICK DAVIS PLAINTIFFS v. CITY OF HELENA-WEST HELENA, ARKANSAS, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Before the Court are a motion for summary judgment and a motion to grant motion for summary judgment or, alternatively deem facts admitted filed by defendants the City of Helena-West Helena ("the City") and Joshua Cross, in his individual and official capacity as a former police officer with the City (Dkt. Nos. 29, 33). The City and Officer Cross seek summary judgment on the claims filed by plaintiffs Markee Ross and Chadrick Davis alleging violations of their constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution through suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and corresponding claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ACRA").
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are taken from defendants' statement of undisputed material facts and plaintiffs' response to defendants' statement of undisputed material facts (Dkt. Nos. 30; 36).
The parties dispute the facts leading up to the initial stop of Mr. Davis's vehicle. At 6:55 p.m., on November 25, 2013, Corporal Amos Bryant of the Helena-West Helena Police Department ("HWHPD"), while patrolling, noticed a vehicle (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 1). Defendants contend that the vehicle was traveling in the on-coming lane with its lights off (Id.). According to defendants, the vehicle then pulled into a gas station, and Officer Bryant made contact with the driver, Mr. Davis, and asked for his driver's license, proof of insurance, and car registration (Id., ¶ 2). Plaintiffs contend that Officer Bryant did not have probable cause to stop Mr. Davis's car and that Officer Bryant initially told Mr. Davis only that he was driving down the wrong side of the road (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 1). Joshua Cross, at the time an officer with the HWHPD, arrived to assist and also made contact with Mr. Davis (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 3).
The parties also dispute what happened next. Defendants contend that both Officer Bryant and Officer Cross could smell the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle (Id., ¶ 4). Plaintiffs contend that it is questionable as to whether either person actually smelled marijuana and that Officer Bryant never told Mr. Davis that he smelled marijuana (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 3). The parties agree that Mr. Davis does not know if marijuana has ever been smoked in the vehicle he was driving (Dkt. Nos. 30, ¶ 5; 36, ¶ 5). Plaintiffs respond that, while Mr. Davis did not know if marijuana had ever been smoked in the vehicle, that is not the same as saying that the vehicle had an odor of marijuana coming from it (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 5). Plaintiffs also note that Mr. Davis testified in his deposition that (Id.). Defendants then represent that Officer Bryant made contact with the passenger, Mr. Ross, and asked if there were any illegal drugs in the vehicle; Mr. Ross said no (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 6). Plaintiffs respond that Officer Bryant did not ask Mr. Ross about any drugs being in the car and contend that the facts have already revealed no drugs were found (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 6).
Both Mr. Ross and Mr. Davis were asked to step out of the vehicle, they did, and both were patted down for weapons (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 7). Initially, Mr. Ross and Mr. Davis were conversing behind the vehicle, so Officer Bryant asked Officer Cross to separate the two while the vehicle was searched (Id., ¶ 8). Mr. Davis testified at his deposition that Officer Cross arrived, walked up to Mr. Davis's vehicle, said pulled Mr. Davis out of the truck, and started putting handcuffs on him (Dkt. No. 30-9, at 30). Mr. Ross testified at his deposition: (Dkt. No. 30-10, at 15). Mr. Ross further testified that Officer Cross put him in handcuffs and then put him in the car with a dog (Id., at 21).
According to defendants, it was raining, so Officer Cross placed Mr. Ross in the front seat of his patrol unit, advising him that the K-9 was in the car and to lean forward, and then went to assist Officer Bryant with the vehicle search (Id., ¶ 9). Plaintiffs take issue with paragraph 9 of defendants' statement of facts and contend that the fact that it was raining was not the reason that Mr. Ross was placed in the patrol unit (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 8). Officer Cross was a K-9 officer with the HWHPD, and his K-9, Gunner, was in the back seat of his patrol unit (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 10). Officer Bryant and Officer Cross then heard Mr. Ross say he had been bitten by Gunner (Id., ¶ 11). While sitting in the front seat of Officer Cross's patrol unit, Gunner, who was in the back seat, managed to get his snout around the cage in Officer Cross's patrol unit and bit Mr. Ross, once, on the upper right side of his back (Id., ¶ 12). Mr. Ross was immediately removed from the patrol unit and asked if he needed medical attention, to which he replied yes (Id., ¶ 13). Mr. Ross then came back and said the bite was not that bad (Id., ¶ 14). Lt. Travis Wallace with the HWHPD was notified (Id., ¶ 15). Mr. Ross then came back and said that he was going to the emergency room to get a shot (Id., ¶ 16). Mr. Ross was evaluated at the local emergency room and received shots and medication but no stitches (Id., ¶¶ 17-18). Then the Chief of Police for the HWHPD sent an officer to the local ER to pay for all of Mr. Ross's medical bills associated with the bite (Id., ¶ 19). HWHPD paid for Mr. Ross's ER visit, follow-up care with a physician, physical therapy, and for Mr. Ross to see a counselor (Id., ¶ 20). Mr. Ross was not charged with anything as a result of the stop of Mr. Davis on November 25, 2013 (Id., ¶ 21).
The parties also dispute the circumstances surrounding Mr. Davis's detention. Defendants contend that Mr. Davis was detained for suspicion of DWI, and field sobriety tests were conducted (Id., ¶ 22). Defendants contend that the field sobriety tests revealed that Mr. Davis had vertical nystagmus, and while he displayed 0/8 possible clues on the Walk and Turn Test, he displayed 1/4 possible clues on the One Leg Stand Test (Id., ¶ 23). Defendants further contend that, because Mr. Davis had vertical nystagmus and displayed 1/4 possible clues on one of the field sobriety tests, Troy Faughn, a drug recognition expert with the HWHPD was called to perform further testing, but Mr. Davis refused to submit to additional testing (Id., ¶ 24). According to defendants, Mr. Davis's mother took possession of his vehicle (Id., ¶ 25).
Plaintiffs agree that Mr. Davis was detained for suspicion of DWI (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 13). However, plaintiffs contend that there was no evidence of DWI and no objective reason to believe that Mr. Davis should have been detained (Id.). Plaintiffs further dispute paragraphs 23 and 24 of defendants' statement of facts on the basis that the information is an opinion and is not factual and has no factual basis (Id., ¶ 14). Plaintiffs take issue with paragraph 25 on the basis that it suggests that Rosetta Davis was allowed to drive away in the vehicle (Id., ¶ 15). According to plaintiffs, Mr. Davis testified that he drove away in the vehicle after declining the so-called Troy Faughn test (Id.).
The parties agree that Mr. Davis was arrested for and charged with Careless and Prohibited Driving, DWI-Drugs, and Refusal to Submit by Officer Bryant (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 26). Mr. Davis does not know anything about how officers with the HWHPD are hired or trained and has no law enforcement training himself (Id., ¶ 27). Mr. Ross does not have any first-hand knowledge about how the HWHPD trains its officers (Id., ¶ 28).
Officer Bryant began working for the HWHPD on January 23, 2012, and during the course of his background check, no disqualifiers were found (Id., ¶ 29). Officer Bryant was issued the HWHPD Standard Operating Procedures Manual on January 25, 2012, and he signed an acknowledgment indicating that he understood that he was expected to read the entire Manual (Id., ¶ 30). Defendants contend that Officer Bryant took and signed the law enforcement code of ethics, swearing to "respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice" (Id., ¶ 31). Plaintiffs dispute this statement, arguing that it is questionable because the document is undated (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 17). Officer Bryant completed the 480-hour basic police course put on by the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Agency on September 28, 2012, and was issued his Basic Certificate as a Certified Law Enforcement Officer (Dkt. No. 30, ¶ 32). Officer Bryant resigned from the HWHPD on January 1, 2015 (Id., ¶ 33).
Officer Cross began working for the HWHPD on February 22, 2013, and during the course of his background check, no disqualifiers were found (Id., ¶ 34). Prior to his employment with the HWHPD, Officer Cross had worked for two years with the Jonestown, Mississippi, Police Department as a patrol officer and for two years with the Coahoma County Sheriff's Department as a Deputy (Id., ¶ 35). Defendants contend that Officer Cross was issued the HWHPD Standard Operating Procedures Manual on January 25, 2012, and he signed an acknowledgment indicating that he understood that he was expected to read the entire Manual (Id., ¶ 35). Plaintiffs dispute this on the basis that it holds to be true that Officer Cross was issued the Standard Operating Procedures long before he was ever hired (Dkt. No. 36, ¶ 16). Defendants also contend that Officer Cross took and signed the law enforcement code of ethics, swearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial