Shroyer v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:10–CV–211–TLS. |
| Citation | 904 F.Supp.2d 914 |
| Parties | Crystal M. SHROYER, on behalf of herself and her minor children J.S. and S.S., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and, Explosives), City of Fort Wayne, Joel C. Squadrito (Sergeant), Eric M. Thompson (Officer), Gregory L. Stier (Sergeant) and Matthew Harrison (Detective) (Fort Wayne Police Officers sued in their individual capacities), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher C. Myers, Ilene M. Smith, Christopher C. Myers & Associates, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.
Deborah M. Leonard, U.S. Attorney's Office, Carolyn M. Trier, Trier Law Office, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendants.
The Plaintiff, Crystal M. Shroyer, on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.S. and S.S., has sued the United States of America, the City of Fort Wayne, and individual officers of the Fort Wayne Police Department (FWPD). She claims that on May 1, 2009, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and officers from the FWPD surrounded her home and seized her in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the tort laws of the State of Indiana. The Defendants have moved for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 28, 2010, and filed a First Amended Complaint on December 27, 2010. The Plaintiff has sued the United States of America in its representative capacity for the actions of its agents, which she alleges violated the tort laws of the state of Indiana. The three ATF officers that the Plaintiff sued in their individual capacities, ATF Special Agent (SA) Sean T. Skender, Task Force Officer (TFO) Miguel G. Rivera,and TFO Michael C. Tapp, were previously dismissed for insufficient service of process. The Amended Complaint also names the City of Fort Wayne and several FWPD officers in their individual capacities: Sergeant Joel C. Squadrito; Officer Eric M. Thompson; Sergeant Gregory L. Stier; and Detective Matthew Harrison. The Plaintiff alleges that these individual officers are liable to her under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for participating in an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. She alleges that the City of Fort Wayne is liable under Indiana law for the torts of its police officers.
On March 2, 2012, the United States of America filed its Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61] and Memorandum in Support [ECF No. 62], with attached exhibits. Defendants Squadrito, Stier, Harrison, Thompson, and the City of Fort Wayne also moved for summary judgment [ECF No. 63] and filed a Memorandum in Support [ECF No. 64]. The Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition [ECF No. 65] and Answer Brief [ECF No. 66]. Both the United States and the Fort Wayne Defendants filed a Reply [ECF Nos. 71, 72]. The Fort Wayne Defendants also filed a Supplemental Designation of Evidence [ECF No. 73]. In response to this supplemental evidence and the Defendants' reply briefs in support of summary judgment, the Plaintiff filed a Sur–Response [ECF No. 78].
Steven Shroyer is the Plaintiff's husband. In May 2008, the ATF began an investigation focused on Mr. Shroyer's suspected illegal activities. On March 23, 2009, ATF agents arrested Mr. Shroyer on charges related to firearms and narcotics. In addition, members of law enforcement believed that he was a participant in the white supremacist movement. On Thursday, April 30, one such officer, FWPD Officer Frederick Ray, spoke to Mr. Shroyer while he was detained at the jail. According to Officer Ray, Mr. Shroyer told him that “his people” had six cases of C–4 military explosives,1 and that there were a large number of skin heads in Fort Wayne who were armed and would not hesitate to shoot law enforcement officers. When Officer Ray referenced the recent influx of skin heads, Mr. Shroyer stated that things were going to get crazy. He told Officer Ray to talk to his wife, Crystal, for more specific details.
After finishing his conversation with Mr. Shroyer, Officer Ray went to the Shroyer house, which is located in a residential area of Fort Wayne, to speak to the Plaintiff about the white supremacist movement in the Fort Wayne area and the report of C–4 explosives. Officer Ray contends that the Plaintiff and three young men with shaved heads came to the door. Officer Ray told the Plaintiff that he had talked to her husband. She did not provide him any information in response to questions about the local white supremacist movement but, according to Officer Ray, nodded her head in an affirmative motion when he mentioned C–4 explosives.
The Plaintiff remembers that Officer Ray talked to her about a gang coming to town, but maintains that he did not say anything about explosives. (C. Shroyer Dep. 106, ECF No. 65–1 at 12.) Mr. Shroyer also denies that he said anything about having C–4 explosives to Officer Ray. (S. Shroyer Dep. 4, ECF No. 65–5 at 1.)
Officer Ray relayed his conversations with the Shroyers to Detective Harris who, in turn, told SA Skender. SA Skender was already familiar with Mr. Shroyer from the ATF investigation that preceded his arrest. On July 3, 2008, during the course of the ATF investigation, SA Skender was listening to a conversation between Mr. Shroyer, an undercover ATF agent, and a confidential informant when he heard Mr. Shroyer say that he was trying to obtain some C–4 explosives. SA Skender had also personally observed tattoos on Mr. Shroyer, a swastika and SS bolts, which he believed suggested affiliation with a white power movement. Detective Harris told SA Skender that when Officer Ray attempted to talk to the Plaintiff, the three men remained at the door and she was hesitant to speak. SA Skender contacted Sergeant Stier, the Hazardous Devices Unit Supervisor for the Fort Wayne Police Department, and briefed him on the situation. They determined that it was important to contact the Plaintiff about the C–4 and perhaps search the residence to eliminate the potential safety threat to her and the other residents in the area. SA Skender requested that Fort Wayne police officers serve as back-up for a “knock and talk” with the Plaintiff at her home.2 On Friday, May 1, SA Skender, TFO Rivera, and TFO Tapp went to the Shroyers' residence on behalf of the ATF. Officer Thompson, Detective Harris, and Sergeant Squadrito provided back-up by assisting in securing a perimeter around the Plaintiff's house. Sergeant Stier was also present.
Between 9:30PM and 10:00PM, the officers approached the house and situated themselves on three sides. TFO Tapp and Officer Thompson were carrying long guns in the low ready position. Another agent was in the front of the house on the far side of the sidewalk behind a tree with his firearm pointed toward the ground. SA Skender and Sergeant Squadrito approached the front door with their guns holstered. Inside the house were the Plaintiff and her two children, William Martin, Jessica Brown (Martin's girlfriend), Andrew Snyder (the Plaintiff's brother), Felicia Sthrol (the Plaintiff's cousin) and Danielle Campbell, a friend who also had her elementary age daughter with her. Another friend's young daughter was also visiting at the time. The Plaintiff's brother was the first to notice the officers outside, and exclaimed that there was a guy outside pointing a gun at the window of the room where the kids were playing. Martin went to the front door and spoke briefly with the officers, who requested to speak with the Plaintiff. Martin called for the Plaintiff to come outside because there were cops at the door for her, and the Plaintiff went out on the front porch to talk to SA Skender.
SA Skender identified himself to the Plaintiff and advised that he was there because the ATF and FWPD had information that the house possibly contained some explosives, C–4, and he wanted to come in, find it, and remove it for safety concerns. The Plaintiff denied there was any C–4 in the house and said that the officers could not come in without a warrant. Over the course of the next hour,3 the officers stayed outside the residence attempting to gain the Plaintiff's consent to search the home. At least five different law enforcement officers spoke to the Plaintiff. The parties tell differing versions of what transpired during the time, specifically as it relates to what the officers said. All the parties agree that the Plaintiff walked around outside smoking a cigarette while officers continued to talk to her about getting permission to look for C–4. The other adults who had been inside the house came outside and were sitting on the front porch. Martin claims that an officer instructed all the adults to come outside. While on the porch, Campbell expressed to the Plaintiff what she knew about warrants and legal rights, and one of the officers threatened to take her to jail for obstructing the investigation. (Campbell Dep. 22, ECF No. 65–2 at 5.) The Plaintiff testified that some of the officers threatened that they would be “back with flash bombs to throw in the house” and run them out so the officers could gain access, that it was going to be “headline news with Washington D.C. and the FBI and everybody was going to be involved.” (C. Shroyer Dep. 127, ECF No. 65–1 at 17.) One of the officers at the back of the house warned that if the Plaintiff's dog (a large bulldog) was not controlled, he would shoot the dog. SA Skender, while trying to convince the Plaintiff to let him find the C–4, spoke in derogatory terms about the Plaintiff's husband within hearing of her children. Martin, who was still a teenager, left the porch to talk to his mother, who had pulled up in a car. The officers asked him to empty his pockets and patted him down. Martin's mother told an officer that she wanted to take Martin home, but the officer said that Martin could not leave at that time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shattuck v. Anderson
...64; Filing No. 67 at 37-40.] Accordingly, the Court will apply the standard for false imprisonment only. See Shroyer v. United States, 904 F. Supp. 2d 914, 926 (N.D. Ind. 2012) ("Although false arrest and false imprisonment are claims that Indiana courts treat interchangeably, they are dist......
-
Torres v. City of Chi.
...had consented before participating in a search.12 The court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff's reliance on Shroyer v. United States, 904 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ind. 2012) is misplaced. The defendant officers in Shroyer conducted a "knock and talk" and asked for the plaintiff's consent t......