Smith v. Chief

• Citation: 975 F.Supp.2d 930
• Decision Date: 30 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 1:11–cv–00234–SEB–MJD.,1:11–cv–00234–SEB–MJD.
• Parties: Andrea SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief, Paul R. CIESIELSKI, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer, Brandon Hazelton, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer, Brian McCann, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer, Rick Jones, The City of Indianapolis, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

975 F.Supp.2d 930

Andrea SMITH, Plaintiff,

v.Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief, Paul R. CIESIELSKI, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer, Brandon Hazelton, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer, Brian McCann, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer, Rick Jones, The City of Indianapolis, Defendants.

No. 1:11–cv–00234–SEB–MJD.

United States District Court,

S.D. Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

Sept. 30, 2013.

Timothy Arthur Rowe, Rowe & Hamilton, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Phillip Will, Office of Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, IN, Beth Ann Garrison, City of Indianapolis, Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 70], filed on April 13, 2012 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56. Defendants seek summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims under the United States Constitution, the Indiana Constitution, and Indiana tort law. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Factual Background

Plaintiff Andrea Smith is a resident of Indianapolis who has brought this suit seeking damages for injuries arising out of an April 20, 2010 automobile collision with a group of felony suspects attempting to elude police in a high-speed chase. Defendants are the City of Indianapolis, Chief of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Paul R. Ciesielski, and three individual officers of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD). Defendant Brandon Hazelton is a patrol officer who entered the police academy on July 6, 2009, and graduated to enter service in January 2010. Hazelton Dep. 5. Defendant Rick Jones is a field training officer who had served with IMPD for more than eight years at the time of the accident and was responsible for supervising Officer Hazelton, who was in his initial probationary period as a patrol officer. Jones Dep. 4–6. Defendant Brian McCann is a patrol officer; at the time of the accident he had been in the IMPD's northwest district for approximately three years. McCann Dep. 4.

1. Circumstances of the Accident

This lawsuit arises out of a series of events that unfolded rapidly on April 20, 2010. On that morning, Indianapolis resident Antoninett Walker placed a 911 call to report a robbery and request assistance from the IMPD. Defs.' Br. at 2; see Lemond Aff. ¶¶ 10–11. Ms. Walker informed the 911 dispatcher that two of the three suspects had attacked and handcuffed her at approximately 8:30 a.m. According to Ms. Walker, all three suspects—Timothy George, James Hoover, and David Taylor—thereafter entered the home she shared with her fiancé, battered and tied up her fiancé, and looted the residence. Lemond Aff. ¶¶ 4, 8; see Am. Compl. ¶ 5. She further noted that the suspects, who were carrying a firearm, had left the premises via Guion Road in a silver Ford Windstar minivan. Hazelton Dep. 29. After Ms. Walker relayed her emergency to the 911 operator, news of the alleged armed robbery was dispatched to all IMPD officers in the vicinity. See id.

Among the first officers to hear the radio message describing Ms. Walker's emergency were Officers Hazelton and Jones, who were on duty together as part of Officer Hazelton's IMPD field training.¹ Defs.' Br. at 3. Officer Hazelton, although operating Officer Jones's police vehicle, was working under Officer Jones's supervision. Id.; Pl.'s Resp. at 2. When these officers received the 911 dispatch, they were monitoring traffic at the intersection of 56th Street and Georgetown Road. Jones Dep. 25. Officer Jones asserts that, in light of their proximity to Guion Road, he and Officer Hazelton decided to pursue the suspects. Id. at 26. Accordingly, Officer Hazelton began driving south on Guion Road, soon spotting a vehicle matching the 911 operator's description of the suspects' minivan; he and Officer Jones then notified dispatch of the discovery and continued to follow the vehicle. Defs.' Br. at 3–4.

Meanwhile, Officer McCann learned from the IMPD dispatch that Officers Hazelton and Jones were pursuing the suspects' vehicle and that the minivan and police vehicle would soon pass him at the intersection of 56th Street and Arabian Run. Officer McCann decided to “back[ ] onto the run,” i.e., he waited for the two vehicles to pass him and pulled in behind Officers Hazelton and Jones “[a]s soon as there was no traffic.” McCann Dep. 20, 22. Officer McCann asserts that although Officer Hazelton's vehicle's emergency lights and sirens were originally off, they were both activated “as soon as [Officer McCann] got in behind him.” ²Id. at 23. Officer McCann followed Officers Hazelton and Jones for the remainder of their pursuit, serving as the secondary officer. In that capacity, his main responsibilities were to handle radio traffic and apprise the IMPD communications personnel of the suspects' location. Id. at 15. At all times during his involvement in the pursuit, Officer McCann alleges that his emergency lights and siren were on and that he switched the siren's intensity from “traditional” to “phaser” near the intersection of Kessler Boulevard and Grandview Drive. McCann Dep. 2; Defs.' Ex. E at 29.

Hoping to evade the officers, the suspects began driving with increased recklessness; they exceeded the posted speed limit,³ passed vehicles in “no-passing” zones, and drove through a red light at the intersection of Michigan Road and Kessler Boulevard. Defs.' Br. at 6. Officer Hazelton then “slowed and cleared the intersection and ... began to accelerate in an attempt to catch up to the [suspects'] vehicle.” Jones Dep. 34. At one point, Hazelton's vehicle reached speeds of around 80 miles per hour; despite their attempt to catch up, however, the officers remained far enough behind the suspects that they threatened to lose sight of the fleeing van. Jones Dep. 21–22. The suspects passed into the oncoming traffic lane as they entered a narrow, curved stretch of Kessler Boulevard east of Michigan Road—a predominantly residential area. Popovich Dep. 27. Near a large curve at Kessler's intersection with Fox Hill Road, the suspects' van collided head-on with Plaintiff's car, which was in the proper (westbound) lane of traffic. Smith Dep. 23. Upon arriving at the scene of the collision shortly thereafter, Officers Hazelton, Jones, and McCann approached the suspects' van and arrested all three occupants for their alleged burglary of the Walker home. McCann Dep. 52. From its beginning to the suspects' collision with Plaintiff's car, the chase lasted for approximately three minutes in total. McCann Dep. 23. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries to her hip, knee, and hand as a result of the collision; she spent nearly three months in hospital care and undergoing rehabilitation. Smith Dep. 30.

2. Police Policies and Procedures for High–Speed Chases

The City of Indianapolis, through the IMPD, has promulgated several executive orders (“General Orders”) governing the general conduct of its police officers. General Order 1.1, “Law Enforcement Role and Responsibility,” sets forth the City's philosophy regarding IMPD officers as follows:

The primary duty of a police officer is to uphold and enforce the law. Members of the [IMPD] must accept the responsibility of being held to a higher standard[ ] and must be able to enforce the laws and protect the rights of its citizens. The application and enforcement of the law must be accomplished in the spirit set forth by the framers of the United States Constitution.

Defs.' Ex. J, at 1. This order requires all IMPD officers to swear an oath of office in which they promise to support the United States and Indiana Constitutions. It also authorizes them to “carry and use any weapon authorized and/or issued by the [IMPD] in the performance of their duties,” so long as they receive proper training in the use of such weapons. Id. Additionally, it obligates them to abide by the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, which categorizes “safeguard[ing] lives and property” as a fundamental duty. Id. at 2.

General Order 4.16, “Police Vehicle Operations,” obligates all IMPD officers to exercise “due regard for the safety of others” when operating department vehicles. Defs.' Ex. L, at 1. “[D]ue caution at all times, regardless of the nature of a run, for the protection of life and property of the employee and others,” is mandated. Id. at 2. When driving official vehicles, officers must conform their conduct to the department's overarching policy that “[s]tate and local exemptions will not protect an employee from consequences of any act involving a reckless disregard for the safety of the employee or others.” Id. at 1. Nevertheless, to recognize and accommodate the frequency with which officers face exigent circumstances, General Order 4.16 also provides directives for officers who, in their discretion, are operating department vehicles in emergencies. Four of these requirements are that:

(1) [d]epartment vehicles must be operated under emergency conditions only when the officer is responding to a reported or confirmed emergency situation, or when properly operating under pursuit conditions. Officers should refer to general order regarding [v]ehicle [p]ursuits;

(2) [w]hen operating a police vehicle under emergency conditions, the emergency lights and sirens must be utilized;

(3) [a]n officer may disregard an automatic traffic control signal or stop sign only when responding to an emergency situation or when properly operating a department vehicle under pursuit conditions.... In both instances, the officer must approach the intersection with caution and be prepared to stop. The officer may proceed only when it is safe by clearing the intersection lane by lane; and

(4) [p]olice vehicles approaching an ... [intersection] must be prepared to take evasive action and brake ... [and] must proceed with caution.

Id....