Stallworth v. Hurst
| Decision Date | 05 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:18-cv-1005-RAH-SRW (WO) |
| Parties | ORRILYN MAXWELL STALLWORTH, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY W. HURST, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff Orrilyn Maxwell Stallworth's ("Stallworth" or "Plaintiff") arrest and prosecution for driving under the influence.
Stallworth claims that Rodney W. Hurst1 ("Hurst" or "Defendant"), a Chilton County Sheriff's Deputy, is liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Now before the Court is Hurst's motion for summary judgment on allclaims ("Motion"). (Doc. 54.) The parties have since filed evidence and briefs in support of their respective positions on the Motion, which is now ripe for review.
After carefully considering the Motion, Stallworth's response, (Doc. 59), and Hurst's reply, (Doc. 60), and for the reasons more fully set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant Hurst's Motion is due to be GRANTED.
The events giving rise to this action took place late on the evening of December 4, 2016, when Stallworth, a black female, was driving from Daleville to Birmingham, Alabama along I-65 northbound in a newly purchased car. (Doc. 27, p. 5; Doc. 53-2, pp. 12-13, 17.) Shortly after 10:00 p.m. that evening, she stopped at a Texaco gas station located off the interstate in Chilton County where she proceeded to nap in her car.2 (Doc. 27, p. 5; Doc. 53-2, p. 13.) Hurst, who was on patrol duty, arrived at the same gas station around 11:00 p.m. to conduct a routine business check and noticed Stallworth's parked car running with the lights on. (Doc. 53-3, pp. 10-12.) Stallworth claims Hurst was in a position to see that she was a black female, (Doc. 27, pp. 5-6), but Hurst disputes this, (Doc. 53-3, pp. 12-13, 30). Stallworth eventually resumed her drive on I-65, and as she drove away from the gas station,Hurst noticed that her car had a dealership drive-off tag rather than a government-issued license plate. (Id., p. 13.)
Soon after, Hurst, too, entered I-65 northbound, though according to Hurst, he was not following Stallworth. (Id.) However, while on the interstate, Hurst began paying special attention to Stallworth's car as it fluctuated in speeds from as low as around 40 mph, as Stallworth herself admits, (Doc. 53-2, p. 16), to as high as around 85 mph, and swerved within its lane, (Doc. 53-3, pp. 14-15). For her part, Stallworth disputes that she ever accelerated over the speed limit; however, she admits that she tried to play a CD and struggled with the car's audio control buttons. (Doc. 53-2, p. 16.) Regardless, Hurst began driving behind her, at which point he observed Stallworth's car swerve over the dividing line multiple times and change lanes without signaling. (Doc 53-3, p. 15.) Based on Stallworth's erratic driving, Hurst determined it appropriate to conduct a traffic stop. (Doc. 53-3, pp. 15-16.)
Hurst directed Stallworth to pull over at an off-ramp by activating his emergency lights and, once stopped, began recording the encounter on his eyeglass camera.3 (Doc. 53-1; Doc. 53-3, pp. 29-30.) He approached the driver side ofStallworth's car, shined a flashlight into the car, and questioned Stallworth, asking whether she was "alright" or "a little sleepy."4 (Doc. 53-1.) In the video, Stallworth can be seen rubbing her legs before slowly responding that she was "just a little tired." (Id.) Hurst then asked whether Stallworth had been taking a nap at the gas station, and Stallworth, who appears lethargic on video, sluggishly confirmed that she had indeed been napping while parked at the gas station. (Id.) Before returning to his vehicle, Hurst asked Stallworth for her license, and she complied. (Id.)
While Hurst ran Stallworth's license, Stallworth reshuffled the belongings in her backseat. According to Stallworth, she simply straightened up the interior of the car "to look nice." (Doc. 53-2, p. 17.) But Hurst noticed that items had been rearranged, and upon returning to the driver's side of Stallworth's car, he immediately called for backup, citing a possible intoxicated driver. (Doc. 53-1; Doc. 53-3, p. 17.) Again, Hurst approached Stallworth's window and asked, "Have you have anything to drink at all tonight?" to which Stallworth replied in the negative. (Doc. 53-1.) Hurst also asked about a boot and jacket that had been moved from the backseat and an open bottle on the floorboard that Stallworth insisted contained tea. (Doc. 53-1; Doc. 53-3, p. 33.) As Hurst explained to Stallworth at the time, "something [didn't] seem right," and he gave Stallworth the following reasons for the traffic stop:
You didn't use a blinker a-ways back. Your speed has been going up and down for the last few miles. You rolled down the middle of the road at one point. And right now, your speech is kind of slurred. You're slow to react. I've never met you, so I'm just having to go by what I see, okay?
(Doc. 53-1.) All the while, Stallworth repeatedly asserted that she did not drink or do drugs and informed Hurst that she was a licensed attorney. (Id.)
Hurst then questioned Stallworth about the contents of her car, and specifically, whether it contained anything illegal. (Id.) Though she told him it did not, when he eventually requested her consent to search the car, she only replied,"why?" (Id.) Hurst then referenced the displaced boot, to which Stallworth maintained that she was "just straightening up." (Id.) As Stallworth tried to reason, "There's nothing wrong with that." (Id.) Hurst then asked her to step out of the car in order to perform a set of field sobriety tests; Stallworth's only response, again, was "why?" (Id.) City of Clanton Police Officer Matt Foshee arrived at the scene around this time and both officers then unsuccessfully attempted to convince Stallworth to submit to the field sobriety tests. Once out of Stallworth's earshot, Foshee noted to Hurst that Stallworth's eyes seemed "glossy" and her speech "slowed and slurred." (Id.)
Stallworth eventually exited her car a few minutes later, at which point Hurst and Foshee administered several field sobriety tests ("FSTs"), including a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, a one-leg stand, and a drug recognition test ("DRE test"). (Doc. 53-2, pp. 17-18; Doc. 53-3, pp. 8, 19-20.) Stallworth additionally recounts that the officers administered a fifth test - the ABC test - though Hurst did not discuss it in his deposition or brief. (Doc. 53-2, p. 17.) Each of these tests, as explained in the expert report of Shane D. Healey, (Doc. 53-12, p. 12), has been recognized in numerous courts as the standard to establish whether an individual is impaired.
As Hurst administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test,5 Hurst noted that Stallworth appeared paranoid, confused, distracted, and slow to react. (Doc. 53-3, pp. 18-19.) He also concluded that she "lacked smooth tracking." (Doc. 53-3, p. 20.) Foshee agreed with this assessment. (Doc. 53-4, p. 15.) According to Stallworth, she was "concerned and felt threatened for her life" while Hurst administered this test.6 (Doc. 53-2, p. 18.)
The parties' accounts of the other three FSTs7 - none of which Hurst or any other officer captured on video - differ slightly but not substantially. As Hurst administered the one-leg stand test, both he and Foshee observed that Stallworth had difficulty keeping her balance. (Doc. 53-3, p. 20; Doc. 53-4, p. 9.) And as she completed the walk-and-turn test, Hurst testified that Stallworth's heels and toes did not meet. (Doc. 53-3, p. 20.) According to Stallworth, her poor balance was traceable to a fall she had suffered at work. (Doc. 53-2, pp. 17-18.)
The DRE test requires a person to put her arms straight out, tilt her head back, close her eyes, count to thirty, and once she has finished counting, to notify the testadministrator. (Doc. 53-3, p. 20.) According to Officer Hurst's testimony, Stallworth reported that she had completed tasks, including counting to thirty, after only ten seconds. (Id.)
Based upon Hurst's observations of Stallworth's erratic driving behavior and mannerisms over the course of the investigatory stop, and performance on the field sobriety tests, Hurst determined that probable cause existed to arrest Stallworth for driving under the influence. (See Doc. 53-3, pp. 8-9; Doc. 53-10; Doc. 53-13.) He additionally issued her a traffic citation for failure to signal in violation of Ala. Code § 32-5A-134. (See Doc. 53-13.) According to Hurst, before handcuffing her, he asked Stallworth whether she had anyone who could pick her up from the scene or if she would voluntarily go to the hospital for further examination, but she declined both options. (Doc. 53-3, p. 20.) Stallworth disputes that she was given any option to avoid arrest. (Doc. 53-2, p. 20.)
Hurst then handcuffed Stallworth, who testified that she believed consenting to a search of her car at this point would keep the officers from arresting her. (Id., p. 18.) In her words, she told them to (Id.) Hurst seated Stallworth in the back of his vehicle and proceeded with the search, finding only an energy drink, a bottle of tea, and a FedEx uniform shirt. (Doc.53-3, p. 33.) He then proceeded with the arrest and transported Stallworth to the Chilton County jail. (Id., pp. 21-22.) At the jail, Stallworth was administered a Drager Alcotest, which proved negative for alcohol. (Doc. 59-2.) She was then placed in a holding cell8 until she was released the following morning. (Doc. 53-2, p. 19; Doc. 53-8.)
On December 6, 2016, Hurst formally charged Stallworth with driving under the influence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial