Stokes v. Janosko
| Decision Date | 12 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 16-64 |
| Parties | OSCAR STOKES, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER ADAM JANOSKO; and TROOPER PATRICK BIDDLE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a civil rights case arising from an early-morning traffic stop that escalated into a pursuit through the snowy/icy roads of downtown Uniontown and resulted in an officer involved shooting. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff Oscar Stokes brings claims for assault, battery and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, Trooper Adam Janosko and Trooper Patrick Biddle of the Pennsylvania State Police. (Docket Nos. 1, 23 (narrowing the claims)). Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants which is opposed by Plaintiff. (Docket Nos. 79; 83). The motion has been fully briefed and the Court held oral argument, making it ripe for disposition. (Docket Nos. 79-86). After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, and for the following reasons, Defendants' motion [79] is granted.
Shortly after midnight on January 18, 2014, Troopers Janosko and Biddle were in a marked state police cruiser conducting a routine patrol in the Uniontown City area. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 7, 10, 12, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 7, 10, 12, 40). Trooper Biddle was driving and Trooper Janosko was his passenger. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 11; 84 at ¶ 11). The vehicle was equipped with dash camera technology which was activated, providing a video recording of the events which took place in view of the cruiser, although there is no associated audio.1 (Def. Ex. L. Docket No. 82-12).
At the same time, Plaintiff, whose driver's license had been suspended since 2004, was driving his father's white truck which had tinted windows on the driver's side and back windows. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 5; 84 at ¶ 5). Plaintiff had left his parents' house at 414 Morgantown Street to go to an area bar and was traveling on Warden Street. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 8; 84 at ¶ 8). He admitted at his deposition that his father did not know that he had taken the truck. (Docket No. 82-5 at 46).
As Trooper Biddle drove the cruiser on Braddock Avenue toward a 4-way stop sign at the intersection with Warden Street, the troopers observed a white truck with tinted windows driving on Warden Street proceed directly through a stop sign. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 12, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 12, 40; Def. Ex. L). The timestamp on the video indicates that the truck drives through the stop sign at 12:10:40 a.m. (Def. Ex. L). Plaintiff was driving the truck; although the troopers did not know it at the time. Trooper Biddle made a right turn onto Warden Street and pulled the cruiser behind the truck while Trooper Janosko queried the plate. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 13, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 13, 40; Def. Ex. L. Docket No. 82-12). The truck proceeded to the intersection with Clarendon Avenue, initiated its right turn signal, stopped and turned onto Clarendon Avenue at 12:10:55 a.m. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 14, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 14, 40; Def. Ex. L). Trooper Biddle followed thetruck through the intersection and then activated the cruiser's lights at 12:11:00 a.m. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 15, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 15, 40; Def. Ex. L). Plaintiff testified that he saw the lights, knew that it was a police car behind him, understood that he was required to pull over in such situations but did not do so on the night in question. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 17-18; 84 at ¶¶ 17-18). Plaintiff explained that he failed to stop because was not supposed to be driving his father's car and he wanted to get it back to his parents' home so that it would not be towed due to his lack of a valid license and his father would not have to pay the towing fee. (Def. Ex. E at 42-43, Docket No. 82-5). Plaintiff added that he was also afraid due to prior interactions with police and wanted to pull the truck over in a "safe" place. (Def. Ex. E at 45, Docket No. 82-5). He continued that he considered his parents' home on Morgantown Street to be a "safe" place and wanted to pull over there so that he could have a "witness" if he was assaulted by police. (Id.).
Since Plaintiff did not stop, the troopers continued to pursue the truck through several turns and alleyways in the residential neighborhood. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 19, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 19, 40; Def Ex. L). Specifically, the police report indicates that from Clarendon Avenue, Plaintiff made a left onto an unnamed alley; another left onto Victoria Street; a right back onto Clarendon Avenue; and a left back onto Warden Street. (Def. Ex. F, Docket No. 82-6). The vehicle was driving aggressively but not speeding, enabling Trooper Biddle to tail the truck in a close enough position where the dash cam video recording follows Plaintiff along this route. (Def. Ex. L). The video also reveals that Plaintiff failed to signal and clearly drove through another stop sign when turning back onto Clarendon Avenue. (Def. Ex. L; Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 40; 84 at ¶ 40).
As Plaintiff turned left onto Braddock Avenue up a slight grade, his truck encountered difficulty as it became stuck on the icy road with its wheels actively spinning. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 20, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 20, 40; Def. Ex. L). While the truck's forward momentum was stoppedmomentarily but still rocking and attempting to gain traction on the icy road, Trooper Biddle pulled the cruiser into the left lane of traffic near the driver's side door. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 40; 84 at ¶ 40; Def. Ex. L). The timestamp on the video indicates that the cruiser stops at 12:11:38 a.m. (Def. Ex. L).
Image materials not available for display.
Trooper Janosko exited the cruiser and quickly approached the driver's side door of the truck. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 21, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 21, 40; Def. Ex. L). He testified that he intended to arrest the operator of the vehicle for fleeing and eluding law enforcement. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 21, 40; 84 at ¶¶ 21, 40). Trooper Janosko, who is left-handed, drew his service revolver as he exited the vehicle and held it in his left hand. (Def. Ex. L). The revolver has a mounted flash light. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 40; 84 at ¶ 40). As the truck started to move forward, Trooper Janosko placed his right hand on the side of the truck and used his service revolver to strike thedriver's side window of the truck twice at 12:11:41 a.m.2 (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 22-23; 84 at ¶¶ 22-23; Def. Ex. L).
Image materials not available for display.
The window did not break and Trooper Janosko used his right hand to open the door while the truck was pulling away at 12:11:44 a.m. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 24; 84 at ¶ 24; Def. Ex. L). When the door opens, Trooper Janosko retreats a few steps into a shooting stance, pointing his service revolver directly at the driver. (Def. Ex. L).
Image materials not available for display.
The truck continues forward and Trooper Janosko reacts by putting down the firearm, lunging toward the driver and grabs Plaintiff's left shoulder with his right hand at 12:11:47 a.m. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 24; 84 at ¶ 24; Def. Ex. L).
Image materials not available for display.Trooper Janosko is initially unsuccessful but grabs again and engages Plaintiff's shoulder while the truck moves up Warden Street, pulling Trooper Janosko with it.3 (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 27; 84 at ¶ 27; Def. Ex. L).
On the video, a plume of exhaust from the cruiser moves from right to left, partially obscuring the view of the events, but the truck is seen veering right, toward a utility pole and house, with the driver's side door open and Trooper Janosko running with the truck, still physically engaged with Plaintiff as he is driving. (Def. Ex. L). Trooper Biddle exits the cruiser, with his firearm in his right hand, and pursues them on foot. (Id.).
Image materials not available for display.
A few flashes are seen out the passenger window as the truck is steered toward the right, through an alley, narrowly avoiding the utility pole and a chain link fence. (Def. Ex. L). Trooper Janosko continues in his position near the driver's side door as the truck turns and thecabin can be seen illuminated through the un-tinted passenger window. (Id.). As Trooper Biddle pursues on foot and sees the truck veering toward the fence, he exclaims to his partner "He's going to kill you." (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶ 33; 84 at ¶ 33; Def. Ex. L). The truck and troopers remain in these positions as they move down the alley and out of view of the dash camera.4 (Def. Ex. L). Specifically, the video demonstrates all of the following:
• the truck's brake lights are engaged at 12:11:51 a.m., causing the truck to slow;
Image materials not available for display.
• a flash is seen at 12:11:51 a.m. lighting up the passenger side rear view mirror as the truck continues to move toward the utility pole;
Image materials not available for display.
• a second flash is seen at 12:11:52 a.m., as the truck is turning to the right into the alley;
Image materials not available for display.
• as the truck is mid-turn, the rearview mirror clearly reflects the light at 12:11:53 a.m.
Image materials not available for display.
• and the truck completes the turn at 12:11:56 a.m. with the cabin fully illuminated, Trooper Janosko still at the driver's door and Trooper Biddle trailing near the rear passenger tire:
Image materials not available for display.
There are two essential disputes between the parties. They first contest whether Trooper Janosko instructed Plaintiff to pull over and warned him that if he did not do so, he would shoot. (Docket Nos. 81 at ¶¶ 28; 34-35; 37; 84 at ¶¶ 28; 34-35; 37). To this end, Trooper Janosko testified that throughout this episode, he gave Plaintiff repeated commands to pull over and shut off the vehicle and warned he would shoot him if he did not comply. (Id.). Plaintiff countered at his deposition that he did not hear any warnings and only heard Trooper Janosko tell him, repeatedly, that he would shoot him. (Docket No. 84 at ¶¶ 25-28, Def. Ex. E, Docket No....
To continue reading
Request your trial