Tittle v. Raines, Civ.A.3:99-CV-0478-L.
| Decision Date | 29 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A.3:99-CV-0478-L.,Civ.A.3:99-CV-0478-L. |
| Citation | 231 F.Supp.2d 537 |
| Parties | Donald A. TITTLE, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Mark RAINES and Steve Rooney, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Jack O. Norman, Law Office of Jack O. Norman, Dallas TX, Russell Daniels, Thomas J. McGeady, James M. Meredith, Logan & Lowry, L.L.P., Vinita, OK, for Plaintiff.
Paul K. Pearce, Jr., Matthews, Crlton, Stein, Shiels, Pearce, Dunn & Knott, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
Before the court is Defendants Mark Raines and Steve Rooney's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 10, 2000. After carefully considering the motion, response, reply, appendices, and applicable law, the court grants Defendants Mark Raines and Steve Rooney's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff Donald Tittle ("Tittle" or "Plaintiff") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Mark Raines ("Raines"), Steve Rooney ("Rooney"), James McLaughlin ("McLaughlin"), and the Town of Addison, Texas ("the Town")(collectively referred to as "Defendants") on March 5, 1999, and filed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") on July 13, 1999. The court, based on Plaintiff's stipulation of dismissal, dismissed Tittle's claims against the Town and McLaughlin on July 17, 2000. By way of his Complaint, Tittle contends that Rooney and Raines arrested him on October 16, 1996, without probable cause, maliciously prosecuted him, conspired to deprive him of his constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution and therefore deprived him of rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Tittle also sues Raines and Rooney for malicious prosecution under Texas state law.
Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle's claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable person would have known. Raines and Rooney also contend that probable cause existed for Tittle's arrest and prosecution and that Tittle's conspiracy claim therefore fails as a matter of law. Finally, Raines and Rooney contend that Tittle's false arrest, conspiracy, and state law malicious prosecution claims are barred by limitations.
Defendants Raines and Rooney move for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Tittle's claims, contending that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding any of his claims. For this reason, Raines and Rooney contend they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff Tittle, on the other hand, contends that summary judgment should be denied because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding all of his claims.
As expected, there are disputed facts in this case; however, many key facts are not in dispute. When the facts are in dispute, they are presented and viewed in the light most favorable to Tittle as the nonmovant. The court, however, does not consider a fact to be in dispute merely by a conclusory or speculative statement or assertion that it is disputed. Competent summary judgment evidence must show that a fact is in dispute. Finally, the court only cites and relies on those facts which are relevant and material to decide the pending summary judgment motion. The court now sets forth the facts it relies on to decide Defendants Raines and Rooney's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Tittle is an attorney and has been licensed to practice law in the state of Texas since 1989. On October 12, 1996, Michele Hiss retained Tittle to provide legal advice to her regarding a hit-and-run accident in which she had been involved earlier that day in Addison, Texas. At approximately 2:30 a.m., Ms. Hiss, driving while intoxicated, struck three pedestrians with her automobile. She killed one pedestrian and seriously injured the other two. As a result of striking the pedestrians, Ms. Hiss's vehicle was damaged and covered with blood. She left the scene and drove the vehicle to the home of her brother, Steve Hiss, and parked it in her brother's driveway or in front of the house. Later that day, Ms. Hiss and Steve Hiss met with Tittle to obtain legal advice from him, and Tittle discussed the case with them. Tittle was aware that the Addison Police Department ("APD") was conducting an investigation into the hit-and-run accident.1
One matter that was discussed over the course of the day between Tittle and his client was whether the vehicle could be moved. Tittle informed Ms. Hiss and her brother that he was uncertain about the answer to their inquiry and that he would conduct some research on the issue. Tittle consulted three different lawyers regarding this issue: Joe Shearin, a criminal defense attorney; Michael Brown, an attorney who attended law school with Tittle at the University of Texas from 1986 to 1989; and James Rolfe, a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas.
Tittle initially contacted Joe Shearin over the weekend of October 12, 1996 regarding the hit-and-run accident, and informed him of "a few of the details." On October 14, 1996, Tittle went to Mr. Shearin's office and discussed several issues regarding the accident. Tittle and Mr. Shearin readily concluded that the vehicle could not be "changed, altered, destroyed, repaired, or attempted to be cleaned up," but had to remain "as is" because it would be used as evidence.
Tittle contacted Michael Brown Saturday morning on October 12, 1996. Mr. Brown and Tittle agreed that if the vehicle in question was of any evidentiary value, it should not be repaired or altered and that the vehicle's existing condition should be preserved.
Tittle called Mr. Rolfe on Tuesday morning, October 15, 1996. Tittle gave some details about the hit-and-run accident involving his client and informed Mr. Rolfe that the vehicle was stored at his client's brother's house, but that his client wanted the car moved. Mr. Rolfe informed Tittle that he believed that the vehicle could be moved as long as the evidence was preserved and its integrity was maintained. Tittle told his clients sometime on October 15, 1996, that it was acceptable to move the vehicle as long as the evidence was preserved and its integrity was maintained.
On October 15, 1996, Ms. Hiss rented a U-Haul truck and flatbed trailer, and a storage unit at the "U-Stor" in Carrollton, Texas. Later on the same day, while the vehicle was in the garage, Tittle met with Judge Vickers Cunningham of Dallas County Criminal Court No. 8 to solicit advice about how to arrange a plea agreement for his client before revealing her identity. According to Judge Cunningham, Tittle told him that the "police were not close to solving this case" and "may in fact not be able to solve the case without his client coming forward and making an admission." Tittle denies making these statements, and to the extent they are relevant, the court must accept Tittle's account. Tittle's focus during his conversation with Judge Cunningham was how he (Tittle) might be able to secure probation for his client prior to making her identity known.
On Tuesday, October 15, 1996, the APD received information from a Thomas Reynolds that the vehicle was in Steve Hiss's garage at 3817 Portsmouth in Plano, Texas. Addison police officers set up surveillance of the residence, while additional investigators began the process of obtaining a search warrant for the vehicle and the garage area of the residence. While the search warrant was being obtained from and signed by a judge, Addison police officers observed a U-Haul truck with a vehicle loaded on a trailer in the alley behind Steve Hiss's residence. Rooney observed Steve Hiss and his father Roger Hiss carrying flashlights and securing the trailer and vehicle for transport. Rooney approached the suspect vehicle and observed Steve Hiss and Roger Hiss placing a tarp over it. At that time, the men only covered the front portion of the vehicle. Rooney was able to verify that the rear license plate number matched the suspect license plate number of the car involved in the hit-and-run accident on October 12, 1996. He also observed that the vehicle was damaged and had blood on the exterior. As Rooney made contact with Steve and Roger Hiss, Michele Hiss left the residence carrying her purse and stated that she was "ready."
While the police officers were at his residence, Steve Hiss called Tittle. Tittle obtained directions to Steve Hiss's house and arrived sometime after 7:00 p.m. Rooney went into the Hiss residence and had a discussion with Tittle regarding the movement of the vehicle in question. Tittle informed Rooney that he (Tittle) believed it was permissible to move the vehicle as long as the evidence was preserved and its integrity was maintained. The vehicle subsequently was seized as evidence.
On October 16, 1996, Rooney either prepared an Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, or had one prepared.2 The affidavit was based on Rooney's personal observation and information he obtained during the course of his investigation. As will be discussed later, Tittle specifically states that he never told Rooney that Steve and Roger Hiss had "concealed" the vehicle or that the vehicle was moved at "counsel's direction." The affidavit was presented to the Honorable Curtis Henderson of the 219th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas. After review of the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, Judge Henderson determined that probable cause existed for the issuance of an arrest warrant for Tittle for the felony offense of Tampering with Physical Evidence, in violation of Tex. Penal Code, § 37.09(a)(1), and issued such a warrant. Tittle was arrested on the evening of October 16, 1996, at the Addison Police Department.
Subsequent to Tittle's arrest, his counsel and Rolfe met with Raines...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist.
...being devoured by Scylla, or (2) being sucked into and drowned by the deadly waters of the whirlpool Charybdis.Tittle v. Raines, 231 F.Supp.2d 537, 554 n.12 (N.D. Tex. 2002), aff'd, 69 Fed.Appx. 658 (5th Cir. 2003).14 The Supreme Court is Geb s er noted that Title IX was modeled after Title......
-
Individually v. Wright, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-3664
...a no-bill, a plaintiff cannot predicate his Fourth Amendment claim on a grand jury'sdetermination. See, e.g., Tittle v. Raines, 231 F. Supp. 2d 537, 554-555 (N.D. Tex. 2002). Whether a charge is later dropped or a defendant is found not guilty is immaterial to the probable cause analysis. B......
-
Harris v. Rivera
...violation of section 1983.'" Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 920 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); see also Tittle v. Raines, 231 F.Supp.2d 537, 553 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (Lindsay, J.) ("A conspiracy by itself is not actionable under § 1983." (citation omitted)). Because, as explained supra at §......