United States v. Rodella

Decision Date21 September 2014
Docket NumberNo. CR 14-2783 JB,CR 14-2783 JB
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
PartiesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS R. RODELLA and THOMAS R. RODELLA, JR., Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS R. RODELLA and THOMAS R. RODELLA, JR., Defendants.

No. CR 14-2783 JB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

September 21, 2014


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before Court on: (i) the Notice of Intention to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), filed August 29, 2014 (Doc. 35)("Notice"); (ii) the Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), filed September 9, 2014 (Doc. 46)("Motion"); and (iii) the Amended Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), filed September 10, 2014 (Doc. 56)("Amended Motion"). The Court held a hearing on September 15, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff United States of America is offering the evidence of three incidents in which Defendant Thomas R. Rodella pulled motorists over in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, for a proper purpose under rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence; (ii) whether the proffered evidence is relevant to the current case; and (iii) whether that evidence's potential for unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Because the United States has presented a proper purpose for the introduction of the evidence -- intent, motive, plan, absence of mistake, and lack of accident -- that goes to an essential element of its case -- that Rodella acted willfully -- because the evidence has a tendency that makes the likelihood of Rodella's willfulness more probable, and because the unfair prejudice of the

Page 2

evidence is not substantially outweighed by its probative value, the Court will grant the Motion and the Amended Motion. The Court will, however, require the United States to state to the jury, during closing arguments, the proper purpose for this evidence to ensure that the jury does not use the evidence for an improper purpose. The United States must state in closing arguments:

(i) Rodella's motive and intent for pursuing Tafoya was to express his road rage, punish disrespect, and force Tafoya to submit to his authority and not to enforce any traffic law.

(ii) Rodella had a plan to drive in a threatening manner towards other motorists, and if he succeeded in provoking any disrespectful act, force the motorist to submit through a display of his authority. The traffic encounters are part of a common plan Rodella had to require the citizens of Rio Arriba to submit to his authority.

(iii) Rodella did not make a mistake or accidently forget that his identity was not apparent to all motorists when he pursued Tafoya in a private Jeep.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Superseding Indictment, filed September 9, 2014 (Doc. 55)("Indictment"), alleges that on March 11, 2014, in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, Rodella, while acting under color of state law, subjected a person -- Michael Tafoya -- to "unreasonable seizure by a law enforcement officer." Indictment at 1. Specifically, Rodella allegedly used unreasonable force and caused an "unlawful arrest by deputies of the Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Office." Indictment at 1. "This offense resulted in bodily injur[ies]" to a person and included the "use and threatened use of a dangerous weapon." Indictment at 1. The Indictment further alleges that Rodella carried and brandished a firearm "during and in relation to a crime of violence for which the defendant may be prosecuted in a court of the United States," and that "in furtherance of such crime, possessed and brandished said firearm." Indictment at 1-2.

Page 3

1. The August, 2013, Incident.1

In August, 2013, Lisa Gonzales, a Los Alamos, New Mexico, resident, and her husband were driving south on Highway 285 in Rio Arriba County. See Amended Motion at 12. A vehicle pulling a camper was in front of them and was driving below the speed limit. See Amended Motion at 12. There was not enough room to pass the vehicle, so Gonzales' husband continued to drive behind the vehicle. See Amended Motion at 12. A pickup, with no law enforcement markings, pulled onto the highway behind Gonzales, caught up to her vehicle, and began tailgating her. See Amended Motion at 12. The vehicle with the camper turned off the highway, so Gonzales' husband increased his speed to the speed limit of fifty-five miles-per-hour. See Amended Motion at 12. The pickup continued tailgating in an aggressive manner for a long time. See Amended Motion at 12. Emergency lights, which were not visible earlier, were activated on the pickup. See Amended Motion at 12. Gonzales' husband prepared to pull over because of the emergency lights, but the road was too narrow and did not have a shoulder. See Amended Motion at 12. Gonzales' husband saw a dirt road ahead, and prepared to pull over onto the dirt road by slowing down and engaging his turning signal. See Amended Motion at 12. Before reaching the dirt road, the pickup "aggressively pulled up alongside" Gonzales' vehicle, occupying the left-hand lane that is designated for traffic coming from the other direction. Amended Motion at 12. Through the passenger-side window of the pickup, Rodella yelled for Gonzales to "[p]ull the fuck over," while pointing his finger at them. Amended Motion at 12. Gonzales' husband "proceeded to the dirt road and pulled over as soon as possible." Amended Motion at 12.

Page 4

Rodella parked the pickup in front of Gonzales' vehicle. See Amended Motion at 12. Rodella parked the pickup in a manner that blocked in Gonzales' vehicle and partly obstructed Highway 285 with the back end of the pickup. See Amended Motion at 12. Rodella exited the pickup, wearing plain clothes, and not displaying a badge or other law enforcement markings. See Amended Motion at 12. Rodella wore a holster with a gun at his hip and walked toward Gonzales' vehicle with his hand on the gun. See Amended Motion at 12-13. Gonzales was terrified, because a man with a gun had blocked their vehicle from accessing Highway 285, and because there was no indication -- other than the "multi-colored lights on the visor" of the pickup -- that Rodella or the vehicle were affiliated with law enforcement. Amended Motion at 13. When Rodella reached the window of the vehicle, he displayed his badge. See Amended Motion at 13. Rodella asked why Gonzales' husband did not pull over when Rodella told him to do so, and Gonzales' husband told Rodella that it was not safe to pull over until he reached the dirt road. See Amended Motion at 13. Gonzales' husband handed Rodella his license and registration, which indicated that he lived in Los Alamos. See Amended Motion at 13. Rodella told Gonzales' husband: "You don't speed in my county." Amended Motion at 13. Rodella did not issue Gonzales or her husband any citation. See Amended Motion at 13.

2. The March, 2013, Incident.

On or about March 28, 2013, Jacob Ledesma, a forty-year-old engineering consultant from Las Cruces, New Mexico, was driving on Highway 84 in Rio Arriba County. See Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma was driving the speed limit when a brown SUV, with no law enforcement markings, turned onto the highway in front of oncoming traffic and Ledesma. See Amended Motion at 7. The SUV drove slowly and caused the traffic to slow down. See Amended Motion at 7. Passing was permitted in that part of the highway, and Ledesma moved

Page 5

into the other lane and passed the SUV. See Amended Motion at 7. The SUV activated emergency lights, which were concealed in the vehicle's front grill. See Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma pulled over to the side of the road, and the SUV pulled over behind him. See Amended Motion at 7.

Rodella stepped out of the SUV, wearing plain clothes without a badge displayed. See Amended Motion at 7. Rodella asked Ledesma: "Do you know who I am?" Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma told Rodella that he did not, so Rodella pulled out his driver's license and handed it to Ledesma. See Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma responded by stating: "So? I have a driver's license, too." Amended Motion at 7. Rodella became angry, reached into his pocket, pulled out his badge, and threw it at Ledesma. See Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma told Rodella that he did not know who Rodella was, that Rodella was not in a marked police unit, and that, if Rodella did not get a marked police unit there immediately, he was going to leave. See Amended Motion at 7. Rodella summoned a sheriff deputy, who arrived in a marked unit and wrote Ledesma tickets "for passing in a no-passing zone and failing to sign his registration." Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma protested to the deputy, and the deputy replied: "He's my boss." Amended Motion at 7. The tickets were dismissed two weeks later. See Amended Motion at 7. Ledesma revisited the area and confirmed that passing was prohibited on that stretch of highway. See Amended Motion at 7-8.

3. The January, 2014, Incident.

Yvette Maes is a fifty-two year-old woman from Rio Arriba County. Amended Motion at 3. In January, 2014, Maes was driving home at night when a vehicle rapidly approached her vehicle from behind and began tailgating her. See Amended Motion at 4. The vehicle passed Maes, and she flashed her high-beam headlights at it. See Amended Motion at 4. The vehicle

Page 6

activated emergency lights, and Maes pulled over to the side of the road. See Amended Motion at 4. The other vehicle pulled over on the side of the road, a short distance...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT