Winfield v. Trottier
| Decision Date | 21 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:08-cv-278 |
| Parties | MARIE WINFIELD and JASON WINFIELD, Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL TROTTIER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 43)
Plaintiffs Marie and Jason Winfield bring this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Trooper Daniel Trottier of the Vermont State Police. Plaintiffs allege that Trooper Trottier violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws, during a motor vehicle stop that occurred on Interstate 89 in Vermont. Plaintiffs also allege violations of Chapter I, Article Eleven of the Vermont State Constitution, as well as false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Vermont common law.1
Presently before the court is Trooper Trottier's motion for summary judgment on all claims. (Doc. 43.) On June 6, 2011, the court heard oral argument on the motion at which time the parties agreed to file a stipulated transcript of the audio recording of the incident.2 The parties filed the transcript on July 28, 2011.
Plaintiffs are represented by Allison Ericson, Esq., Daniel M. Sedon, Esq., and Kelly Green, Esq. Trooper Trottier is represented by Assistant Vermont Attorneys General Megan J. Shafritz and Jana M. Brown.
On the afternoon of May 26, 2007, Memorial Day weekend, Marie Winfield and her son Jason Winfield, who are both African American, were driving northbound on Interstate 89 in Vermont en route to Canada. At approximately 4:10 p.m., Trooper Trottier stopped Plaintiffs' vehicle for operating twenty miles in excess of the posted speed limit (85 mph in a 65 mph zone).
Trooper Trottier approached Plaintiffs' vehicle on the passenger's side. As he approached he observed what he later described as a "large diatribe taped to the rear window which was proclaiming the operator's dislike of authorities."3 (Doc. 57-6.) Upon reaching the vehicle's passenger door, Trooper Trottier asked Ms. Winfield, who was in the driver's seat, for her license, registration, and proof of insurance. As Ms. Winfield provided this documentation, Trooper Trottier asked her where she was "heading in such a hurry." Ms. Winfield explained that she was traveling from North Andover, Massachusetts to Canada in order to visit her father who had recently suffered a stroke. She stated that this was her third recent trip to Canada, and that her most recent trip had occurred three weeks earlier. During this exchange, Trooper Trottier noticed that Jason Winfield purposefully avoided making eye contact with him.
Following his initial conversation with Ms. Winfield, Trooper Trottier returned to his cruiser to run a computer check on Ms. Winfield's information. After several minutes, Trooper Trottier returned to Plaintiffs' vehicle and advised that the check on Ms. Winfield's information was "going to be just a minute" longer. Trooper Trottier observed that Ms. Winfield was eating a snack in what he regarded as a hurried manner.
Trooper Trottier then asked Jason Winfield for his identification, and explained that the information check was taking longer than usual because there were a lot of people on the road that day. A few minutes later, Trooper Trottier approached the driver's side of Plaintiffs' vehicle, and spoke to Ms. Winfield through the front driver's side window, stating: "Ms. Winfield, you don't have to if you don't want to, but while we're waiting, would you mind coming back here for a minute [behind the car] and talk[ing] to me for a second?" In response, Ms. Winfield got out of the car, and both she and Trooper Trottier walked around to the back of Plaintiffs' vehicle. At this point, Trooper Aimee Nolan arrived on the scene.
Once behind Plaintiffs' vehicle, Trooper Trottier gestured toward the sign fashioned to the rear window of Plaintiffs' car. He asked Ms. Winfield: Ms. Winfield explained that she was sponsoring a legislative bill in Massachusetts, and the sign on her car was an effort to promote the bill. Trooper Trottier then said, Ms. Winfield responded, "Not that I know of." Trooper Trottier, responded: Ms. Winfield remarked "Really?" to which Trooper Trottier responded: "[B]ecause when I was talking with you, you were shaking; your voice was shaking."
Upon Trooper Trottier's request, Ms. Winfield identified her passenger as her son and explained that she was "probably tired" because her daughter's high school graduation was the preceding night. The following exchange then occurred:
(Doc. 68-1.)
After instructing Ms. Winfield to stand to the side near Trooper Nolan, Trooper Trottier approached the front passenger door of Plaintiffs' vehicle. Through the passenger side window, Trooper Trottier asked Jason Winfield, "Do you mind stepping out [of the car] for a minute, please?" Trooper Trottier then opened the car door and asked Mr. Winfield, Mr. Winfield stepped out of the vehicle while these questions were being asked. Once Mr. Winfield was outside the vehicle, the following exchange occurred:
During this exchange, Mr. Winfield extended his arms away from his body, which permitted Trooper Trottier to complete a pat-down over Mr. Winfield's clothing which lasted approximately fifteen seconds. In his deposition, Mr. Winfield explained, " I was stretching or extending my arms . . . so he could search[.]" During the pat-down, Trooper Trottier felt an object that Mr. Winfield identified as a set of keys. Mr. Winfield removed the keys upon Trooper Trottier's request. After the pat-down, Trooper Trottier directed Mr. Winfield to stand on the far side of the road, away from the moving traffic on the Interstate, with his mother and Trooper Nolan and to "keep [his] hands out."
At this point, approximately seventeen minutes after the initial vehicle stop, Trooper Trottier began his search of Plaintiffs' vehicle. Trooper Trottier concedes that he began the search without any particularized suspicion of criminal activity, searching instead for "anything that might be illegal in the vehicle." (Doc. 57-4 at 29:18-19.) He checked the entire interior of the car as well as its contents, including the luggage and some of Ms. Winfield's mail which Trooper Trottier removed from its envelope andread.4 He also checked the glove box, engine area, gas cap, and tires. During his search, Trooper Trottier instructed Trooper Nolan to ask Ms. Winfield about a pair of rubber gloves and court documents referring to Ms. Winfield's husband. After speaking with Ms. Winfield, Trooper Nolan advised Trooper Trottier that Ms. Winfield used the gloves to prevent grease from fried food from dirtying her hands and the car, and that Ms. Winfield did not recall the nature of any charges against her husband to which the court papers may have referred.
Trooper Trottier's search of the vehicle lasted approximately seventeen minutes. At no point during the search did Ms. Winfield instruct Trooper Trottier to stop searching. When the search was complete, Trooper Trottier told Trooper Nolan that Plaintiffs could return to their vehicle. A few minutes later, Trooper Trottier approached the passenger side of the vehicle and issued a speeding citation to Ms. Winfield. After issuing the citation and advising Ms. Winfield to "slow it down for me," Trooper Trottier permitted Plaintiffs to proceed on their way.
The entire traffic stop, including the search of Plaintiffs' vehicle, lasted just under forty minutes. Throughout the stop, Trooper Trottier, who was in uniform, spoke to Plaintiffs in an ordinary street tone of voice. He did not display a firearm or other weapon, and did not use or threaten to use physical force. During the traffic stop, Plaintiffs observed two other cars stopped by police officers in the same general vicinity. Plaintiffs do not know the race or...
To continue reading
Request your trial