Aguilar v. Carver

EDNA AGUILAR, Plaintiff, v. MATHEW CARVER, and CITY OF SEYMOUR Defendants.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-1969-DML-TWP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

September 30, 2016

Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

This matter is before the court on a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 29) filed by defendants Seymour Police Department Officer Mathew Carver and the City of Seymour.

Undisputed Facts

Plaintiff Edna Aguilar is a Honduran citizen who has resided in the United States since October 2013 and obtained permanent residency in May 2014. Ms. Aguilar was stopped by Officer Carver on the night of June 12, 2014, for operating a vehicle without its headlights on, a traffic ordinance infraction under Indiana Code section 9-21-7-1. A video camera captured portions of the stop, and the following undisputed facts are established by that recording and other evidence submitted by the parties. Officer Carver gave Ms. Aguilar a verbal warning for the headlight infraction but did not issue a written citation for it. At the time of the stop, Ms. Aguilar was driving her husband's car while in possession of a Honduran driver's license and permanent residency card but no Indiana driver's license. After obtaining those documents from her and performing some check of them, Officer Carver returned to Ms. Aguilar's car and directed her to step out of the car. He then had her put her hands behind her back, handcuffed her, and told her she was going to jail. During the course of this stop, she was placed in two different squad cars. While Ms. Aguilar was handcuffed and in a police car, Officer Carver telephoned a deputy prosecutor regarding the situation. After conferring with the deputy prosecutor, Officer Carver issued Ms. Aguilar a citation to appear in court under Indiana Code section 9-24-18-1 and did not take her to jail. He also made arrangements to impound her vehicle. Before the car was impounded, Officer Carver said, "You don't have anything illegal on you, do you?" Ms. Aguilar responded, "No, you can check." Officer Carver then proceeded to perform some search of the car.

Additional facts pertinent to the defendants' motion for summary judgment will be set forth below in the context of the court's analysis of the parties' arguments.

Analysis

Ms. Aguilar's amended complaint alleges Fourth Amendment violations against Officer Carver based on the seizure of her person (arising from the stop) and property (arising from the search). (Dkt. 10 ¶¶ 33-34) She also alleges that the City of Seymour is liable to her for false arrest and conversion under Indiana law and that the City has respondeat superior liability under Indiana law for the actionsof Officer Carver. (Dkt. 10 ¶¶ 35-37)¹ Interestingly, the parties' summary judgment briefs do not match up directly to these claims. They don't specifically address state law claims at all, and they argue a claim of Monell liability for failure to train that is not even mentioned in the amended complaint. The plaintiff apparently concedes that her state law claims are dependent on her Fourth Amendment claims, because she has not briefed them separately. And the defendants apparently concede that Ms. Aguilar's recitation in the amended complaint that she "reserves the right to proceed with any and all claims which the facts averred in this Complaint support" (Dkt. 10 ¶ 38) encompasses a Monell failure to train claim on which the defendants have moved for summary judgment. So the court will analyze the claims the parties have briefed.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Ms. Aguilar's claims. They argue that the initial, lawful traffic stop did not develop into an unreasonable seizure because "there is no evidence that Officer Carver prolonged the traffic stop more than was necessary to investigate the potential crime of operating without a valid driver's license." (Dkt. 30 at p. 9). Beyond that, they maintain that, even if the stop is considered an arrest, there was probable cause for it. Second, they contend that even if Ms. Aguilar's detention was not constitutional, Officer Carver is entitled to qualified immunity, primarily because the officer sought legal advice. Next, the defendants assert that the warrantless search of Ms.Aguilar's car did not violate the Fourth Amendment because Ms. Aguilar consented to the search and, moreover, the search was justified by the "impound inventory exception" to the warrant requirement. (Dkt. 30 at p. 13). Finally, the defendants argue that there is no evidence of an official, unconstitutional municipal policy that would support a finding that the City is liable in this matter. The court addresses these arguments in turn below, after first discussing the defendants' threshold challenge to the admissibility of certain matters Ms. Aguilar has asserted in opposition to summary judgment.

I. The Defendants' Challenge to Ms. Aguilar's Statement of Facts

At the outset, the court addresses the defendants' request (in their reply to Ms. Aguilar's response) that much of Ms. Aguilar's "Statement of Material Facts and Facts in Dispute" in opposition to summary judgment be rejected because the statement contains "inadmissible hearsay, conclusory assertions, and legal opinions." (Dkt. 45 at p. 1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) governs the procedures for supporting factual positions in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 56(c)(2), "[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." Additionally, this court's Local Rule 56.1 mandates that a non-movant in a summary judgment action include in her response "a section labeled 'Statement of Material Facts in Dispute' that identifies the potentially determinative facts and factual disputes that the party contends demonstrate a dispute of fact precluding summary judgment."

The defendants contend that the following paragraphs of Ms. Aguilar's "Statement of Material Facts and Facts in Dispute" contain inadmissible hearsay: 6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 20. These paragraphs set forth information that Ms. Aguilar was allegedly told by the Honduran Office of Transportation, the Indiana BMV, and her insurance agent with regard to her ability to drive legally in Indiana on a Honduran driver's license, as well as information taken from the Indiana BMV's official webpage. Whether they are hearsay depends on what the statements are offered to prove. But what Ms. Aguilar was told or may have believed about the legality of driving in Indiana on a Honduran driver's license is largely irrelevant to the court's resolution of the defendants' motion for summary judgment; the court will therefore disregard these paragraphs for purposes of its analysis.

The defendants also argue that paragraphs 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 36, 37, 41, 60, and 68 do "no more than assert legal opinions, recite legal authorities, or summarize what she claims state agencies 'require.'" (Dkt. 45 at p. 2). Paragraph 14, for instance, contains a lengthy excerpt of the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic. (Dkt. 41 at p. 4). Paragraphs 15, 19, and 20 provide information on the Indiana BMV's procedures for obtaining a driver's license. Paragraph 18 reads as follows:

Not only do citizens of other countries who move to Indiana from their home countries enjoy the one-year driving privilege bestowed upon them by U.S. treaty law, but, as a practical matter, the lengthy and time consuming process to obtain a valid Indiana driver's license make it impossible for them to obtain an Indiana driver's license within sixty days. Aguilar Aff. 14; Kirts Aff. 12.

(Dkt. 41 at p. 5). The court notes that the first part of the above-quoted paragraph, which asserts what "citizens of other countries" enjoy, is not supported by the cited portions of the record. Paragraph 36 simply recites the text of Indiana Code section 34-28-5-3. Paragraph 37 states: "For ordinance violations, officers have the discretion to either issue a verbal or written warning or issue a citation to appear in court for the violation. Carver Depo. 20; Ind. Code 34-28-5-3." The court agrees that these statements are more legal than factual, but that incorrect denomination does not mean the court must disregard them if those statements of the law are nonetheless relevant to the resolution of the issues before the court.

As to the other paragraphs challenged by the defendants, Paragraph 41 states: "Ms. Aguilar produced her valid Honduran driver's license and her permanent residency card. Aguilar Aff. 25." (Dkt. 41 at p. 8). Because the defendants have not conceded the validity of Ms. Aguilar's Honduran license—referring to it with qualifying terms such as "what purported to be a Honduran driver's license" (Dkt. 30 at p. 3), or "what she claims is a license to drive issued by the Republic of Honduras" (Dkt. 45 at p. 2)—the claim that hers was a "valid Honduran license" is a potentially relevant fact. Paragraph 60 states, "Mrs. Aguilar's license was an international driver's license, issued to her in Honduras. Aguilar Aff. 5-6." (Dkt. 41 at p. 11). This, too, is a potentially relevant fact. Moreover, the defendants have not disputed these assertions, and the court assumes their truth for purposes of the motion. And finally, in Paragraph 68, Ms. Aguilar asserts the following: "Chief Abbott is the final policymaker for the City ofSeymour on the training received by Seymour police officers on this issue, and is the person responsible to decide if his officers need any additional training or provided clarification of the law they are about to enforce. Abbott Depo. 25-26." (Dkt. 41 at p. 12). This statement is supported by the portion of the record cited and could ultimately be a relevant fact in this case.

The court therefore does not "reject" all the challenged portions of Ms. Aguilar's statement of facts. Rather, it will consider her assertions...