Ballheimer v. Batts

611 F.Supp.3d 634

Jeffrey C. BALLHEIMER, Plaintiff,

v.Ryan BATTS #525, Matthew Burks #562, Blayne Root #524, Town of Whitestown, Indiana Acting Through Its Metropolitan Police Dept. and Its Chief of Police, Dennis R. Anderson Chief of Police, in His Official Capacity, Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-01393-SEB-DLP

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Signed March 20, 2020

Stephen G. Gray, Attorney At Law, Todd L. Sallee, Todd Sallee Law, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff

Daniel J. Paul, William W. Barrett, Williams Hewitt Barrett & Wilkowski LLP, Greenwood, IN, for Defendants

SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE, United States District Court

ORDER

Plaintiff Jeffrey Ballheimer ("Ballheimer") has sued Defendants the Town of Whitestown, Indiana ("the Town"); Ryan Batts, Matthew Burks, and Blayne Root, three officers of the Town's police department (together, "the Officers"); and Dennis Anderson, chief of the Town's police department, for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state-law torts and state constitutional violations.

The matter is now before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons detailed below, we deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny in part and grant in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Background

I. Facts

The following facts are not genuinely disputed unless so noted. On the evening of July 7, 2016, the Officers were dispatched to respond to a report of an unconscious person in the parking lot of a local gas station and truck stop near the interstate which passes by outside the Town. At the gas station, the Officers found Ballheimer asleep in the driver's seat of his car. The car was properly parked in a designated parking spot and was not obstructing traffic. The engine was running but not in gear. Ballheimer had an open laptop computer on his lap; an extinguished cigarette butt and cold cigarette ashes were visible; the driver's side window was partly open.

After a few unsuccessful attempts to rouse Ballheimer, Officer King eventually awakened him, who responded at first with angry, vulgar language before composing himself. Medics called by the Officers arrived soon thereafter at the scene. Ballheimer's eyes were observed to be bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and he appeared "confused and lethargic," Compl. ¶ 8, though just how confused and lethargic is disputed. Ballheimer said that he had been on his way home and pulled over at the gas station because he felt very tired.

Root checked Ballheimer's pulse and asked him whether he had any medical problems, which Ballheimer denied having. The medics nonetheless examined Ballheimer in their ambulances. Because Ballheimer did not wish to be examined or treated by the medics, he signed a medical release form as soon as the medics permitted him to do so. Ballheimer then exited the ambulance. The Officers observed Ballheimer staggering as he walked both from his car to the ambulance and back again, so unsteady was he on his feet. These observations prompted them to immediately pull him aside and to conduct field sobriety testing.

Officer Burks reportedly had never previously performed an impaired driver investigation or a field sobriety test. Officer Burks nonetheless was able to determine that Ballheimer had failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-legged-stand test. Ballheimer was also breathalyzed but that test detected no alcohol on his breath. The Officers have testified that they smelled neither alcohol nor marijuana on or around Ballheimer. Though Officer Batts was certified to perform "drug recognition expert" tests, he did not perform such a test on Ballheimer.

The Officers advised Ballheimer of Indiana's implied-consent law. Though the precise words included in that advisement are not in the record, the following example based on the same statute was proffered as typical:

I have probable cause to believe that you have operated a vehicle while intoxicated. I must now offer you the opportunity to submit to a chemical test and inform you that your refusal to submit to a chemical test will result in a suspension of your driving privileges for one year. Will you now take a chemical test?

Abney v. State , 811 N.E.2d 415, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). See Ind. Code §§ 9-30-6-1 through 2. Eventually Officers Batts and Burks transported Ballheimer in their police car to a nearby hospital for assistance in performing the chemical testing.

At the hospital, Ballheimer refused to consent to blood and urine screens until he was reminded that refusal would result in his driver's license being suspended. Ballheimer then signed a consent form and a hospital technician drew his blood. A urine sample was requested, and it is undisputed that he refused to provide a sample. Whether that failure to consent was the result of Ballheimer's refusal to submit, as the Officers say, or of his inability to produce a specimen, as he says. Ballheimer initially consented to be catheterized but revoked that consent when the procedure was explained to him.

There followed a substantial period of time during which Ballheimer "attempted" to provide a urine sample. As noted, the parties dispute whether those attempts were each a sham or the result of a genuine physical inability to produce a sample. Ballheimer eventually collapsed in the hospital bathroom and became unresponsive to Batts's demands for a "yes or no" answer to the question of whether he would consent to be catheterized. Batts and Burks lifted Ballheimer into a chair. When he failed to stand up from his seated position in the chair—whether because he was unable to do so or refused to do so—he was informed that he was under arrest, was handcuffed, and placed in a wheelchair. Batts wheeled Ballheimer back outside to the police car in which they had arrived. In Defendants' words, "Upon arriving at [Burks's] police car, [Ballheimer] did not get into the car as instructed, so [Batts] struck [Ballheimer] in his right thigh with his right knee and [Ballheimer] fell into the seat...." Defs.' Br. Supp. 8. According to Ballheimer,

I remember the officer coming around and sitting in the car and looking at me and saying, now we're going to charge you with resisting arrest, so you can't bond out until Monday. And then he shot me the most, like, messed up smile I've ever seen in my life. And, like, at that point, I was legitimately, like, terrified. So I—that's when I tried to get out of the situation by telling them—it somehow got translated into my needing medical help.

Ballheimer Dep. (Dkt. 30 Ex. 4) 110:15–24.

In the meantime, Officer Burks had begun drafting a search warrant application to secure a court order compelling production of Ballheimer's urine. Among other things, Officer Burks's affidavit in support of the application stated that Ballheimer "had refused [to take a chemical test] by not responding." Dkt. 33 Ex. 2, at 2. Ballheimer contends that this was a lie, since Officer Burks himself had observed Ballheimer consent to a blood draw and repeatedly attempt to provide a urine sample. The affidavit further stated that Burks was requesting "a search warrant to be issued to obtain and remove blood or other body fluid sample(s)" from Ballheimer, omitting the fact that the Officers had already obtained a blood sample from him. Id. Ballheimer maintains that this omission was intentional and misleading. Officer Batts read and approved Officer Burks's false and misleading affidavit before it was filed. The warrant was issued by the court within an hour following its submission and authorized the officers "to obtain and remove blood or other body fluid sample(s)" from Ballheimer and "to use reasonable force to obtain such sample(s)." Dkt. 33 Ex. 1, at 1.

Batts drove Ballheimer back to the hospital where Ballheimer was administered fluids intravenously for dehydration, and perhaps received a medication as well, causing him to feel "substantially better." Ballheimer Dep. (Dkt. 30 Ex. 5) 123:12. Ballheimer was then allowed one "last chance" to urinate voluntarily, though he did not. Id. at 127:4.

After I couldn't pee, they gave me a few minutes, and then they pretty much said, okay, well, you need to get cathetered now because you have to. And so instead of just arguing with them, I just complied, and I got up on the table, so they wouldn't force me because they've proven that they were going to do whatever they want. They're going to get it however they want to. And that's when the nurse told me to pull down my pants, and then she grabbed my penis and started pushing it in, and it was the worst pain I have ever felt in my life. And she keeps yelling at me, you can't move. It's kind of hard not to move when I'm feeling like I'm going to vomit the whole time.

Id. at 128:4–17.

Following the successful extraction of the urine, Ballheimer was transported to the county jail, where he wound up remaining for two weeks. The chemical tests revealed the presence of amphetamines, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, and MDMA in Ballheimer's system. Ballheimer later admitted to having taken methamphetamine and Xanax on July 6, 2016, the day before his arrest, but he denied taking any drugs on July 7, 2016. Following his two weeks of detention, Ballheimer was released on bond to a rehabilitation facility, where he remained for the ensuing five months.

Ballheimer's driver's license was suspended for one year by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, but that suspension appears to have been vacated sometime thereafter. On September 27, 2017, on a petition for judicial review, the state court judge ( the same judge who had issued the warrant on July 7, 2016) ruled that "probable cause did not exist to believe [Ballheimer] had operated his vehicle in an impaired condition [on July 7, 2016,] and there was no authority to offer [Ballheimer] implied consent." Dkt. 33 Ex. 4, at 5. The...