Bonett v. Cook

FRANK P. BONETT, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER COOK and BOB GUALTIERI, Defendants.

No. 8:20-cv-2106-CEH-TGW

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

December 29, 2022

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant Christopher Cook's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) and Defendant Bob Gualtieri's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 36). Plaintiff Frank P. Bonett responds in opposition to both motions (Doc. 44), to which Cook and Gualtieri reply (Doc. 56).

Officer Frank P. Bonett's vacation in Pinellas County, Florida took an unfortunate turn when a Pinellas County sheriff's deputy arrested him, his ex-brotherin-law, and his ex-brother-in-law's wife. Bonett now sues the arresting deputy, Deputy Christopher Cook, individually under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri under Florida law. Cook and Gualtieri seek summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Cook's motion for summary judgment and grant Gualtieri's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

i. Introduction

The Philadelphia Police Department has employed Frank P. Bonett for approximately 25 years. Doc. 34-7 at 16:11-25, 26:1; Doc. 34-8 at 4, 25; Doc. 44-6 ¶1. He describes himself as a “police officer slash investigator.” Doc. 34-7 at 16:16-19. Since 2010, he has worked in an investigative role. Id. at 17:2-3. He currently works in the Dangerous Drug Offender Unit of the District Attorney's Office. Doc. 44-6 ¶3.

On April 30, 2019, Bonett vacationed in Pinellas County, Florida, with Paul Seeger, Cindy Caine, Bill Caine, and others. Doc. 34-7 at 24:7-12, 25:23-25, 26:1-17. Paul and Cindy are married. Doc. 34-4 at 11; Doc. 34-8 at 11, 30. Paul was previously married to Bonett's sister. See Doc. 34-7 at 251:18-19. The Philadelphia Police Department employed Paul as a police sergeant until 2009. Doc. 34-9 at 2-5; Doc. 347 at 251:15-19. The Philadelphia Police Department has employed Cindy as a police officer for over 20 years and has employed Bill-Cindy's brother-as a police officer for approximately 24 years. Id. at 4, 19, 30.

Earlier that day, around 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m., Bonett, his wife, Paul, Cindy, and Bill traveled to John's Pass, a venue with shops and bars. Doc. 34-7 at 46:17-24.

They were at this venue for approximately seven or eight hours. Id. at 51:9-11. They drank alcoholic beverages while there. Id. at 48:11-16, 53:3-13. Bonett estimated that he drank approximately nine Coors Lights throughout the day, id. at 48:11-16, or “one beer an hour over an approximately 8 to 9 hour period,” Doc. 44-6 ¶5. They left the venue and arrived at Crabby Bill's Restaurant around 10:00 p.m. Id. at 54:10-21, 56:46. Bonett stated that he had not consumed any alcoholic beverages for “well over an hour” at the time when the incident giving rise to this action occurred. Doc. 44-6 ¶5.

At some point, Kenneth Anderson, a manager at Crabby Bill's, observed a man and a woman arguing. Doc. 34-4 at 14. When he inquired whether “everything was OK,” the woman responded, “We're fine.” Id. Anderson observed that, although the woman kept trying to walk away, the man was blocking her. Id. At approximately 10:56 p.m., another manager of Crabby Bill's called Pinellas County Sheriff's Deputy Christopher Cook to report an alleged domestic disturbance. Doc. 45 ¶1; Doc. 34-3 ¶3; Doc. 34-4 at 14. After receiving this information, Deputy Cook drove towards Crabby Bill's and contacted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (“PCSO”) dispatch to advise of a “34 in progress”-a “domestic incident”-and that he had just received a call from a manager, who reported seeing “a guy striking his girlfriend.” Doc. 34-3 ¶3; see Doc. 45 ¶2; Doc. 34-2 at 15:21-23; Def. Exhibit D.^[2] Dispatch advised that it would send backup. Doc. 34-3 ¶3.

In her September 13, 2019 Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) statement, Cindy stated that she left Crabby Bill's by herself around 11:00 p.m. because she decided that she “wanted to leave and go home.” Doc. 34-8 at 30. In her deposition, she stated that she left the restaurant right after the group arrived because she wanted to leave. Doc. 53-1 at 29:1-10. Without saying goodbye to anyone, she began walking back to the hotel. Doc. 34-8 at 30; Doc. 53-1 at 29:11-14.

According to Cindy, Paul left the restaurant, saw that she was leaving, and inquired where she was going, to which she replied, “I am done” and “I am going home.” Doc. 34-8 at 30. She also testified that Paul, while holding her hand, asked her to return to the restaurant so that they could say goodbye to everyone and leave together, but she declined and “tried to walk away.” Id.; Doc. 53-1 at 37:13-24, 38:15. Paul asked her several more times while holding her hand or wrist. Doc. 34-8 at 30; Doc. 53-1 at 38:6-10. Cindy and Bill stated in their IAD statements that Cindy called Bill's cellphone to ask Bill to take Paul back inside the restaurant. Id. at 19, 30. As such, Bill left the restaurant to “walk up the street to get Paul.” Id. at 19. Upon walking out of the restaurant's bathroom, Bonett noticed Bill leaving the restaurant and went outside to see why Bill was leaving because he was “curious.” Doc. 34-7 at 60:11-18, 64:8-16.

Cook arrived at Crabby Bill's at, or after, 10:58 p.m. Doc. 34-2 at 16:16-17; Doc. 34-3 ¶4. He was wearing his dark green PCSO uniform, which included a badge on his chest, patches on his sleeves, and a utility belt with his gun, a bright yellow taser, handcuffs, and a baton. Id. ii. Surveillance Video and Audio Recording

Several video files and audio files are in evidence, including: (1) a parking lot surveillance video from Crabby Bill's (Def. Exhibit J); and (2) an audio recording from Paul's phone (Def. Exhibit L).^[3]

1. Surveillance Video

The parties agree that the surveillance video from Crabby Bill's depicts Paul, Cindy, Bill, Cook, and Bonett. Doc. 45 ¶4. The video does not include any audio. The video shows a man in a red shirt and a woman in a blue shirt walking on a sidewalk at 10:57:06 p.m.^[4] Def. Exhibit J at 00:12. The parties agree that this sidewalk runs alongside 4th Avenue, that 4th Avenue intersects with 1st Street, and that these individuals are Paul and Cindy. Doc. 34 at 4-5; Doc. 44 at 4-5. Before Cindy and Paul reach the intersection of 4th Avenue and 1st Street, Cindy yanks her arm out of Paul's grip. Def. Exhibit J at 00:21. Paul grabs her arm again as the two of them cross 1st Street. Id. at 00:21-00:24. The two of them appear to be talking for over a minute in the intersection of 4th Avenue and 1st Street, or just past the intersection, but palm trees and shrubbery mostly obstruct them. Id. at 00:24-01:43. Cindy then starts walking further down the sidewalk, but Paul stands in front of her. Id. at 01:43-02:19.

Beginning at 10:59:12 p.m., the video depicts an individual walking down the sidewalk towards them. Id. at 02:05. The parties agree that this individual is Bill. Doc. 35 at 5; Doc. 44 at 5. The video shows Bill walking up to Paul and Cindy, who are standing on the sidewalk that runs alongside 4th Avenue, just on the other side of 1st Street. Def. Exhibit J at 2:05-02:31. At this point, two individuals in the restaurant's parking lot look in their direction. Id. at 02:31-02:45. At 10:59:38 p.m., Paul, Cindy, and Bill cross 4th Avenue and begin walking on the sidewalk that runs alongside the other side of 4th Avenue. Id. at 02:31-03:03. Paul has his right arm bent towards his head, which he appears to hold as he crosses 4th Avenue, but whether he holds a cellphone is unclear. Id. at 02:28-02:33. At 10:59:55 p.m., after Paul, Cindy, and Bill have crossed 4th Avenue, the video depicts an individual in dark clothing, whom the parties agree is Cook, Doc. 34 at 5-6; Doc. 44 at 5-6, running in their direction, Def. Exhibit J at 02:48-03:02. Seconds later, at 11:00:04 p.m., an individual in a white shirt appears on screen, walking down 4th Avenue, in the same direction as Paul, Cindy, Bill, and Cook. Id. at 02:57-03:13. The parties agree that this individual is Bonett. Doc.34 at 10 n.7; Doc. 44 at 7. The video concludes at 11:00:20 p.m., with Bonett in the intersection of 4th Avenue and 1st Street. Def. Exhibit J at 03:14. Cook, Paul, and Cindy are not visible when Bonett reaches the intersection. Id.

2. Audio Recording From Paul's Phone

The parties agree that the audio recording at Defendants' Exhibit L is from Paul's phone. Doc. 34 at 10 n.7; Doc. 44 at 7-8. This recording is 40 seconds long. In the recording, an individual says, “Who are you?” Def. Exhibit L at 00:03. Another individual says, “We're good. We're good.” Id. at 00:06. Seconds later, an individual twice says, “Don't grab me again.” Id. at 00:15-00:20. This person also says, in part, “You're not going to tase-” after someone says, in part, “Tase you-.” Id. at 00:2200:25. At this point, a woman states, “We are fine.” Id. at 00:26. The individual who warned against grabbing then asks, twice, “For what reason?” Id. at 00:28-00:30. Next, the woman says, “We're fine. We're almost home.” Id. at 00:31-00:32. The individual who warned against grabbing then states, “Yo, Jack, it's Paul. Give me a call back when get a minute.” Id. at 00:33-00:37. The audio recording concludes with the woman yelling, “No!” Id. at 00:38-00:40.

iii. Different Accounts of Events Leading Up to Bonett's Arrest

The parties' accounts of events leading to Bonett's arrest vary. Before examining those differing accounts, the Court highlights a few undisputed facts. First, the parties agree that Cook caught up with Paul and Cindy. Doc. 34-3 ¶9; Doc. 34-2 at 29:2-4, 18-24; Doc. 34-7 at 97:23-25 98:1-11, 377. At some point during Cook's encounter with Paul and Cindy, Cook tased Paul. Doc. 34-2 at 55:21-25,...