Heitzman v. Engelstad, Civ. No. 12-CV-2274 (MJD/LIB)

Lanette Rae Heitzman, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ENGELSTAD, Gilbert Police Department, Badge #702,in his individual capacity acting under color of law as a Gilbert police officer, Defendant.

Civ. No. 12-CV-2274 (MJD/LIB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

February 5, 2015

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

On November 17, 2014, the above-entitled matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Presentation of evidence concluded on November 19, 2014, final arguments were heard on February 4, 2015, and the matter was taken under advisement. Attorney David Izek appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Lanette Rae Heitzman. Attorneys Pamela L. VanderWiel and Anna L. Yunker appeared on behalf of Defendant Scott Engelstad.

NOW, THEREFORE, after consideration of the evidence presented, the files and memoranda in this matter, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff Lanette Heitzman is fifty-four years old. She grew up in Sparta, Minnesota, and attended high school in Gilbert, Minnesota through the twelfth grade.

2. In 1978, Plaintiff married Sherwin Heitzman. In 1987, Plaintiff and her husband moved to California and in 2000, moved to Arizona. They presently live in Arizona.

3. The Heitzman's have two children, ages 35 and 32, one of whom, James Heitzman, lives in Mountain Iron, Minnesota. The Heitzmans have six grandchildren.

4. Plaintiff has been employed by the family business, Gulbranson Excavation, which operates in Minnesota, Arizona, California and Texas. The company performs excavation for utility companies. Her job duties include taking care of office and administrative matters.

5. The Heitzmans have owned a lake house at 4731 Differding Point Road, Eveleth, Minnesota for over thirty years. The City of Gilbert provides police service to this area.

6. Plaintiff's parents also own a lake house three doors down from Plaintiff's lake house. Next door to this lake house is one of Gulbranson Excavation's offices.

7. Prior to July 19, 2012, Plaintiff and her husband routinely returned to Minnesota to enjoy their lake house.

8. Prior to July 19, 2012, Plaintiff had never been arrested or convicted of a crime, with the exception of a seat belt violation years ago.

9. Plaintiff has had a history of health problems including diabetes, obesity and depression. (Pl. Ex. 54.) She had gastric bypass surgery in 2008. For the six months before July 19, 2012, she was feeling the best she ever had been for years. Plaintiff was enjoying camping, hunting, cooking, raising her dogs, house maintenance, babysitting her grandchildren and nieces, horseback riding and socializing with friends. She was generally happy.

10. On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff was mowing her lawn at her lake home on Differding Point Road. (Pl. Exs. 25-26 and 28.) She also mowed the grass at her parents' lake home and the next door office. Plaintiff also mowed the overgrown grass leading from her lake home to the Gilbert Beach. (Pl. Exs. 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, and 35.)

11. The Gilbert Beach and its entrance are located along Differding Point Road.

12. Plaintiff used a riding mower to cut the grass. (Pl. Ex. 24.) The riding mower's attachment was not working, so the grass clippings were not collected while she mowed.

13. Plaintiff mowed a path leading from her lake house to the beach area so children would not have to walk on the roadway in getting to the lake and beach. As she mowed, grass clippings were left on the roadway.

14. Catherine Leece, a neighbor who has lived on Differding Point Road for approximately twenty years, saw Plaintiff mowing the grass on July 19, 2012. Leece had never met Plaintiff before and did not know who she was.

15. Leece, who was riding a bicycle, stopped to speak with Plaintiff because she was concerned about the grass clippings Plaintiff was depositing on Differding Point Road. Approximately a week or two earlier, Leece was aware that Plaintiff's husband had mowed the grass in the public ditch and had left piles of clippings on the road. Leece did not want the clippings left on the road again because she believed they would clog a nearby culvert and cause flooding.

16. The conversation was not cordial. Plaintiff told Leece that she was making the property look better, and that she intended to keep mowing. Plaintiff did not tell Leece that she intended to clean up the clippings. Leece told Plaintiff that she was going to report the clippings to the City.

17. The grass mowing took Plaintiff approximately four hours to complete and afterward, Plaintiff was exhausted. She is diabetic and was weak after the mowing because her sugar level was low. She testified that when her sugar level is low, she appears weak, exhausted and tired.

18. At approximately 11:43 a.m., Leece called 911 to complain about the grass clippings Plaintiff was depositing on Differding Point Road. BecauseLeece did not know who Plaintiff was, she did not give Plaintiff's name to the 911 operator.

19. Defendant Scott Engelstad was a police officer for the City of Gilbert ("City"). Engelstad was hired by the City in October 1998, and he retired in August 2012.

20. The 911 operator sent a dispatch to the Gilbert Police Department. Chief of Police Ty Techar and Engelstad were on duty on the morning of July 19, 2012 and received the dispatch. The text of the dispatch read: "Person is 'defacing public property' with a lawn mower." The dispatch did not identify Plaintiff as the subject of the complaint. The dispatch identified the location as Sparta Beach, rather than the cabin's address.

21. Engelstad took the call. As he drove down Differding Point Road toward Sparta Beach, he noticed a long row of grass clippings lining both sides of the road.

22. As he approached 4731 Differding Point Road, Engelstad saw a woman sitting on the steps of a cabin on the property. The woman sitting on the steps was Plaintiff.

23. At that time, Plaintiff was talking on her cell phone to her mother, telling her about Plaintiff's interaction with Leece, and that she expected that Leece was going to complain to the City.

24. When Engelstad saw Plaintiff, he called the complainant to get a description of the subject of the complaint. The description provided by Leece matched the description of the woman sitting on the steps.

25. Plaintiff saw Engelstad drive by her home, and stated to her mother, "You won't believe this Ma, but the police are here." Plaintiff walked to the side of the road and waited for the police car to come back.

26. Engelstad, having confirmed that the woman on the steps matched the description of the subject of the complaint, turned and drove back to the cabin. He pulled up alongside Plaintiff.

27. After parking, Engelstad exited his squad car. Plaintiff and Engelstad had never met one another before. Neither recognized the other.

28. Plaintiff testified that as soon as Engelstad got out of his squad car, he yelled at Plaintiff that "she couldn't mow the grass there." Engelstadtestified that as soon as he got out of his squad car, Plaintiff was the first to speak and said, "Really? I can't mow on my own property?"

29. After a short exchange, Plaintiff told Engelstad she did not like his tone and asked for his name. Engelstad responded loudly enough that Plaintiff's mother heard him over the phone. Plaintiff then stated to Engelstad that she wanted to see his supervisor. Engelstad called his supervisor, Chief Techar and asked him to come to the scene. Engelstad did not specifically ask Plaintiff whether she was responsible for the grass clippings in the road.

30. Engelstad testified that it was his intention, upon arriving at the scene, to tell Plaintiff to clean up the clippings and the matter would be resolved. Once Plaintiff asked for his supervisor, however, Engelstad planned to wait until Techar arrived before engaging with Plaintiff any further.

31. After Engelstad called Techar and told Plaintiff that Techar was on his way, Plaintiff said that she would wait inside the cabin. Engelstad told Plaintiff that she needed to stand by the car until Techar arrived. Plaintiff repeated that she was going to wait in the cabin and began to walk away,toward the cabin. Engelstad then threw his notebook to the ground near his feet and said, "Damn it, lady, I told you, you need to stay by the squad." Plaintiff testified at that point, Engelstad's demeanor changed drastically and she began to cry.

32. Plaintiff continued to walk toward the cabin. Engelstad followed, telling her several times that she needed to stop and return to the squad car.

33. When Plaintiff reached the steps to the cabin, Engelstad took her by the right elbow and told her she was under arrest. Plaintiff testified that she did not resist Engelstad, but that he nonetheless spun her around several times and then slammed the left side of her face down on the hood of a family car that was parked in her driveway.

34. Plaintiff was still on the telephone with her mother. She told her mother that she was under arrest and that her mother should call 911. Plaintiff's mother, Loretta Gulbranson, did call 911 and told the dispatcher Engelstad has a conflict and a personal vendetta against Plaintiff and her family.

35. Engelstad then forcefully pushed on Plaintiff's neck and back with his arm to hold her down to handcuff her wrists behind her back.

36. After putting Plaintiff in handcuffs, Engelstad escorted her to his squad car and she was placed in the back seat of the squad.

37. Shortly thereafter, Chief Techar arrived, followed by Plaintiff's cousin, Lonnie Gulbranson, and her husband Sherwin Heitzman. One of the Heitzman's granddaughters had called Sherwin to let him know that "Nana" was handcuffed and in the back of a police car.

38. Chief Techar spoke briefly to Plaintiff. Plaintiff mentioned that it was hot in the car, and Techar turned the air conditioning up.

39. When Sherwin Heitzman...