Muir v. Danner

479 F.Supp.3d 683

Kemisha Michelle-Ann MUIR, Plaintiff,

v.Jordan DANNER, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00013

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

Filed August 14, 2020

Charles D. Buckholts, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Daniel Hurley Rader, III, Randall A. York, Moore, Rader, Fitzpatrick and York, P.C., Cookeville, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After the results of Kemisha Muir's blood test came back negative for both alcohol and drugs, she transformed from a criminal defendant suspected of driving under the influence to a civil plaintiff pursuing this § 1983 action. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) filed by the City of Livingston, Tennessee ("City of Livingston") and Police Officer Jordan Danner, Corporal Christopher Mace,¹ and Lieutenant Ray Smith (collectively, "Individual Defendants," and together with the City of Livingston, "Defendants"), which has been fully briefed by the parties (see Doc. Nos. 22, 31, 33, 35). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion will be denied in part and granted in part.

I. UNDISPUTED FACTS²

On March 2, 2018, at around 10:18 p.m., off-duty Deputy Sheriff Robert Garrett called the Livingston Police Department Dispatch to report that he had seen a black SUV drive past him, "weav[e] pretty good between the lines," and "actually cross[ ] the line a time or two."³ (Doc. No. 20-1 at 2–3.) Garrett also told dispatch that he believed the car was "doing the speed limit" and was not "going over the lines." Id. at 3. The dispatcher relayed this information to Livingston City Police Officer Jordan Danner to be on the lookout for a black SUV based upon a suspicion of driving while impaired. (Doc. No. 34 at ¶ 2; Doc. No. 20-3 at 2.)

Danner caught up to the vehicle (which he later learned was driven by Kemisha Muir) and observed Muir order food and proceed through a Taco Bell drive thru. After Muir exited the drive thru, Danner followed her car for approximately 250 yards and observed it weave within its own lane of traffic and "hit both the center line and the fog line several times." (Doc. No. 32-1 at 1; Doc. No. 20-3 at 2; Danner Dep. at 15:12–24:4.) Muir denies that she was speeding or swerving in her vehicle (Doc. No. 34 at ¶¶ 1, 3; Muir Dep. at 58:24–59:24). Regardless, Danner initiated a traffic stop based on suspicion of driving under the influence, and he eventually ordered Muir to exit her vehicle and walk to the front of his patrol car. (Doc. No. 20-3 at 2; Muir Dep. at 67:13– 69:4.) At some point, Corporal Mace and Lieutenant Smith arrived on the scene, (Danner Dep. at 34:5–16), and Mace began recording the stop from his body camera.⁴ (Doc. No. 20-4 at 2.)

The body camera video shows that while Muir and Danner stood in front of the patrol car, Danner administered a field sobriety test known as the horizontal gaze nystagmus ("HGN") test and instructed Muir to "follow my finger with your eyes and your eyes only, don't move your head." (Danner Dep. at 60:2–7; Defendants' Manual Exhibit 2 ("Video") at 23:45:31.⁵ ) When the test began, Muir immediately moved her head to the left to follow his finger. (Video at 23:45:48.) Danner again told Muir not to move her head, and she then appeared to follow his finger's horizontal movement with just her eyes. (Id. at 23:45:49.) Although Muir started the test with a smile on her face, id. at 23:45:40, she became more upset and eventually stated: "I feel like you're wasting my time right now because I'm not intoxicated and I can do a breathalyzer and I can do a [urine] test for you." (Id. at 23:46:50.) However, Muir agreed to continue with the HGN test and she again appeared to follow Danner's finger with her eyes. (Id. at 23:48:07.) Danner then administered a non-standardized vertical gaze nystagmus ("VGN") test and asked Muir to follow his finger's vertical movement, which she appeared to do. (Id. at 23:48:31; Danner Dep. at 54:16–22.) When Danner told Muir that she had failed these tests, she quickly responded that she had astigmatism. (Video at 23:48:47.)

Next, Danner administered the "nine-step-walk-and-turn test." (Id. at 23:49:05; Danner Dep. at 54:4–15.) He asked Muir to place her right foot in front of her left foot, stand with her arms to her side, and hold that position until he finished giving her the test instructions. (Video at 23:49:12.) Danner then explained that he wanted Muir to take nine heel-to-toe steps, counting each step out loud, and then turn 180 degrees by planting her lead foot and taking small steps with her non-lead foot. (Id. at 23:49:25.) Last, Danner told Muir to walk another nine heel-to-toe steps back to where she started and the test would be complete. (Id. at 23:50:00.) Muir was able to take nine steps forward and nine steps back, counting each step out loud. (Id. at 23:50:12.) However, in addition to swaying and failing to keep her feet together during the instructions, Muir lost her balance during the test, almost fell several times, and raised her arms away from her body. (Id. at 23:50:12; see also Doc. No. 34 at ¶ 6.) At the end of the first nine steps, Muir also failed to turn correctly and instead hopped around and attempted to restart the test. (Video at 23:50:12; Doc. No. 34 at ¶ 6.)

At the conclusion of the walk-and-turn test, Danner administered the "one-leg-stand test." (Video at 23:51:06; Danner Dep. at 60:8–22.) Danner asked Muir to choose a leg to stand on, raise her other foot six or nine inches off the ground, keep her arms at her side, point her toe forward, look at her toe, and count "one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three," etc. until she reached thirty. (Video at 23:51:06.) After Muir confirmed she understood the instructions, she raised her foot, started counting at "thirty-one," raised her arms away from her body, and almost fell from being off balance. (Id. at 23:51:39; see also Doc. No. 34 at ¶ 7.) Muir then refused to complete the test, claiming that she could not balance and that she was nervous because three police officers were surrounding her. (Video at 23:52:04.)

Eventually Danner decided to administer the "fourth and final test," the finger-to-thumb counting test. (Id. at 23:52:53; Danner Dep. at 54:11–22.) This nonstandardized test measures a person's dexterity, and, in Danner's words, Muir "performed adequately." (Video at 23:52:53; Danner Dep. at 54:20–55:6.) Next, Danner asked Muir if she took any prescription medications, and she responded that she does not use drugs or drink alcohol. (Video at 23:53:33.) Danner then expressed his belief that Muir was intoxicated, advised her that she would be placed under arrest for driving under the influence, and stated that he was going to get a search warrant and draw her blood. (Id. at 23:53:36.) Muir again denied being intoxicated, stated that she does not use drugs or smoke, and exclaimed to Danner that: "You're going to be so, so disappointed when you find out that I don't do drugs and I don't drink." (Id. at 23:53:55.)

After Muir was arrested and seated in Danner's patrol car, Danner and Mace searched her vehicle for any drugs or medication she may have taken, but they did not find any. (See Doc. No. 20-4 at 2; see also Video at 23:55:00.) "Based upon [Danner's] Affidavit given under oath or affirmation" regarding probable cause, a Judicial Commissioner issued a search warrant to draw blood from Muir. (Doc. No. 32-3; see also Doc. No. 32-2.) The results of Muir's blood test revealed that she did not have any alcohol or drugs in her system (Doc. No. 20-7), and the criminal charges against her were eventually dismissed (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 39).

Based on the circumstances leading to her arrest and subsequent searches, Muir brought this § 1983 action against the Individual Defendants for allegedly violating her Fourth Amendment rights and against the City of Livingston based on municipal liability. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 44–45.) Defendants now move for summary judgment on all of Muir's claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material facts." Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving party's claim or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Id.

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts, and inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citation omitted). "But where, as here, there is ‘a videotape capturing the events in question,’ the court must ‘view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.’ " Green v. Throckmorton, 681 F.3d 853, 859–60 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378–81, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) ). The Court does not, however, weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position will be insufficient to survive summary judgment; rather, there must be evidence on which a trier of fact could reasonably find for the non-moving party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 595.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Muir's § 1983 Claims Against the Individual Defendants

Muir asserts claims against the Individual Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983...