Tobin v. Cherry

RYAN TOBIN, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER CHERRY, et al., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-02320

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM

MEHALCHICK, M.J.

Before the Court are two motions in limine filed by Defendants Pennsylvania State Troopers Daniel Bradley and Daniel Cherry (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc 37; Doc. 39). Plaintiff Ryan Tobin (“Tobin”) initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action on October 22, 2020, by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1-1). Defendants removed this action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on December 11, 2020, and Tobin filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2021. (Doc. 1; Doc. 11). In the motions in limine, Defendants seek to exclude: (1) all testimony regarding Tobin's alleged damages between his arrest and the dismissal of criminal charges; and (2) all evidence/testimony regarding the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County's March 7, 20219, order. (Doc. 37, at 1; Doc. 39, at 1). The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 13). For the following reasons, the motions in limine shall be GRANTED.

I. Background and Procedural History

The events giving rise to this action took place on September 23, 2018. (Doc. 11). On that date, Defendants were on routine patrol and responded to a call of a disabled vehicle. (Doc. 11, ¶ 5; Doc. 26-1, at 3). The vehicle was occupied by the lessee/owner, Chase Burkholder, and Tobin, a passenger, who were waiting for the arrival of a spare tire to fix the front left tire. (Doc. 11, ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 26-1, at 3). Defendant Cherry approached the passenger side of the vehicle, spoke to Tobin, and observed what appeared to be marijuana shake on Tobin's shirt. 2 (Doc. 11, ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 26-1, at 3). Defendant Cherry asked Tobin what was on his shirt and Tobin replied that it was grass from attempting to change the tire. (Doc. 11, ¶ 8; Doc. 26-1, at 3). Defendant Cherry observed that there were no other grass stains on Tobin's shirt apart from the suspected marijuana shake. (Doc. 11, ¶ 8; Doc. 26-1, at 3).

Next, Defendant Cherry asked Tobin to exit the vehicle and Defendant Bradley asked Burkholder to also exit the vehicle. (Doc. 11, ¶ 8; Doc. 26-1, at 3). Defendant Cherry asked if the vehicle belonged to Burkholder, who stated that it was. (Doc. 26-1, at 4). Then, Defendant Cherry asked for permission to search the vehicle, which was given. (Doc. 11, ¶ 10; Doc. 261, at 4). Defendants did not obtain a search warrant. (Doc. 11, ¶ 13). Upon searching the vehicle, Defendants found a scale, needles, and methamphetamine inside Tobin's luggage. (Doc. 11, ¶ 12). Tobin and Burkholder were arrested and charged with several drug-related crimes. (Doc. 11, ¶ 14; Doc. 26-1, at 5).

After his arrest, Tobin was charged in Juniata County, Pennsylvania, with one count each of: possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Doc. 11-1, at 3). On March 7, 2019, in the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County, Judge Morrow granted a motion to suppress the evidence seized from Tobin's luggage. (Doc. 11, ¶ 15). Judge Morrow determined that the investigative detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion and the resulting consent to search the vehicle was a product of that unlawful detention. (Doc. 11-1). The Commonwealth prosecutors did not appeal the Order of Suppression and dismissed the case against Tobin. (Doc. 11, ¶ 16).

On October 22, 2020, Tobin filed a complaint against Defendants Bradley, Cherry, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania State Police in the Court of Common Pleas for Juniata County, Pennsylvania, asserting two causes of action: (1) unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (2) false arrest and detainment in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 1-1, at 6-11). On December 11, 2020, Defendants removed the action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). On January 25, 2021, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police from this action. (Doc. 9; Doc. 10). Tobin filed the amended complaint on February 4, 2021, reasserting the same causes of action against only Defendants Bradley and Cherry. (Doc. 11). On December 1, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on August 4, 2022. (Doc. 25; Doc. 34; Doc. 35). Specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice Tobin's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims and Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 8 claims against Defendants. (Doc. 34, at 1 n.1; Doc. 35, at 1). Therefore, the sole remaining cause of action in this case are Tobin's claims under the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. 11).

On November 28, 2022, Defendants filed the motions in limine, along with briefs in support. (Doc. 37; Doc. 38; Doc. 39; Doc. 40). The parties filed individual pretrial memorandums on December 12, 2022. (Doc. 43; Doc. 44). Tobin filed briefs in opposition to Defendants' motions in limine on December 12, 2022. (Doc. 45; Doc. 46). The motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for disposition.

II. Standard of Review

“The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.” United States v. Tartaglione, 228 F.Supp.3d 402, 406 (E.D. Pa. 2017). A court may exercise its discretion to rule in limine on evidentiary issues “in appropriate cases.” In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 260 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith RadioCorp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). In considering motions in limine, which call upon the court to engage in preliminary evidentiary rulings under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court begins by recognizing that these “evidentiary rulings [on motions in limine] are subject to the trial judge's discretion and are therefore reviewed only for abuse of discretion ....Additionally, application of the balancing test under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 will not be disturbed unless it is ‘arbitrary and irrational.'” Ely v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., No. 3:09-CV-2284, 2016 WL 454817, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2016) (citing Abrams v. LightolierInc., 50 F.3d 1204, 1213 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted)); seeBernardsville Bd. of Educ. v. J.H., 42 F.3d 149, 161 (3d Cir. 1994) (reviewing in limine rulings for abuse of discretion). Nevertheless, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Tartaglione, 228 F.Supp.3d at 406.

Further, while motions in limine may serve as a useful pretrial tool that enables more in-depth briefing than would be available at trial, a court may defer ruling on such motions “if the context of trial would provide clarity.” Frintner v. TruePosition, 892 F.Supp.2d 699, 707 (E.D. Pa. 2012). Indeed, “motions in limine often present issues for which final decision is best reserved for a specific trial situation.” Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 126 F.3d 506, 518 n.10 (3d Cir. 1997). Thus, certain motions, “especially ones that encompass broad classes of evidence, should generally be deferred until trial to allow for the resolution of questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice in proper context.” Leonard v. Stemtech HealthScis., Inc., 981 F.Supp.2d 273, 276 (D. Del. 2013); see alsoSprint/United Mgmt. Co. v.Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 387 (2008) (“Relevance and prejudice under Rules 401 and 403 are determined in the context of the facts and arguments in a particular case, and thus are generally not amenable to broad per se rules.”). Finally, it is important to note that “in limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000).

III. Discussion

A. Tobin's damages between the arrest and the dismissal of criminal CHARGES

First Defendants seek to exclude any and all testimony regarding Tobin's alleged damages between his arrest and the dismissal of the criminal charges against him, a period of 106 days, asserting that the evidence is not relevant to the claims before the Court and must be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. (Doc. 37; Doc. 38, at 1). Defendants argue that “no matter the outcome of the jury's findings of fact at trial on whether Defendants had reasonable suspicion to continue the investigatory detention, which Defendants maintain that they had,” Defendants had probable cause to arrest because “Defendants had knowledge and physical evidence that Plaintiff possessed illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia at the time of the arrest.” (Doc. 38, at 3). Thus, Defendants contend “[i]ntroducing any evidence of any alleged damages post-arrest is confusing and misleading to the jury because it over- complicates the facts that are truly and squarely at issue between the parties resulting in high prejudice to Defendants. (Doc. 38, at 3). In opposition, Tobin argues that the Court should not resolve this issue in a motion in limine because there is a dispute as to probable cause for his arrest which the trier of fact must decide, such that “[i]f there was probable cause, controlling authority requires that the period for the assessment of damages ends at that time. If there was no probable cause for arrest, [Tobin] may recover his damages up to the time of his...