Trover v. Oglesby

1

MARLEIS TROVER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Gaddis, Plaintiff, v. CRAIG OGLESBY and DUSTIN KELLEY, Defendants.

No. 3:18-cv-1464-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 9, 2024

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum. (Doc. 102). Plaintiff filed an Amended Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 104-1). Thereafter, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File an Untimely Reply in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment instanter, which is now GRANTED, without objection from Plaintiff for good cause and excusable neglect shown by Defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1); (Docs. 107 &amp 109).^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

In this case, the parties largely agree on the underlying factual circumstances. Plaintiff indicates: “Defendants' able counsel has offered a factual summary of the case the bulk of which Plaintiff does not and cannot object to.” (Docs. 102, pgs. 2-4; 104-1, pg. 3). Accordingly, the Court begins with the areas of agreement between the parties.

The former Plaintiff, Donald Gaddis, who died on May 20, 2022, was a respondent in proceedings for an order of protection. (Doc. 98, pg. 2). Former Defendant Bryan DeMattei, who is a police officer for the City of Marion, Illinois, was a witness in that proceeding. (Doc. 98, pg. 2). In March 2018, “Gaddis was driving on the street in front of DeMattei's house, and Gaddis noticed DeMattei's car in the driveway.” (Doc. 98, pg. 2). DeMattei was outside of the home with another officer, Sam Ward, and both were off duty. (Doc. 98, pg. 2). Gaddis drove onto DeMattei's driveway to discuss DeMattei's testimony in the order of protection proceedings. (Doc. 98, pg. 3).

Defendants Oglesby and Kelley, who are police officers for the Williamson County, Illinois, Sheriff's Office, were separately dispatched to DeMattei's home, where Gaddis was refusing to leave. (Docs. 98, pgs. 2-3; 102-1, pgs. 14-15. When Defendant Oglesby arrived on scene, DeMattei and Ward were restraining Gaddis on the ground. (Docs. 98, pg. 3; 102-1, pg. 38). Defendant Oglesby found Gaddis had trespassed on DeMattei's real property; therefore, Defendant Oglesby arrested Gaddis and placed him in the back of a police car. (Doc. 102-1, pgs. 22, 24-25).

Before towing Gaddis's car due to his arrest, Defendant Kelley conducted an inventory search of that car. (Docs. 98, pg. 3; 102-1, pgs. 27, 29; 102-2, pg. 7; 102-3). Pursuant to Williamson County Sheriff's Office Policy No. 0-28, which pertains to motor vehicle inventories, an inventory search is “designed to protect motor vehicles and their contents while in policy custody; to protect the agency against claims of lost, stolen or damaged property; and to protect Sheriff's Office personnel and the public against injury or damaged property due to hazardous materials or substances that may be in the vehicle.” (Doc. 102-4, pg. 9). Policy No. 0-28 states an inventory search may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause when a car's driver has been arrested. (Doc. 102-4, pg. 10). Generally, the inventory search must occur at the location where the car is seized. (Doc. 102-4, pgs. 10, 13). All items of value must be itemized in detail on a Vehicle Tow and Inventory Form. (Doc. 102-4, pgs. 10, 13). Under Policy No. 0-29, an impoundment is required if “a subject is arrested for purposes of incarceration and.[t]he vehicle was used in a crime,” such as a trespass. (Doc. 102-4, pg. 14).

During the inventory search, Defendant Kelley found “some type of paperwork” or “misc paper work,” i.e., a notebook, on the passenger-side floorboard or seat of the car. (Docs. 98, pg. 3; 102-2, pgs. 7-8, 13; 102-3.^[2] Defendant Kelley also identified golf clubs, a black bag, a brown bag, headphones, jumper cables, a flashlight, clothes, mace, speed loaders for a revolver, and Jordan tennis shoes. (Doc. 102-3). He signed a Williamson County Sheriff's Office Vehicle Impoundment and Inventory Record that identified this property. (Doc. 102-3). Defendant Kelley briefly looked inside the notebook during the inventory search of the car. (Doc. 102-2, pg. 8). He explained the process as follows:

When I opened it, I would have been making sure there was nothing of value in there. If there's.. .something valuable like cash or something like that, we're not going to leave it in the vehicle in an unsecured position. So I would have opened it briefly, made sure there was no valuable items, what I believe to be valuable items.

* * * I wouldn't say I read it. I briefly looked at it to make sure it wasn't anything of value or any, like, bank numbers or anything of value that could affect Mr. Gaddis's loss of some type of value.

(Doc. 102-1, pgs. 7-8).

Defendant Kelley may have placed the notebook on the hood of the car. (Doc. 102-2, pgs. 9-10, 24). Otherwise, he testified, “I wouldn't say I removed it” from the car. (Doc. 102-2, pg. 9). Defendant Kelley “absolutely [did] not” take the notebook inside DeMattei's house. (Doc. 102-2, pg. 9). When asked if he ever took the notebook to DeMattei so he could read its contents, Defendant Kelley initially answered, “No, sir. Not that I would recall.” (Doc. 102-2, pg. 9). After a follow-up question, Defendant Kelley clarified his answer, stating “I would not have carried the notebook over to his person for him to look at it. No, sir, I would not have done that.” (Doc. 102-2, pg. 10). Further, at no time did Defendant Kelley recall DeMattei or Ward interacting with Gaddis's notebook or fooling around in his car. (Doc. 102-2, pgs. 24-25). That said, Defendant Kelley also did not know how DeMattei could have referenced statements contained in Gaddis's notebook in subsequently filed no-contact petitions in the Illinois state courts. (Doc. 102-2, pg. 11).

Defendant Oglesby testified that he did not conduct the inventory search, and he did not recall anyone other than Defendant Kelley inventorying Gaddis's car. (Doc. 1021, pg. 30). He observed an empty holster in the trunk of the car, but he had no recollection of any miscellaneous paperwork. (Docs. 102-1, pgs. 31-32; 102-2, pg. 13). As such, Defendant Oglesby testified that he did not show any paperwork or a notebook to DeMattei in his house. (Doc. 102-1, pgs. 32, 40). He did not recall DeMattei ever entering Gaddis's car. (Doc. 102-1, pg. 40). Defendant Oglesby was also unaware of any conversations that Defendant Kelley had with DeMattei, and Defendant Oglesby did not observe Defendant Kelley perusing a notebook in any manner. (Doc. 102-1, pgs. 17, 32). In any event, Defendant Oglesby testified that he would not have read any written materials contained inside the car during the inventory search. (Doc. 102-1, pg. 36).

Although the parties largely agree on these facts, Plaintiff challenges two statements of material fact asserted by Defendants. (Docs. 102, pgs. 4, 8; 104-1, pg. 3). In particular, she contests Defendants' statement of material fact that Defendant “Kelley denied ever carrying the notebook over to DeMattei for him to look at.” (Docs. 102, pgs. 4, 8; 104-1, pg. 3). Likewise, Plaintiff contests Defendants' statement of material fact that “[n] either... Kelley nor...Oglesby took the notebook into DeMattei's home... [and] Oglesby never went into DeMattei's home.” (Docs. 102, pgs. 4, 8; 104-1, pg. 3).

The primary evidentiary basis for Plaintiff's argument is the deposition of DeMattei. He testified that the factual basis for the subsequently filed no-contact petitions came from “what I saw in the notebook.” (Doc. 103-1, pg. 11). DeMattei noted he was off-duty and he did not inventory the car on the date of the incident; however, the notebook “was presented to.[him] by a deputy.” (Doc. 103-1, pgs. 11, 15). DeMattei confirmed, other than a supervisory officer from the Williamson County Sheriff's Office, Jeffrey Moore, who did not leave his vehicle on the date of the incident, Oglesby, Kelley, and Ward (off duty) were the only officers on scene. (Docs. 102-5, pgs. 15, 25; 103-1, pgs. 1112). Even so, DeMattei did “not remember specifically” who showed him the notebook. (Doc. 103-1, pg. 12). DeMattei conceded Lieutenant Moore could not have shown him the notebook. (Doc. 103-1, pg. 12). DeMattei did not know if it could have been Defendant Oglesby or Defendant Kelley. (Doc. 103-1, pg. 12). DeMattei also did not know if he was shown the notebook by another unidentified person or officer. (Doc. 103-1, pgs. 12-13).

DeMattei did remember what he was told when presented with the notebook. (Doc. 103-1, pg. 13). He “remember[ed] him saying that my name was in” the notebook. (Doc. 103-1, pgs. 13-14). The notebook was presented to him for only a matter of minutes in the kitchen of his home. (Doc. 103-1, pgs. 13-14). DeMattei stated, “[t]he notebook was laid on my kitchen island and he said my name was in it and directed my attention towards it.” (Doc. 103-1, pg. 14). He did not remember if the unidentified officer directed him to a particular page or just to the notebook. (Doc. 103-1, pg. 14). DeMattei clarified that the unidentified officer came into his house with the notebook. (Doc. 103-1, pg. 14).

Similarly Lieutenant Moore testified that he was not aware of any inventoried items, such as the notebook, being placed into evidence. (Doc. 102-5, pg. 30). When asked if Defendant Kelley had the authority to read the notebook during the inventory search, Lieutenant Moore stated, “I'm sure that he would have went through the miscellaneous paperwork to make sure that there weren't any narcotics or anything like that. I can't testify on what.. .his mindset was at the...