Wenrich v. Franz

Drew Wenrich, Plaintiff, v. Clarke Franz, Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-518

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

May 9, 2022

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JUDGE SUSAN J. DLOTT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's, Trooper Clarke Franz, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 28.) Trooper Franz moves for summary judgment arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity relating to the conduct that gave rise to this suit. For the reasons that follow, Trooper Franz's Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

At 10:36 p.m., on July 6, 2019, Trooper Franz, a trooper for the Ohio State Patrol, was performing duties for the Patrol as part of a federally funded overtime shift for the purpose of impaired vehicle interdiction. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 322; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 343.) While traveling in the left-most lane on Interstate 75 in Butler County, Trooper Franz came up behind the Plaintiff, Drew Wenrich, driving in the same lane. (Dash Camera at 0:00-0:40.)^[1] Wenrich then proceeded to make a right-hand lane change. (Id. at 0:40-1:00.) After completing the lane change, Wenrich activated his right turn signal and made a second right-hand lane change. (Id. at 1:24-1:37.) Trooper Franz testified that, after Wenrich completed each lane change, he crossed into the neighboring lane and thus committed marked lane violations. (Franz Dep., Doc. 19 at PageID 91, 99-100.) In both his Verified Complaint and his Declaration, Wenrich denied that he crossed into the neighboring lane. (Doc. 1 at PageID 3; Wenrich Decl., Doc. 27-1 at PageID 302.) After Wenrich completed the second lane change, Trooper Franz changed lanes to stay behind Wenrich's vehicle and began to pace Wenrich. (Franz Dep., Doc. 19 at PageID 92-94.) Trooper Franz testified that he paced Wenrich's vehicle at a speed that never went below 72 m.p.h., and the posted speed limit was 65 m.p.h. (Id. at PageID 93-94.) Wenrich testified, however, that he was not in fact speeding. (Wenrich Decl., Doc. 27-1 at PageID 302.) After pacing Wenrich for approximately ten seconds, Trooper Franz activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop. (Franz Dep., Doc. 19 at PageID 93; Doc. 28-1 at PageID 323; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 344.)

Once Wenrich pulled onto the shoulder and stopped his vehicle, Trooper Franz approached Wenrich's passenger side window and spoke with him. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 323; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 344.) Trooper Franz told Wenrich that he stopped Wenrich for marked lane violations and speeding. (Dash Camera at 3:08-3:11.) At this point, Trooper Franz testified that he smelled alcohol coming from Wenrich's vehicle and observed Wenrich as having bloodshot and glassy eyes. (Franz Dep., Doc. 19 at PageID 109-10.) Wenrich testified that he gave no physical clues to suggest that he had been drinking. (Wenrich Decl., Doc. 27-1 at PageID 302.)

Trooper Franz proceeded to ask whether Wenrich had been drinking, and Wenrich stated that he had a single beer that day. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 323; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 345.) Trooper Franz then ordered Wenrich out of his vehicle and toward the back of the cruiser and performed a consensual pat down of Wenrich; during this time, Trooper Franz testified that he detected the smell of alcohol from Wenrich's person. (Dash Camera at 3:25-3:46; Franz Dep., Doc. 19 at PageID 110.)

Wenrich maintains that he did not smell of alcohol at the time. (Wenrich Decl., Doc. 27-1 at PageID 303.) Trooper Franz again asked Wenrich how many alcoholic beverages he had consumed, to which Wenrich responded that he had one beer. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 323; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 345-46.)

At this point, Trooper Franz requested that Wenrich submit to a field sobriety test and Wenrich refused. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 323-24; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 346.) After clarifying that Wenrich was refusing all field sobriety tests, Trooper Franz informed Wenrich that he was being placed under arrest for operating a vehicle under the influence (“OVI”) and placed him in handcuffs. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 324; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 346.) Trooper Franz then placed Wenrich into the cruiser. While walking to the cruiser, Wenrich requested a blood test, to which Trooper Franz responded that he would not offer a blood test but would offer Wenrich a breathalyzer test back at the patrol post. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 324; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 346.) Trooper Franz additionally told Wenrich that he needed to call a tow truck for Wenrich's vehicle and complete paperwork before they could leave for the patrol post. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 324; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 346.)

After getting back into his cruiser, Trooper Franz called for a tow truck and proceeded to speak with Wenrich and complete paperwork regarding the stop. (Dash Camera. at 7:00-16:00.) Wenrich later requested that his wife and mother-in-law be permitted to come and pick up his car. Trooper Franz denied this request because he had already called a tow truck. (Id. at 12:3512:43.) Wenrich then asked who would pay for the towing charges, and Trooper Franz responded that Wenrich would have to pay the charges and noted that Wenrich could attempt to recover from the State in a civil action. (Id. at 14:10-14:30.)

Approximately fifteen minutes after the stop began, Trooper Franz exited the cruiser to perform an administrative inventory of Wenrich's vehicle. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 325; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 347.) During the inventory, Trooper Franz noticed a bag containing sealed beer bottles. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 325; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 347.) After returning to his cruiser, Trooper Franz used Wenrich's phone to call Wenrich's wife. Trooper Franz informed her of Wenrich's arrest for OVI and provided the address for the patrol post where she could pick him up. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 325; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 347.) Still waiting for the tow truck, Wenrich asked whether he could now consent to field sobriety tests. Trooper Franz responded that this could not happen because he already refused the field sobriety tests and the tow truck was already on its way. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 325; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 347.)

After the tow truck arrived and departed with Wenrich's vehicle, Trooper Franz drove Wenrich to the patrol post. (Dash Camera at 35:00-42:18, 42:35-54:30.) Four minutes after arriving at the post, Wenrich submitted to a breathalyzer test which returned a blood alcohol level of 0.00%. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 326; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 347.) At this point, Wenrich alleges that, upset by the negative results, Trooper Franz left Wenrich handcuffed to a table in the patrol post for fifteen minutes. (Wenrich Decl., Doc. 27-1 at PageID 305.) Trooper Franz testified that he left Wenrich in the room while he completed writing a citation for the marked lane violations, but he could not recall whether Wenrich remained handcuffed. (Franz Dep., Doc. 19 at PageID 118.) Wenrich was subsequently released to his wife when she arrived at the patrol post. (Doc. 28-1 at PageID 326; Doc. 30-1 at PageID 348.)

At a subsequent trial, Wenrich was found not guilty of the marked lane violations and incurred towing charges in the amount of $262.25 in addition to attorney fees. (Wenrich Decl., Doc. 27-1 at PageID 305.)

B. Procedural Posture

Wenrich initiated this action alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Trooper Franz is the only named defendant. Wenrich specifically alleges that: (1) there was no basis for the initial stop, (2) there was no basis for the OVI investigation, (3) there was no probable cause for the OVI arrest, (4) the towing of his car constituted an unreasonable seizure, and (5) the extended detention following his negative breathalyzer test constituted an unreasonable seizure.

Following discovery, Trooper Franz moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he is entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 28.) Wenrich has responded in opposition, to which Trooper Franz has filed a reply. (Docs. 30, 31.) The Court held oral argument on the pending Motion on May 2, 2022. This matter is now ripe for the Court's review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if “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 movant has the burden to show that no genuine issues of material fact are in dispute. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1986); Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806, 811 (6th Cir. 2011). The movant may support a motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other proof or by exposing the lack of evidence on an issue for which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). In responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the pleadings but must “present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).

A court's task is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 249. “[F]acts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine' dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); see also E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 760 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Scott). A genuine issue for trial exists when there is sufficient “evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477...