Williams v. City of Charlotte

1

PATRICE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE et al., Defendants.

No. 3:21-cv-00649-RJC-DCK

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

May 23, 2023

ORDER

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Sergeant Brandon Ottelin, Officer Tiffany Anderson, and the City of Charlotte (Doc. Nos. 18 19). Those officers and the City were sued by Patrice Williams after she was arrested early one morning in her apartment. Williams claims that the officers committed intentional torts and violated her constitutional rights when they entered her apartment to investigate a possible domestic dispute.

The Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the officers' actions were justified at each step of their investigation. Exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into Williams's apartment. Exigent circumstances also justified their attempt to temporarily detain Williams. And her arrest was justified because the officers had probable cause to believe that she had committed two offenses: unlawful resistance to the officers' efforts to detain her and an assault on Officer Anderson. For these reasons, as elaborated below, the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

At 3:51 in the morning on September 8, 2018, someone living in an apartment complex called 911 to report screams coming from a neighboring unit. Dispatch Records 1, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 1. The caller said that a woman was shouting “get of[f] me.” Id. (capitalization omitted). A man had been “banging on the door” for ten minutes shouting at the woman to “let him in.” Id. The caller dialed 911 because she was “concerned” for the woman, who was “still . . . screaming.” Id. The dispatcher received a general description of where the woman's apartment was located, id., and first responders with the Charlotte Fire Department were dispatched at 3:53, arriving on the scene at 4:03, Fire Department Incident Report 1, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 2.

A second person called 911 at 4:09. Dispatch Records 2. That caller lived in unit 908, which was across from the screaming woman's apartment. Id. The caller reported that “a male [had been] beating a female for about the last 30-45 minutes.” Id. (capitalization omitted). “[S]everal neighbors” told the firefighters who had arrived that “screams and noises” had been coming from unit 909. Fire Department Incident Report 1. The firefighters knocked on that apartment's door and on bedroom windows close to the door. Id. No one answered, though the firefighters glimpsed two individuals in the apartment. Id. The firefighters reported to dispatch that a domestic dispute could be in progress. Dispatch Records 1.

Sergeant Ottelin and Officer Anderson, officers of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, arrived at 4:14. Dispatch Records 5. Sergeant Ottelin knew the details of the two 911 calls. Ottelin's Interview 4:18-38, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 9. While the officers walked up the stairs to unit 909, which was on the second floor, Sergeant Ottelin heard “banging and yelling coming from the area.” Ottelin's Statement 1, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 6. And as the officers approached the apartment, they “heard a loud bang and felt the floor shake.” Id.; see Anderson's Statement 1, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 7. Sergeant Ottelin briefly conferred with the on-scene firefighters, who said things were “quiet now.” Ottelin Body-Worn Camera Footage 1:33-35, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 4. The officers walked up to the door, which was next to two bedroom windows. Id. 1:40-45. When Sergeant Ottelin knocked on the door, the bedroom's lights immediately went out. Id. 1:44-47. The officers could hear wails coming from inside the bedroom. Id. 1:45-2:09; Ottelin's Statement 1; Anderson's Interview 4:06-35, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 10. Sergeant Ottelin announced that police officers were present, and he asked the occupants to come to the door. Ottelin Body-Worn Camera Footage 1:45-2:09. No one came, though the wailing continued. Id.

After knocking and waiting for around twenty-five seconds, Sergeant Ottelin decided to breach the door and enter the apartment without a warrant. Id. Firefighters loudly banged on the door for about twenty-five seconds as they forced it open. Id. 2:29-55. Once the door was breached, the officers entered with weapons drawn, and Sergeant Ottelin shouted, “Police department! Show me your hands!” Id. 2:57-3:00. As the officers entered, they found Williams in the living room wearing only undergarments. Id. 2:59-3:03. With hands raised, she said, “There's only one person in here,” and she asked, “What is going on?” Id. 3:01-03. Bypassing her, Sergeant Ottelin walked to the right, through the living room, and toward the bedroom whose windows were next to the front door. Id. 3:01-06. He thought “the disturbance” was “coming from” that bedroom. Ottelin's Statement 1. As he neared the bedroom's door, he saw that its handle had been damaged. Ottelin Body-Worn Camera Footage 3:04-07; Ottelin's Statement 1. Standing beside the door, he turned back to Officer Anderson and said, “Detain her.” Ottelin Body-Worn Camera Footage 3:07.

At that, Williams exclaimed, “Detain me? No! I'm not being detained! No, I'm not!”

Ottelin Body-Worn Camera Footage 3:08-11. As Officer Anderson approached her, Williams protested, “I didn't do anything! I've been in my room!” Id. 3:13-15. Williams then started down a hall toward her room, which was on the officers' left as they entered. Id. 3:12-20. At the same time, Sergeant Ottelin opened the door to the bedroom he had walked to. Seeing a woman lying on a bed facing away from the door, he asked, “Ma'am, are you okay?” Id. 3:08-18. Only a wail was heard after he asked that question. Id. 3:18-19.

At that point, Officer Anderson was following Williams into her room, and their altercation had intensified into a shouting match. Id. 3:19-22. Sergeant Ottelin left the bedroom he was near and started for Williams's room, yelling, “Hold on a second!” Id. 3:19-24. Stopping outside the room, Sergeant Ottelin told Williams, “Come here now.” Id. 3:24-30. Williams refused, shouting, “I don't know what she has going on! I am undressed! I'm not being detained!” Id. 3:32-36. As the two officers walked into Williams's room, Sergeant Ottelin told her, “Ma'am, you're going to be arrested. Turn around and put your hands behind your back.” Id. 3:39-45. After Williams insisted, “I'm not going to be arrested,” the situation devolved quickly. Id. 3:40-42. All three individuals shouted continuously as Officer Anderson reached for Williams and struggled to subdue her. Id. 3:45-50. Williams pushed back Officer Anderson's arms, and as Williams's resistance escalated, she shoved Officer Anderson, who fell onto a nearby bed. Id. 3:44-52. Sergeant Ottelin then grabbed and handcuffed Williams, who continued to shout. Id. 3:51-4:30; Ottelin's Statement 2.

Williams was charged with two crimes: resisting a public officer, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14 223, and assaulting an officer, see id. § 14-33(C)(4). Arrest Sheet, Doc. No. 20, Ex. 14. The charges were later dismissed. Id.; Ottelin's Interview 19:30-20:05.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court will grant summary judgment when “the movant shows that 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). A factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”). A fact is material only if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The movant has the “initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). The moving party may carry its burden by showing “an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Id. at 325.

Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 322 n.3. The nonmoving party may not rely on “the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading” to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. Rather, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence from which “a reasonable jury could return a verdict” in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; accord Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty., 48 F.3d 810, 818 (4th Cir. 1995).

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence and any inferences from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sylvia, 48 F.3d at 817. The mere argued existence of a factual dispute does not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. And if the nonmoving party's evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 249-50.

III. DISCUSSION

Williams's Complaint is imprecise. It does not clearly articulate the types of claims she asserts, nor does it offer a legal theory for each claim. Nevertheless, for the sake of resolving the Defendants' motions, the Court assumes that Williams pleaded the claims below.

A §...