ILNews

COA affirms dismissal of complaint

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Anderson man who filed a complaint against the officers that arrested him and two police departments filed his civil action outside of the statute of limitation, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled April 28.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court in Jon S. Johnson v. Stephon Blackwell, et al., No. 49A02-0709-CV-759, that Johnson filed his four-count complaint against two detectives, the Madison County Sheriff's Department, and the Anderson Police Department after the two-year statute of limitations expired.

After receiving a tip in late February 2003 that Johnson had a large amount of drugs in his home, detectives Stephon Blackwell and Cliff Cole went to Johnson's house to investigate. The detectives told Johnson about the anonymous tip and asked to search his home. Johnson denied drugs were inside and started down a hallway, which caused Blackwell to draw his gun and tell Johnson that his walking away was a safety issue for the detectives. Johnson came back toward the detectives and allowed them to enter the home and search. The detectives found a package of crack cocaine in a dresser.

Johnson was charged in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, with possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. In March, Johnson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing his consent was involuntary. The District Court denied his motion and convicted him in May. Johnson appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Johnson's conviction and remanded the case to the District Court in October 2005. The indictment was dismissed in July 2006.

In November 2006, Johnson filed his complaint against the defendants alleging civil rights violations, false imprisonment/false arrest, wrongful infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy by intrusion. All the counts were based on the February 2003 search of his home. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) because his complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing injury to person.

Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-4 says an action for injury to a person must start within two years after the cause of action accrues. The appellate court determined the start dates for each of Johnson's counts, finding the start date for the civil rights violation, wrongful infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy by intrusion counts began on the day the police searched his home.

Citing Livingston v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 398 N.E.2d 1302, 1303 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) and Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007), the Court of Appeals found Johnson's cause of action for false imprisonment/false arrest accrued when he was bound for trial in March 2003, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

Even though Johnson's criminal litigation was still pending within the two-year statute of limitations, he should have filed the civil litigation, which would have been stayed until the outcome of his criminal case, she wrote.

"There is nothing that prevented Johnson from filing his civil complaint while his criminal case was pending. ... This is especially so given that when the Seventh Circuit remanded Johnson's criminal case in 2004, which was still within the statute of limitations, the court said that it was a "close question" of whether the detectives had reasonable suspicion to seize Johnson," she wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT