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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT