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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT