ILNews

Man's claims against officers can proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of police officers in a man's civil suit, finding the man may have Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against them.

In Larry D. Best, Jr. v. City of Portland, et al., No. 07-2765, Larry Best filed a civil suit in federal court against the city of Portland, Portland Police Department, and four police officers while Best's criminal case in state court for possession of methamphetamine and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine was still pending.

While the criminal case was proceeding, Best moved to suppress evidence, arguing the searches of two homes violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied his motion; the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Best then filed a motion to reconsider, but the court never ruled on it because the prosecutor dropped the charges against him.

The District Court granted summary judgment in the civil suit in favor of the city, the police department, and the four officers. The District Court granted summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment claims against the officers based on collateral estoppel and held his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination couldn't have been violated because the case was dismissed before it went to trial.

But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found collateral estoppel didn't bar Best's Fourth Amendment claims. Under Indiana law, rulings on pretrial motions aren't necessarily final, and the trial court's suppression ruling wasn't final because it was open to reconsideration by the trial court on Best's renewed motion and during a second appeal if he was convicted, wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams. In addition, because the prosecutor voluntarily dismissed the case, there was no "final judgment on the merits" as collateral estoppel requires, she continued.

The District Court erred in ruling that Best's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination wasn't violated because the case didn't go to trial. The District Court understood that any statements he made to police were never used against him in a "criminal case," or trial, because the charges were dismissed. But the 7th Circuit hasn't adopted the view that "criminal case" means "at trial," wrote the judge.

Best alleges that statements he made were used in violation of the Fifth Amendment long after charges were initiated against him - at a suppression hearing - which is enough to allege they were used in a "criminal case" in violation, so summary judgment was an error, wrote Judge Williams.

The appellate judges remanded the issues to the District Court because there isn't enough of a record for them to affirm on an alternative basis and didn't enter any opinion on the merits. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed summary judgment in favor of the city of Portland.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT