ILNews

7th Circuit blasts counsel, tosses race-based traffic-stop appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Elkhart man failed to show a traffic stop and drunken-driving arrest was unconstitutional in an appeal that a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected with an opinion blasting his lawyer’s work.

The panel affirmed summary judgment on behalf of the city of Elkhart, city police officers and others involved in the arrest in Kenny A. Jones, Sr. v. City of Elkhart, Indiana, et al., 12-3912.

Judge Theresa Springmann of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in Hammond had ruled for the city on Jones’ claims that his arrest violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that his race was a factor in the stop.

Jones was stopped in the early morning hours of Oct. 22, 2008, when Elkhart police said he was driving more than 50 mph in a 35-mph zone and that he crossed the center line. He appeared to be intoxicated, and a breath test revealed a blood alcohol content of .09 percent, just above the legal limit. He was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
 
Jones argued Elkhart police stopped him without probable cause and alleged the city had an institutionalized practice of “stopping of citizens without probable cause based on race.”

But Judge John Tinder wrote for the 7th Circuit panel that Springmann rightly found for the city by granting summary judgment on her own motion, noting that the panel was perplexed by Jones’ appeal that seemed to have waived the race argument.

“Counsel for Jones stated his claims broadly and vaguely. He listed a series of irrelevant facts untethered to any legal claims, and asserted constitutional injury without specifying what provisions of the Constitution were violated and how,” Tinder wrote.

“Unfortunately, on appeal, counsel fashioned his brief in a similar manner. … The argument section of Jones’s brief recite legal standards for the elements of the case but offer us no analysis on how to apply them to the facts at hand,” he wrote.

Springmann’s grant of summary judgment on her own motion was not improper, the panel held, noting defendants didn’t brief Jones’ equal protection argument in essence because it wasn’t clear from the pleadings what exactly he alleged.

“It is not difficult to see why Defendants had difficult grappling with the legal claims at play in this case,” Tinder wrote. “The complaint is drafted in broad, generalized strokes. … (I)t is by no means a clearly presented argument to which Defendants failed to respond, either out of irresponsible lawyering or some tactical decision to conceal the equal protection claim.”

       
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Overlooked Info here, Jose
    Justicia reveals the plaintiff counsel: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/12-3912/
  • Agreed
    Agreed.
    • Permissive parenting-like
      This paper, and even the Seventh Circuit, blames Mr Jones for the fault of his greedy counsel. The attorney is charged with the duty of knowing if a case passes Rule 11 plausibility, which this one seems to fail, not the client. Yet whose name is tied to this total waste of judicial resources? Only Mr Jones, the client. His greedy attorney, seeking a payoff under 42 usc 1983, an attorney who evidently knows little about how to plead or defend such a claim, is rightly called to account, but done so, in the Court opinion on in this article, without a name. Where is the accountability in that? How can the market forces work? This is like the permissive parenting of the Sixties and beyond, and look how badly that is serving us as a social order.

    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. 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.

    2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

    3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

    4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

    5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

    ADVERTISEMENT