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
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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

    5. 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

    ADVERTISEMENT