Fletcher Quiller v. Officer Daniel Nunez, Shield No. 18750

Background

Fletcher Quiller sued Officer Daniel Nunez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows damages claims for constitutional violations by state officials. Quiller alleged an unlawful search, false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of the right to a fair trial, and municipal liability under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The parties later stipulated to dismiss the municipal-liability claim and all defendants other than Nunez.

On April 30, 2013, Nunez and two other officers stopped a cab in which Quiller was the passenger. Nunez testified that the vehicle was being driven erratically and had committed a traffic violation. He also testified that he smelled marihuana from the cab, saw what he believed was a gravity knife clipped to Quiller’s pocket, frisked Quiller, and found another knife and a small bag of marihuana. Quiller disputed important parts of this account, including whether the vehicle had committed a traffic violation, whether the knife was visible, and whether marihuana was present.

Quiller was arrested and charged with weapon-possession and marihuana offenses. At a suppression hearing, the criminal court suppressed the remaining knife, the marihuana, and a statement Quiller made while in custody. The court found that the basis for the traffic stop had not been sufficiently established and also expressed doubt about Nunez’s ability to identify the knife as a gravity knife. The charges were later dismissed on the prosecution’s motion. One weapon charge had earlier been dismissed because the additional knife was found not to be a switchblade.

Summary-judgment standard

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion and may not resolve credibility disputes, meaning disputes about whether a witness should be believed.

Unlawful stop

The court held that a genuine factual dispute existed about whether Nunez had reasonable suspicion to stop the cab. Nunez testified about erratic driving and a traffic violation, and his notebook referred to a failure to signal. Quiller submitted evidence disputing whether the vehicle had failed to signal, while other circumstances supporting the stop remained disputed. Because a jury could reach different conclusions about whether the stop was justified, the court denied both motions on the unlawful-stop claim.

The court also declined to grant Nunez qualified immunity on this claim. Qualified immunity can protect a government official from damages when the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The court concluded that the factual disputes prevented deciding that issue at summary judgment.

Unlawful search

The court explained that officers may order passengers out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop and may frisk a person when they reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous. Because the lawfulness of the stop was disputed, the justification for ordering Quiller out was also disputed. There was a separate factual dispute about whether Nunez smelled marihuana or saw a knife in a way that reasonably suggested Quiller was armed and dangerous. The court therefore denied both motions on the unlawful-search claim.

False arrest

The court granted Nunez’s motion on Quiller’s false-arrest claim. It ruled that, regardless of whether the initial stop or search was lawful, Nunez had probable cause—or a legally sufficient basis—to arrest Quiller. Quiller admitted possessing the motorcycle-shaped knife, and Nunez was able to open it using a wrist-flick method associated with gravity knives. Even if the knife was ultimately determined not to be a gravity knife, the court concluded that Nunez was reasonable in believing that he had probable cause to arrest Quiller. The court also held that Nunez was protected by qualified immunity on this claim.

Malicious prosecution

The court granted Nunez’s motion on the malicious-prosecution claim. The court recognized factual disputes about whether the case ended favorably for Quiller, whether Quiller suffered a post-arraignment loss of liberty, and whether malice existed. For example, Quiller testified that he had to attend fifteen to twenty court appearances in connection with the case. But the court held that probable cause to arrest existed and that continuing probable cause defeated the malicious-prosecution claim. The court also concluded that Nunez was protected by qualified immunity for the same reasons supporting the false-arrest ruling.

Right to a fair trial

Quiller’s fair-trial claim was based on alleged fabricated evidence concerning the knife attributed to the driver and the marihuana. The court noted that probable cause is not a defense to this type of claim and that qualified immunity does not apply. Although the court assumed that favorable termination of the criminal case might be required, it had already found a factual dispute about whether the prosecution ended favorably. It also found a factual dispute about Quiller’s loss of liberty. The court therefore denied Nunez’s motion on the fair-trial claim.

Disposition

Quiller’s motion for summary judgment was denied in its entirety. Nunez’s motion was denied as to the unlawful-stop, unlawful-search, and fair-trial claims and granted as to the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims. The court directed the parties to participate in a telephonic status conference and directed the clerk to terminate both motions.