Jamison v. Mcclendon

476 F. Supp. 3d 386 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a Black man driving a Mercedes convertible. On his way home to South Carolina from a vacation in Arizona, D decided to stop P because the temporary tag on his car was 'folded over to where he couldn't see it.' P was pulled over. D asked P for 'his license, insurance, [and] the paperwork on the vehicle because it didn't have a tag.' D provided his bill of sale, insurance, and South Carolina driver's license. D returned to his car to conduct a background check using the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). The EPIC check came back clear immediately. D then contacted the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) and asked the dispatcher to run a criminal history on D and the car. D returned P's documents and struck up a conversation without mentioning that the EPIC background check came back clear. The stories of what happened diverge at this point. D kept asking to search the car. D said he had received a phone call reporting that there were 10 kilos of cocaine in the car. That was a lie. P did not consent to the search. D kept making requests to search the car. The conversation became 'heated.' P became frustrated and gave up. He told D, 'As long as I can see what you're doing you can search the vehicle.' D patted P down after he exited the car. P was told to stand in front of the patrol car, which allowed P to see the search. D searched the car 'from the engine compartment to the trunk to the undercarriage to underneath the engine to the back seats to anywhere to account for all the voids inside the vehicle.' As he started the search, NCIC dispatch called and flagged a discrepancy about whether P's license was suspended. NCIC eventually discovered that P's license was clear, although it is not apparent from the record when D heard back from the dispatcher. D admitted that he did not find 'anything suspicious whatsoever.' D asked to deploy his canine. After a second request, P relented, saying 'Yes, go ahead.' The dog gave no indication, 'so it confirmed that there was nothing inside the vehicle.' The stop lasted one hour and 50 minutes. P sued Ds for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by 'falsely stopping him, searching his car, and detaining him.' Under the Fourteenth Amendment P claimed that Ds should be held liable for using 'race [as] a motivating factor in the decision to stop him, search his car, and detain him.' P's third claim alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment for 'recklessly and deliberately causing significant damage to D's car by conducting an unlawful search of the car in an objectively unreasonable manner amounting to an unlawful seizure of his property.' P claimed almost $4,000 of physical damage to his car. He described the damage as requiring the replacement of the 'whole top' of the car and re-stitching or replacement of his car seats. In his deposition, P said he provided pictures and estimates. P sought damages for psychological harm. Ds filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Ds as to P's Fourteenth Amendment claim for a racially-motivated stop. D was protected by qualified immunity as to P's claims that D did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. The Court requested supplemental briefing to determine if D is entitled to qualified immunity on P's lack of consent and prolonged stop claims. D moved again for summary judgment.