United States District Court, D. Minnesota
William L. Walker, Jr., Walker Law Offices, PA, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for Plaintiff.
M. Hiveley, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, Minnesota,
for Defendants John Doe, Bloomington Police Department, and
City of Bloomington.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD H. KYLE United States District Judge
evening of August 14, 2015, Bloomington police officers went
to Plaintiff Allie Jacox's home in an attempt to locate
her grandson, who had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
There they briefly detained her, searched her, and searched
her home. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she now alleges
that Defendants John Doe, the Bloomington Police Department,
and the City of Bloomington (collectively, the
“Bloomington Defendants”), as well as the
Hennepin County Sheriff and Hennepin County Probation
(collectively, the “Hennepin Defendants”),
violated federal and state law in connection with her
detention and search. Presently before the Court is the
Bloomington Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For
the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.
material facts are undisputed. In the evening on August 14,
2015, a Hennepin County probation officer, assisted by
Bloomington police officers, performed home visits on
probationers. (Blake Aff. ¶ 3; Buzicky Aff. Ex. A.) One
probationer, Leon Lambert, Jr., had an active felony warrant
for his arrest. (Blake Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. A; Buzicky Aff. Ex.
A.) In an attempt to locate him, the team proceeded to the
address listed on Lambert's warrant-8401 Portland Avenue
they encountered Jacox, who is Lambert's grandmother and
owns the home at that address. Jacox testified in her
deposition that she was asleep and was awakened by banging on
her front door. (Jacox Dep. 15.) Once out of bed, she saw
“somebody was running around on [her] front steps [but]
couldn't see who it was.” (Id.) She
retrieved a handgun “because [she is] 80 years old, and
black, and stay[s] by [her]self.” (Id.)
Handgun at her side, she walked to her front door and heard,
“Police. Open the door.” (Id.) She
complied, and the group began questioning her about Lambert.
(Id.) Jacox asked them to identify themselves, and
they replied that they were Bloomington police officers. She
observed they were “dressed all in blue, ” and
she saw badges but was not wearing her glasses. (Id.
16.) Their questioning about Lambert resumed; she advised
that he no longer lived there, and she did not know his
whereabouts. (Id. 16-17.)
midst of this conversation, Jacox's home alarm sounded.
She turned away from the group to disable it, and that is
when the officers noticed her handgun. (Id. 17.) The
officers backed away and shouted, “Gun! Come out with
your hands up!” (Id.) Again, Jacox complied;
she laid her handgun on a sewing machine near her front door
and walked outside. (Id.) The officers commanded her
to raise her hands and get on her knees, but prior shoulder
and back injuries limited her range of motion. (Id.
18.) She put her hands in the air and “squatted down,
” and a male officer cuffed her hands behind her back.
(Id.) She said, “I [have] a permit to carry
and my gun is registered.” (Id.) The officer
proceeded to search her and, in the course of the search,
touched her breasts and vaginal area with the palm of his
hand. (See id. 34-37.) Jacox wore only a thin
nightgown and shirt. (Id. 36.)
officer then asked Jacox to wait near a tree in her yard.
(Id. 18.) For five to six minutes, she waited there,
handcuffed, while the officers discussed whether to search
her home. (Id. 18-19, 44.) She told the officers,
“If you're going to search my house, my downstairs
is locked, ” but she refused to share the location of
the keys. (Id. 19.) Officers secured her gun,
searched the unlocked areas of the home, then returned to
her, re-cuffed her hands in front of her body, and allowed
her to retrieve keys to the locked rooms. (Id. 20.)
She did so and remained inside as the officers completed
their search. (Id.) They did not find Lambert.
Afterwards, the officers returned Jacox's firearm and
left. (Id. 20-21.)
later commenced this action in the Hennepin County District
Court, alleging federal claims for unreasonable search and
seizure and conspiracy, as well as related claims under state
law. The Bloomington Defendants removed the action to this
Court and now move for summary judgment. The Motion has been
fully briefed, the Court heard argument on March 16, 2017,
and the Motion is ripe for disposition.
judgment is proper if, drawing all reasonable inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party
bears the burden of showing that the material facts in the
case are undisputed. Id. at 322; Johnson v.
Wheeling Mach. Prod., 779 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2015).
The Court must view the evidence, and the inferences that may
be reasonably drawn from it, in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Ryan v. Armstrong, 850 F.3d
419, 424 (8th Cir. 2017); Letterman v. Does, 789
F.3d 856, 858, 861 (8th Cir. 2015). The nonmoving party may
not rest on allegations or denials, but must show through the
presentation of admissible ...