Abdullah v. Wilson
3:10-cv-01076
| M.D. Tenn. | Feb 19, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Luqman Abdullah (aka Terry Douglas) is a known "numbers" runner who on Aug 7, 2010 picked up cash and ticket "packages" at 2622 Jefferson, a location known to officers as an illegal gambling collection point.
- Officers Dixon and Wilson had previously surveilled, executed warrants, and conducted controlled buys at 2622; they surveilled the location the evening of the pickup.
- Plaintiff entered a retail space at 2622, emerged wearing a bulky jacket in warm weather, drove into a nearby church lot, waited, then left toward the interstate; officers followed and stopped him.
- Officers searched Plaintiff’s truck and found two bags containing gambling money; Plaintiff was cited but not arrested.
- Procedural posture: Magistrate recommended summary judgment for defendants on Fourth Amendment grounds; the district judge sustained objections only as to "plain view" evidence; the Sixth Circuit remanded to assess qualified immunity and probable cause independent of disputed plain-view facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless search of vehicle (probable cause) | Abdullah contends the search lacked probable cause and was the product of racial profiling/retaliation; disputed plain-view facts preclude summary judgment | Dixon/Wilson argue probable cause existed based on: (1) their knowledge of 2622 as a gambling site; (2) plaintiff's role as a runner; (3) observable behaviors (bulky jacket in warm weather, counter-surveillance, parking/waiting) | Court held probable cause existed to search the vehicle even without contested plain-view evidence; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Qualified immunity for officers | Plaintiff contends officers are not entitled to immunity because search was unlawful | Defendants assert objectively reasonable belief in probable cause shields them from liability | Court concluded officers had probable cause, so qualified immunity was not foreclosed |
| Credibility of conflicting testimony (depositon vs hearing) | Abdullah attempted to change prior deposition testimony about whether he observed the same suspicious vehicle; argues factual dispute | Defendants rely on deposition and surveillance testimony; court may not allow plaintiff to create dispute by contradicting prior sworn deposition without good cause | Court relied on plaintiff's deposition (not later inconsistent hearing testimony) and found plaintiff's explanation insufficient to overturn deposition credibility |
| Whether facts permitted only reasonable-suspicion stop vs full search | Plaintiff argues at most reasonable suspicion existed; no fair probability contraband would be found | Defendants argue totality of circumstances produced fair probability of contraband in vehicle warranting search | Court found totality of circumstances supported a fair probability (probable cause) and upheld search |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lyons, 687 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes investigatory stops and standards for vehicle stops)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry uses totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Haynes, 301 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2002) (probable cause requires fair probability contraband will be found)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (fair-probability/totality-of-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (specific and articulable facts required for reasonable suspicion)