Campbell v. Ackerman
903 F.3d 14
1st Cir.2018Background
- On Nov. 19, 2013, Cumberland County ESU executed a search warrant at Tara‑Lee Campbell’s home based on Detective Brian Ackerman’s representation that her then‑husband was a felon in possession of firearms; that premise later proved false.
- Campbell alleged excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Ackerman dragged her during the SWAT‑style entry; she disavowed any claim attacking the warrant’s validity at a pre‑filing conference.
- The parties and district court agreed the warrant’s procurement/validity was relevant only insofar as it bore on the officers’ justification for force; Campbell later sought (and was denied) leave to amend to add an unlawful‑warrant claim.
- The district court excluded evidence about the procurement/validity of the warrant unless Campbell first laid a foundation showing relevance to her excessive‑force claim; it also barred admission of medical bills absent competent proof of causation.
- After a four‑day jury trial, the jury found no excessive force. Campbell appealed, challenging (1) exclusion of warrant‑procurement evidence and (2) exclusion of medical bills.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by excluding evidence about procurement/validity of the warrant | Campbell argued the excluded evidence would show the warrant was invalid and that procurement facts were relevant to objective reasonableness of force | Defendants relied on prior stipulation and court rulings that such evidence was excluded absent a foundation tying it to the excessive‑force claim | Court: Appeal waived insofar as Campbell advanced new legal theories on appeal not raised below; exclusion affirmed |
| Whether warrant‑related evidence could be admitted as Rule 404(b) evidence (motive/plan) or as standalone motive evidence | Campbell contended alternate grounds (motive/plan or motive) supported admissibility | Defendants relied on the district court’s limiting rulings and lack of foundation | Court: Argument raised cursorily on appeal and not developed below deemed waived |
| Whether exclusion of medical bills was error | Campbell argued medical bills were admissible to prove damages | Defendants argued bills required causal proof and were irrelevant if liability failed | Court: Moot—because jury found no liability, any damages‑only error is moot; affirmed |
| Whether district court abused discretion generally in in limine rulings | Campbell claimed abuse of discretion | Defendants argued rulings were within discretion and consistent with parties’ stipulation | Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion and found no reversible error given waiver and mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Clukey v. Town of Camden, 894 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2018) (district court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Nguyen, 542 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1992) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Barnes v. Anderson, 202 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 1999) (medical causation often requires competent evidence to admit related billing evidence)
- A.M. Capen's Co. v. Am. Trading & Prod. Corp., 202 F.3d 469 (1st Cir. 2000) (damages‑only issues are moot when liability is resolved against the plaintiff)
- Zannino v. Ford Motor Co., 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (perfunctory or undeveloped appellate arguments are waived)