Ebeyer v. Rodriguez
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163956
S.D. Ind.2012Background
- Britnee Ebeyer, 17, was stopped by Officer Rodriguez and others; drugs/alcohol were found on a friend, Ryan Huffman, who was arrested; Britnee was not arrested but agreed to ride with Rodriguez in an unmarked car.
- Rodriguez drove Britnee for about three hours, discussing her father Theodore Ebeyer’s alleged drug-trading, and devised a plan to set up Ebeyer for a heroin transaction.
- Rodriguez engaged in an unwanted sexual act with Britnee in the GPD parking lot, including exposing himself, encouraging contact with a weapon, and applying coercive pressure.
- Britnee’s father, Theodore Ebeyer, was informed about Britnee’s cooperation and was told Britnee would be arrested if she did not assist against Huffman.
- Britnee wore a wire for a subsequent drug buy; Ebeyer drove Britnee to the pickup, Britnee completed the cocaine purchase under surveillance, and Ebeyer was stopped, searched, and arrested; Ebeyer was later convicted on the possession charge.
- Mr. Ebeyer’s charges were initially dismissed and later refiled; the appellate path affirmed his conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful seizure by Rodriguez and others | Ebeyer/ Britnee allege detention violated Fourth Amendment. | Defendants argue lack of personal involvement and no seizure. | Britnee’s claim survives against Rodriguez; others granted summary judgment on seizure. |
| Battery claim and ITCA applicability | Battery occurred in course of undercover operation; ITCA may not bar. | Act outside scope and ITCA bars claim. | ITCA not a bar; battery claim survives against Rodriguez; other officers granted summary judgment. |
| First Amendment retaliation claim (Ebeyer) | Arrest retaliation for public speech protected by First Amendment. | Arrest for cocaine possession, not speech; Heck bar. | Heck bars claim; summary judgment in Defendants’ favor even without Heck. |
| Fourth Amendment claim by Ebeyer | Unlawful seizure through arrest without probable cause. | Arrest lawful and Heck bars. | Arrest/claim barred by Heck; no reversal on this ground. |
| Due Process/ Fourteenth Amendment claim (Ebeyer) | Arrest and prosecution as deliberate acts to punish him. | Heck bar applies; no due process violation. | Due process claim survives Heck; denial of summary judgment on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden to show genuine dispute)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (definition of seizure as intentional acquisition of physical control)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis)
- Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2003) (district courts need not scour record for evidence)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (courts may rely on video to assess credibility in summary judgment)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (bar to suit on grounds arising from conviction not yet reversed)
- Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2003) ( Heck bar applies to inconsistent allegations)
- Wilson v. Formigoni, 42 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 1994) (qualified immunity standards)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1991) (qualified immunity when officers are mistaken but reasonable)
- Wragg v. Thornton, 604 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2010) (substantive due process in improper conduct by public official)
- City of Fort Wayne v. Moore, 706 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (scope-of-employment for ITCA context)