Jeremy Venson v. Lazaro Altamirano
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7334
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 2, 2007 Chicago officers Altamirano, Jania, and O’Keefe stopped and arrested 18‑year‑old Jeremy Venson after hearing him shout “rocks, rocks” and (according to officers) observing him drop a small green baggie that looked like crack cocaine. Venson was handcuffed, searched, booked, and spent 19 days in jail.
- At a preliminary hearing the state judge dismissed charges for want of probable cause; Venson later sued the three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, illegal search, and malicious prosecution.
- At trial the parties presented conflicting accounts: officers said Venson was soliciting and dropped a baggie; Venson said he was walking to his girlfriend’s, was seized, searched (including intrusive searches), and that officers pressured him and threatened to frame him.
- The jury found for the officers. The district court denied Venson’s post‑trial motions (Rule 50(b), Rule 60(b)(3), Rule 59). Venson appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding (inter alia) that (1) credibility determinations were for the jury, (2) the officers had at least reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop and, under Illinois law (People v. Grant), probable cause to arrest for solicitation after hearing “rocks, rocks,” and (3) any evidentiary or counsel‑conduct issues did not amount to reversible error or justify relief under Rule 60(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest at outset (solicitation) | Venson: shouting “rocks, rocks” alone did not give probable cause to arrest for soliciting unlawful business. | Officers: hearing “rocks, rocks” directed to passing vehicle in an area known for drug sales gave probable cause (or at least reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop). | Held: Under People v. Grant, hearing a street hawk term like “rocks” directed at a vehicle supported probable cause to arrest for solicitation; at minimum the encounter could be a lawful Terry stop that ripened into arrest once the baggie was observed. |
| Probable cause for possession after baggie discovery | Venson: officers’ account that he dropped a baggie was implausible and not creditable, so no probable cause for possession. | Officers: discovery of a baggie that looked like crack plus observed conduct supplied probable cause for possession. | Held: Credibility was for the jury; the jury could credit the officers’ testimony that Venson dropped a baggie and thus had probable cause for possession. |
| Admissibility / elicitation of officers’ experience (Rule 702 / disclosure) | Venson: officers’ testimony about typical drug‑dealer behavior amounted to undisclosed expert testimony and prejudiced his case. | Officers: testimony was lay testimony grounded in personal experience, responsive to issues of plausibility and relevant to reasonable inferences. | Held: Majority of objections were waived or properly overruled; any limited expert‑style testimony was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant relief. |
| Post‑trial relief for alleged counsel misconduct / evidentiary error (Rule 60(b)(3), Rule 59) | Venson: defense counsel violated in limine rulings, elicited improper testimony, and made improper closing remarks that prevented a fair trial. | Officers: district court curtailed improper questioning, sustained objections, and any missteps were not willful or prejudicial. | Held: District court did not abuse discretion; Venson failed to show extraordinary misconduct or that errors prevented him from fairly presenting his case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. City of Chicago, 725 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2013) (credibility assessments for jury; standard for reviewing verdict).
- E.E.O.C. v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for de novo review of Rule 50(b) judgment as a matter of law).
- United States v. $304,980.00 in U.S. Currency, 732 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2013) (observations on physical impossibility and implausibility in credibility disputes).
- United States v. Cardona‑Rivera, 904 F.2d 1149 (7th Cir. 1990) (test for when witness testimony is so improbable that a factfinder cannot rely on it).
- People v. Grant, 983 N.E.2d 1009 (Ill. 2013) (Illinois Supreme Court holding that yelling street drug‑terms to passing vehicles can support probable cause for solicitation).
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (search incident to lawful arrest rule).