587 F. App'x 442
10th Cir.2014Background
- Moreno was arrested in June 2009 after a DUI accident and placed in the back of Deputy Archuleta’s vehicle, with Deputy Garcia at the scene.
- Moreno allegedly banged his head, kicked his feet, and attempted to flee, prompting physical restraint by Deputy Garcia.
- Archuleta tased Moreno in the drive-stun mode; the parties disputed whether Moreno was tased once or three times.
- Moreno asserted Fourth Amendment excessive force and state-law claims of battery and negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
- Pretrial rulings addressed spoliation of the Taser evidence and Taos County policy violations; the district court denied spoliation sanctions and granted a motion in limine excluding policy-violation evidence.
- At trial, Moreno did not testify; defendants’ trial testimony claimed a single drive-stun tasing for a brief duration, and the jury ruled for the Board and Archuleta.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on spoliation evidence | Moreno contends bad faith spoliation warrants an adverse inference | Defendants argue no bad faith; no adverse inference warranted | No abuse; no clear error on bad faith; no adverse inference warranted |
| Whether exclusion of Taos County policy evidence was reversible | Evidence of policy violations is relevant to state claims | Policy violations are irrelevant to Fourth Amendment claim and risk confusion | No abuse; exclusion proper and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Cosco Inc., 989 F.2d 399 (10th Cir. 1993) (standard for reviewing adverse-inference instructions)
- Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) (clear error standard for bad-faith finding)
- United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2003) (definition of spoliation and sanctions)
- 103 Investors I, L.P. v. Square D Co., 470 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 2006) (adverse inference requires proof of intentional destruction)
- Henning v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008) (adverse inference predicated on bad faith)
- Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997) (avoidance of inference where destruction shows mere negligence)
- Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2005) (evidence of SOPs may cause jury confusion; admissibility discretion)
- Marquez v. City of Albuquerque, 399 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2005) (state-law violations generally do not create Fourth Amendment claims)
- Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 718 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2013) (deference to trial court on evidentiary rulings; substantial-rights standard)
- United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) (substantial rights inquiry in evidentiary errors)