White v. Hefel
875 F.3d 350
7th Cir.2017Background
- On Sept. 30, 2011, Semajay Hyles ran into the Whites' unlocked Chicago home while being pursued by CPD officers; officers followed, found and arrested Hyles in a basement room.
- The Whites sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, failure to intervene, unlawful entry/search/seizure) and related state claims; district court denied some summary-judgment motions and granted JMOL for defendants on several Fourth Amendment claims before trial.
- At trial the court excluded certain GPS-related evidence and expert testimony; the jury found for the officers on the claims submitted and the district court entered judgment for defendants on others.
- On appeal the Whites challenged denial of summary judgment (arguing GPS made police account impossible), exclusion of GPS exhibits/testimony, the legality and scope/duration of the officers’ entry/search, and several trial rulings (use of plea transcript, medical-bill evidence, jury instructions).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (inter alia) the summary-judgment denial could not be revisited after a full trial, the district court did not abuse discretion excluding the proffered GPS/expert evidence, the entry/search was lawful under probable cause and hot pursuit, and other trial errors (including judicial notice of plea facts) were harmless or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Whites' summary judgment based on GPS data was reviewable after trial | GPS coordinates proved police chase story physically impossible; summary judgment should have been granted | Credibility disputes existed; those belong to a jury | Not reviewable post-trial under Ortiz; jury resolved credibility, affirmation of denial |
| Admissibility of GPS evidence and lay/expert testimony recreating chase | GPS charts/maps were simple and admissible summaries (Rule 1006); expert could explain system | Testimony would confuse jury (Rule 403); testimony was expert in substance and undisclosed under Rule 26 | District court did not abuse discretion excluding Ryczek and paralegal exhibits; exclusion permissible under Rules 403/702/26 |
| Lawfulness of entry/search of home (probable cause / hot pursuit / duration) | Entry/search unlawful; no probable cause and officers stayed and searched after exigency ended | Officers had probable cause to arrest for trespass, were in hot pursuit, and could conduct protective search without warrant | Entry/search lawful: facts known created probable cause for trespass and Santana hot‑pursuit exception applied; argument about overlong stay forfeited |
| Use of Hyles's guilty plea/transcript and judicial notice; other trial rulings (medical bills, jury instructions) | Trial court erred by admitting plea/transcript and taking judicial notice of plea facts; exclusion of unpaid medical bills and instruction focus on harm were erroneous | Plea relevant once plaintiffs opened door; any judicial-notice error was invited/harmless; medical bills excluded for failure of proof; instruction error harmless | Judicial notice of plea facts was error but harmless or invited; medical-bill exclusion was a failure of proof; instruction issue harmless given closing arguments and evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (prohibits revisiting denial of summary judgment after a full trial)
- United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947 (7th Cir.) (police may approach and question persons without suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight in high‑crime area supports reasonable suspicion)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable cause is tested objectively—actual charged offense need not match officer's stated reason)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (hot-pursuit entry into dwelling can obviate warrant requirement)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (excessive-force inquiry focuses on nature of force, not extent of injury)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (extent of injury is not dispositive in excessive-force claims)
- United States v. Oros, 578 F.3d 703 (requirement that summaries under Rule 1006 rest on admissible underlying records)
- United States v. Addison, 803 F.3d 916 (invited error doctrine: party who invites error cannot complain on appeal)