Lucas v. Hollywood Police Department

Filing 104

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/6/2019. See attached document for full details. (mee)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
GARY LUCAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER CABEZAS and
OFFICER ARCHER,
Defendants.
________________________/
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
THIS CAUSE is before the Court following a bench trial that took place on May 28, 2019.
The parties submitted their closing arguments and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law following the filing of the trial transcript. See ECF No. [102] (Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law); ECF No. [103] (Defendants’ Closing Argument and Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). The Court has carefully considered the testimony and
other evidence presented at trial, the applicable law, and the parties’ submissions. Set forth below
are the Court’s relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I.

INTRODUCTION
This case arises as a result of an encounter between Plaintiff Gary Lucas (“Lucas”) and

Defendants, City of Hollywood Police Officers Archer (“Archer”), Cabezas (“Cabezas”), and
Sinnes (“Sinnes”) in 2017. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 28, 2017, alleging that Defendants
used excessive force against him during the course of his arrest, specifically after he was
handcuffed. As a result, he sustained physical injuries and pain and suffering. Lucas asserts a claim
against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
II.

FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The parties involved
Gary Lucas was born and raised in Hollywood, Florida. He suffers from schizophrenia and

depression. He has at least one prior felony conviction within the last ten years. Lucas was married
in 2002. He has been a widower since 2014, after his wife died of congenital heart failure. Before
becoming disabled in 2008, he worked in various industries, including construction and fast food,
and he had his own business at one time.
Officer Andrew Archer was hired as a police officer in the Hollywood Police Department
in July of 2013. He is assigned to the Neighborhood Team Unit and tasked with being a liaison
between the community and police department.
Officer Rolando Cabezas is a member of a Community Oriented Policing Unit, in which
he also acts as a liaison between the community and police department. He is specifically tasked
with integrating himself within the community, addressing complaints from the community, and
identifying and devising responses to specific problems. Cabezas has been a police officer for just
over five years.
Officer Michael Sinnes has been a Hollywood police officer for seven years and is
currently in the Neighborhood Services Division. His duties include dealing with chronic and
specific problems of the residents of the east side of Hollywood, and he too acts as a liaison
between the community and the police department.
On the day of Lucas’s arrest, Archer, Cabezas, and Sinnes were members of the same unit.
B. Events leading to Lucas’s arrest
On May 19, 2017, Lucas was living with his sister, Carmella Gardner (“Gardner”), at 2239
Forrest Street. At the time, Lucas was aware that there could be an active warrant for his arrest

2

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
because he had missed a previous court hearing on March 2, 2017. Archer knew that Lucas had
outstanding warrants, as Archer and Lucas had had previous encounters. Archer had ticketed Lucas
multiple times for parking his car in an alleyway behind his previous residence. During their
previous encounters, Lucas would come out of his residence and video record Archer ticketing his
vehicle.
On the morning of May 19, 2017, Lucas testified that he was outside his sister’s house
cleaning his bicycle. Officers Cabezas and Archer testified that Lucas was walking his bicycle on
Forrest Street. The Officers were riding together that day in a Tahoe police vehicle to patrol their
assigned area, which included Forrest Street. As they approached 2239 Forrest Street, Archer, who
was driving, pointed out Lucas and told Cabezas that he had outstanding active warrants. Cabezas
decided to exit the vehicle with the intention of apprehending Lucas. When Lucas realized that the
Tahoe was approaching and saw Cabezas exiting, he turned and ran through the front gate and into
his sister’s house. Cabezas followed Lucas to the front door of the house, which had not closed
behind him. Upon seeing three black males inside the house and a large aggressive dog, Cabezas
decided not to follow Lucas in the house. Cabezas shut the door to the house and returned to the
Tahoe. Cabezas radioed a request for other available Neighborhood Team Leaders, while Archer
verified the status of Lucas’s warrants. As the Officers contemplated how to proceed, they heard
glass breaking in the rear of the house.
C. The arrest
Cabezas reacted first, by running along the east side of the house toward the back yard,
where he saw Lucas exiting a back window of the residence. After Lucas had entered the house,
he ran directly to the back room and closed the door. In the room, he used the curtain on the
window to break the window outward so he could exit the house through the window. Cabezas

3

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
then arrived in the back yard. Once out of the house, Lucas moved toward a small fenced concrete
parking area in the back yard, where he attempted to jump over the gate. However, as he tried to
jump over, the gate swung open, and Cabezas was able to grab him in a bear hug. Cabezas and
Lucas became confined to a space between a sports utility vehicle (“SUV”) parked on the concrete
area and the fence. According to Cabezas, Lucas was jerking his upper body in attempts to get
away from Cabezas, who had Lucas’s arms pinned against his chest.
Archer had followed behind Cabezas as he ran to the back yard. Archer arrived when
Cabezas and Lucas were between the SUV and the fence. At that point, Archer pulled Cabezas
toward the yard, where both Cabezas and Lucas fell to the ground, with Lucas face down. There,
while Cabezas still had a hold of Lucas, Archer got on top of Cabezas to help him hold Lucas
down, as Lucas was attempting to break Cabezas’s grip on him. According to Lucas, as they were
going to the ground, he was attempting to discard two baggies he was holding in his hands, which
he eventually was successful in discarding under the parked SUV in the yard. Once on the ground,
Archer was able to grab Lucas’s left hand and Cabezas was able to grab Lucas’s other hand so that
Archer could place him in handcuffs. According to Cabezas, Lucas had continued to try to pull
away from the Officers, even once he was on the ground.
D. Events after Lucas was handcuffed
Once Lucas was handcuffed, the version of events diverges significantly. According to
Lucas, after he was handcuffed, the Officers lifted him up, Cabezas grabbed the back of his head,
and slammed his face into the hood of the SUV parked in the yard at least nine times, while Archer
punched and kicked him. Lucas warned the Officers that his sister had surveillance cameras and
that their actions were being recorded. As a result, Lucas testified that Archer then signaled
Cabezas to move Lucas to the back of the SUV and outside of the view of the cameras, and they

4

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
continued to punch him in the chest and face, and knee and kick him in the legs. During the beating,
Lucas testified that he noticed another police Tahoe approaching the back of the house in the
alleyway. The officer who exited the Tahoe, who Lucas identified as Sinnes, then began to also
punch Lucas. After some time, Cabezas took hold of Lucas at the bottom of the driveway near the
alley and started swiping at Lucas’s feet to try to make him fall in a puddle of water left by rain
from the night before. Lucas testified that after Cabezas realized that Lucas was trying to brace
himself not to fall, Cabezas grabbed him by the back of the shirt and right arm, and swiped hard
at his legs, causing Lucas to fall hard on his right side and onto the driveway. At that point, Cabezas
knelt in front of Lucas and punched him in the face and chest, while Lucas was also being kicked
in the back. Sinnes then opened the door to the Tahoe and the Officers lifted Lucas up and put him
in the back seat of the SUV.
The Officers tell a different story. According to Cabezas and Archer, once Lucas was
handcuffed and Archer was performing a pat-down, Lucas continued to try to pull away from the
Officers. Cabezas, who was the officer holding Lucas, testified that he did not want to be
headbutted or spat on, so he pushed the top half of Lucas’s body down onto the hood of the vehicle
and held his head down for approximately twenty seconds. Although the Officers found nothing
on Lucas’s person during the pat-down, they did find the two transparent resealable plastic baggies
Lucas had thrown under the SUV, which contained a white rock-like substance. Instead of walking
Lucas to the front of the house, the Officers decided to call a unit to the back alley to transport
Lucas to the front so that he could be transferred into Archer’s Tahoe. According to the Officers,
it was Officer Djokic who responded to the alley, not Officer Sinnes. As Cabezas was walking
Lucas to Djokic’s vehicle, Lucas went completely limp and fell to the ground. Cabezas and Djokic
picked Lucas up and put him in the back of Djokic’s vehicle. Cabezas testified that he did not see

5

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
Sinnes until he returned to the front of the house, and Sinnes testified that he did not go to the back
alley at any point, nor did he witness Lucas being taken into custody.
E. Final transfer at the front of the house and surveillance footage
Once at the front of the house, Lucas was transferred from Djokic’s vehicle to the back seat
of Archer’s Tahoe. Cabezas walked back to the front of the house and met Archer and Sinnes there.
Archer began to complete a probable cause affidavit, and Sinnes field tested the substance found
in the two baggies discarded by Lucas. By the time Cabezas got back to the front of the house,
Lucas’s sister, Gardner, had also arrived. Archer was speaking to Gardner. After speaking, she
invited Cabezas into the house to review the surveillance video. Cabezas and Djokic were able to
review the footage, which included more than eight different angles from both the front and back
of the house. According to Gardner, Cabezas recorded the footage on his cell phone, though
Cabezas denies doing so. Ultimately, the footage was lost because Gardner accidentally deleted or
taped over it on her home equipment, and the footage was not collected as evidence by the police. 1
F. Injuries
Gardner also had the opportunity to speak with Lucas through the open door of Archer’s
Tahoe before the Officers took Lucas to jail. Gardner testified that when she saw Lucas, he was
bleeding from his forehead and from one of his wrists. 2 Although Cabezas and Archer testified
that Lucas did not complain of any injuries, Lucas testified that he sustained numerous injuries as
a result of the Officers’ actions after he was handcuffed. These injuries included a cut on his left
wrist and dark bruises, a bruise to his right arm where he fell on the ground, scratches under his

1

Lucas also presented evidence regarding the Hollywood Police Department’s Standard Operating
Procedures (“SOP”) regarding conducting investigations and evidence collection.

2

Gardner admitted on cross examination that she later gave a sworn statement in which she denied that
Lucas had any injuries.

6

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
left eye, swelling above his left eye and on the right side of his face, scratches on his left knee, and
scratches on his ankle from being swiped. Lucas also testified that since May 19, 2017, he has
experienced frequent intense recurring headaches, extreme right shoulder pain, lower back pain,
and neck pain—none of which he experienced prior to the Officers beating him and for which he
has received medical treatment while incarcerated. 3
III.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Lucas asserts one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive use of force by Officers

Cabezas, Archer, and Sinnes after he was handcuffed.
In order to state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead that he was (1) deprived
of a right; (2) secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (3) that the alleged
deprivation was committed under color of state law. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526
U.S. 40, 50 (1999); Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1348 (11th Cir. 2001); Myers v. Bowman,
713 F.3d 1319, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2013). Under established precedent, “all claims that law
enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest,
investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)
(emphasis in original); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007). “That standard asks
whether the force applied is objectively reasonable in light of the facts confronting the officer, a
determination we make from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with the
20/20 vision of hindsight.” Mobley v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, 783 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th
Cir. 2015) (citing Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

3

Defendants also provided testimony from Major Boris Millares, who conducted the internal inquiry
investigation into Lucas’s complaint of force against the Officers, which did not result in any official action
against the Officers.

7

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
omitted).
Determining the reasonableness of force used in a given case requires a careful balancing
of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s rights against government interests.
See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8 (1985); Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1351 (11th Cir.
1999). “[G]enerally no bright line exists for identifying when force is excessive.” Priester v. City
of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 926 (11th Cir. 2000). As such, the Court considers a number of
factors, including “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or
others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Williams
v. Bauer, 503 F. App’x 858, 861 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). The Eleventh
Circuit also instructs that “the force used by a police officer in carrying out an arrest must be
reasonably proportionate to the need for that force, which is measured by the severity of the crime,
the danger to the officer, and the risk of flight.” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1198 (11th Cir.
2002). In addition, the Court considers “the need for the application of force, the relationship
between the need and amount of force used, and the extent of the injury inflicted.” Mobley, 783
F.3d at 1353 (internal citation and alteration omitted).
Nevertheless, “[t]he application of gratuitous force on an already-handcuffed and
compliant detainee or arrestee constitutes excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
even if there is no visible or compensable injury.” Gomez v. United States, 601 F. App’x 841, 850
(11th Cir. 2015); see Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272, 1289 (11th Cir. 2011) (stating “that
unprovoked force against a non-hostile and non-violent suspect who has not disobeyed instructions
violates that suspect’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.”).
IV.

ANALYSIS
Lucas contends that Defendants should be liable for excessive use of force because they

8

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
punched, kicked, kneed, swiped at his legs causing him to fall, and slammed his head into the hood
of the SUV parked in the back yard after he was restrained in handcuffs and no longer resisting.
A. Officer Sinnes
At the outset, the Court notes that Lucas has failed to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that Officer Sinnes participated in any use of force, much less excessive force, as he was
not present during Lucas’s arrest. Archer and Cabezas testified that it was Officer Djokic who
responded to the back alley, and Sinnes testified that he arrived on-scene once Lucas was already
in the back seat of Archer’s Tahoe. The only task Sinnes performed was field testing the substance
in the baggies Lucas discarded during the course of his arrest. Beyond Lucas’s own testimony,
which the Court does not find convincing on this point, Lucas provides no other evidence
establishing that Sinnes participated in his arrest. As such, the Court finds that judgment must be
entered in favor of Officer Sinnes on Lucas’s claim.
B. Use of force by Archer and Cabezas
Archer’s and Cabezas’s use of force prior to handcuffing is not at issue in this case. Rather,
Lucas contended at trial that the Officers used excessive force after he was handcuffed when they
kicked, punched, and kneed him repeatedly, and slammed his head into the hood of the SUV
parked in the back yard of Gardner’s house. In addition, Lucas contends that the Officers’ failure
to collect the surveillance video from Gardner gives rise to a reasonable inference that the video
contained evidence that would tend to inculpate them.
However, the Court finds that Lucas has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Cabezas and Archer used excessive force against him after he was handcuffed,
without the need to consider the circumstances regarding preservation of the video. The injuries
he testified to, and which were depicted in the photographs admitted into evidence at trial, are

9

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
more consistent with the Officers’ version of events.
At trial, Lucas admitted to fleeing from the Officers and did not dispute that he was
attempting to discard the baggies he was holding while the Officers were attempting to take him
into custody. Lucas’s injuries, depicted in the photographs admitted into evidence, are inconsistent
with the level of force that Lucas testified was used upon him by two Officers—repeated slamming
of his head into the hood of the SUV, punching in the face and chest, and kneeing and kicking.
The Court has considered the relative weight and size of the parties and the circumstances leading
to the confrontation. Lucas testified at trial that in order to exit the back of his sister’s house, he
used a curtain to push out the glass window, which he admitted he had to break to get through.
Lucas admitted that he climbed through the window and jumped to get out of the house. Lucas’s
testimony is consistent with Officer Cabezas’s testimony that he heard the glass break and saw
Lucas jumping out of the window. In addition, Lucas admitted that he fell to the ground twice
during his interactions with Cabezas and Archer. Lucas fell once when Archer pulled Cabezas and
Lucas down, and again when Lucas was being taken to Djokic’s Tahoe in the back alley.
As a result, the Court finds that Lucas’s injuries are equally consistent with other
circumstances. This includes Lucas’s quick exit from his sister’s house through a broken window
while attempting to flee from the Officers and falling to the ground and attempting to discard the
baggies while he was face down with Cabezas and Archer on top of him attempting to gain control
of his arms. Although Lucas testified that he had not sustained any injuries until after he was
handcuffed, the Court does not find that his testimony is supported by the evidence. 4

4

Thus, the Court does not consider Lucas’s argument that Major Millares’s testimony regarding the inquiry
investigation is improper, as the Court reaches its conclusion independent of such testimony.

10

Case No. 17-cv-61277-BLOOM/Reid
V.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Lucas has failed to meet his burden to

establish his claim of excessive use of force, and therefore judgment must be entered in favor of
Defendants upon Lucas’s claim. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court will enter judgment by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 6, 2019.

______________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

11