Harper v. Perkins et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 71 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 12/19/2012. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO
F OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEc
WAYCROSS DIVISION

STRICT C S

T

loll DEC l q A 10 O
JOSEPH HARPER,
SO. DST. OF

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV5I0-047

V.

CHRIS PERKINS; RODNEY COURSON;
JEREMIAH DAVIS; and MATT GOURLEY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case arises out of the alleged use of excessive force by Defendants against
Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were called to his home because of his
intoxicated behavior. Plaintiff further alleges that before Defendants arrived he fled into
the woods behind his house. Plaintiff alleges that he set his rifle out of his reach and
then climbed a tree. Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants "concurred through their
speech and conduct that they should use lasers to bring Plaintiff down from the tree."
(Doc. No. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Gourley attempt to use a
laser on him and then Defendant Davis successfully used a Taser on him, which
caused him to fall out of the tree. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' use of Tasers
constitutes excessive force.
Plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine to exclude from trial any reference to the severity
of the crimes for which the Defendants were called to his home, the domestic dispute
preceding Defendants' arrival, Plaintiff having fired his rifle into the ceiling of his home,

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

and an allegation that Plaintiff intentionally pointed his gun at anyone. Plaintiff alleges
that these facts and allegations are irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and likely to cause
the jury to confuse the issues. Defendants Perkins, Courson, and Davis filed a joint
Response, and Defendant Gourley also filed a Response.
Evidence must be relevant to be admissible. FED. R. EVID. 402. "Evidence is
relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
FED. R. EvID. 401. "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, [or] misleading the jury[.]"

FED. R. EvID. 403. "Since Rule 403

permits the exclusion of otherwise probative evidence, it must only be used sparingly
and the district court must strike the balance in favor of admissibility." Boyd v. Ala.
Dep't of Corr., 296 F. App'x 907, 909 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
"The Fourth Amendment's freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
encompasses the plain right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of
an arrest. The question is whether the officer's conduct is objectively reasonable in
light of the facts confronting the officer." Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th
Cir, 2002) (citations omitted). Factors to be considered in determining the
reasonableness of the force used include "the severity of the crime at issue, whether
the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and
whether he is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

The severity of the crimes for which the Defendants were called to his home, the
domestic dispute preceding Defendants' arrival, Plaintiff having fired his rifle into the
ceiling of his home, and an allegation that Plaintiff intentionally pointed his gun at
anyone are all directly relevant to the reasonableness factors, so long as Defendants
had knowledge of these topics during their interaction with Plaintiff. Moreover, the
highly probative value of these facts is not outweighed by any prejudice to Plaintiff.
Additionally, the Court concludes that the jury will not be confused by the admission of
these topics. Defendants may testify regarding these topics to the extent that they
were provided information on these topics before their interaction with Plaintiff
Plaintiffs Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 71) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this

,#st-

I day of December, 2012.

C-,---

AMES E. GRAHAM
1
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)