COMER v. SCHNEDIER et al

Filing 19

ENTRY Discussing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The undisputed record reflects that Detective Schneider did not violate Mr. Comer's Fourth Amendment rights. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/11/2016 (copy mailed to plaintiff). (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

JOSHUA E. COMER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID SCHNEDIER Detective,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:14-cv-00095-TWP-DML

Entry Discussing Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant
Detective David Schneider (“Detective Schneider”).1 In this action, Plaintiff Joshua E. Comer
(“Mr. Comer”) alleges the defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, Mr.
Comer alleges that Detective Schneider subjected him to false arrest and confinement and
conducted an illegal search and seizure. Detective Schneider denies these allegations and seeks
judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons explained below, Detective Schneider’s unopposed
motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 14] is GRANTED.
I. Standard of Review
The motion for summary judgment in this civil rights action, as with any such motion, must
be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A “material fact” is one
that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

1

Misidentified as Detective Schnedier in the complaint.

1

(1986). “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing
the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by
‘showing’--that is, pointing out to the district court--that there is an absence of evidence to support
the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325.
In this case, Detective Schneider has met that burden through his unopposed motion for
summary judgment. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ailure to respond by
the nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission.”). By not responding to the
motion for summary judgment, Mr. Comer has conceded to Detective Schneider’s version of the
facts. Brasic v. Heinemann’s Inc., 121 F.3d 281, 286 (7th Cir. 1997). This is the result of Local
Rule 56-1, of which Mr. Comer was notified. This does not alter the standard for assessing a Rule
56 motion, but does “reduc[e] the pool” from which the facts and inferences relative to such a
motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
II. Undisputed Facts
The undisputed factual record shows the following:
On October 29, 2013, Mr. Comer was arrested following a drug investigation by an
undercover officer with the Lawrenceburg Police Department’s Special Crimes Unit. After several
meetings at the White Castle restaurant in Lawrenceburg, the undercover officer purchased $600
of heroin with marked bills, resulting in the arrests of Mr. Comer and Lamocres Johnson (“Mr.
Johnson”), among others.
2

David Schneider assisted in the arrests, taking possession of evidence found in the personal
possession of Mr. Comer and Mr. Johnson. The undercover officer turned in a sealed plastic bag
that held one folded piece of white paper containing white and brown powder, presumably the
heroin he received from Mr. Comer. Detective Schneider collected the property that was seized
during the arrests.
There was cash in plain view on the rear floor of a 2001 silver Toyota Sequoia automobile
(the “Sequoia”) in the area where Comer had been seated and the serial numbers matched those of
the $600 that the undercover officer handed Mr. Comer as payment for the heroin. Also, a purse,
multiple cell phones, and a cigarillo wrapper were in plain view inside the Sequoia. The Sequoia
was transported to the Lawrenceburg Police Department.
On October 30, 2013, the officers obtained a search warrant for the Sequoia. Officer
Schneider assisted in the execution of the search warrant and the collection of evidence, which
included $600.00 documented U.S. currency, a white and silver HTC Windows cell phone with
charger, a black and red Verizon HTC cell phone, a black LG Tracfone, and three cigarillo
packages.
All of the cell phones (those obtained from the arrestees’ persons and those obtained during
the vehicle search) were searched pursuant to a warrant issued by the Dearborn Circuit Court.
Following the filing of the Probable Cause Affidavit from Detective Schneider, the
Dearborn Circuit Court found “facts to establish probable cause for the arrest and detainer” of Mr.
Comer and others. Mr. Comer and Mr. Johnson were charged with assorted crimes, including
dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin) and conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin),
both class B felonies. Mr. Comer was convicted by a jury and is currently in prison.
3

III. Discussion
Mr. Comer seeks money damages based on his claim of false arrest and illegal search and
seizure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the
alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “[T]he first step in any [§ 1983] claim is to identify the specific constitutional
right infringed.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). The pertinent constitutional
provision implicated by Mr. Comer’s allegations is the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures. See generally Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989).
A. False Arrest
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the existence of
probable cause renders warrantless arrests permissible. Williams v. Brooks, No. 15-1763, 2016 WL
51409, at *4 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2016); Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107, 1114 (7th Cir. 2013)
(noting that probable cause is an absolute defense to false arrest claims in § 1983 actions). The
undisputed facts reflect that the Detective Schneider had probable cause to arrest Mr. Comer for
dealing an illegal drug on October 29, 2013. In addition, after Mr. Comer was arrested, Detective
Schneider filed an Affidavit for Probable Cause on October 31, 2013. Based on that Affidavit, the
Dearborn Circuit Court found that probable cause existed for the arrest and detention of Mr. Comer
and others. The facially valid finding of probable cause by the Dearborn Circuit Court precludes
Mr. Comer’s claim. See dkt. 14-1. Accordingly, Detective Schnedier is entitled to judgment in his
favor as a matter of law on this claim.

4

B. Illegal Search and Seizure
Next, Mr. Comer claims that Detective Schneider illegally searched his vehicle, resulting
in the warrantless seizure of material subsequently admitted into evidence during Mr. Comer’s
criminal trial. As an initial matter, Detective Schneider correctly argues that Mr. Comer has no
standing to contest the seizure of the items that did not belong to him. See Seibert v. Severino, 256
F.3d 648, 655 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that a plaintiff has no standing contest the seizure of property
that he does not own). Thus, Mr. Comer’s only claim is for the search of his vehicle and the seizure
of his two telephones, a black and red one and a white and silver one.
Mr. Comer’s claims for illegal search and seizure must be dismissed. The reason for this
ruling is that the undisputed record reflects that there was no “search” of the vehicle cell phones
at the time of the arrest, although inventory was taken of the items in plain view. Scott v. Harris,
127 S.Ct. 1769, 1775 (2007). Instead, the vehicle and cell phones were searched only after a valid
search warrant was procured. See dkts. 14-4, 14-5 and 14-6. The seizure of evidence pursuant to a
valid search warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Detective Schneider’s motion for summary judgment [dkt.
14] is granted. The undisputed record reflects that Detective Schneider did not violate Mr.
Comer’s Fourth Amendment rights.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 1/11/2016

5

Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel
JOSHUA E. COMER
253720
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135

6