Marks v. St. Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office, et al

Filing 133

ORDER AND REASONS denying 82 Motion in Limine to Exclude Challenge to Traffic Stop, Search and Arrest. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/18/2017. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JENNIFER R. MARKS,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-5454

SHERIFF RANDY SMITH, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE
PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion in limine filed by Defendants Amore Neck, Bryan
Steinert, and Samuel Hyneman.1 The motion is opposed.2 For the reasons below, the
motion in limine is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On or about October 23, 2014, upon
leaving her employment, Plaintiff, Jennifer Marks, alleges she stopped at Acadia Gas
Station in Slidell, Louisiana to purchase a pack of cigars. 3 After leaving the gas station,
Deputy Bryan Steinert conducted a traffic stop of the Plaintiff.4 Deputy Samuel Hyneman
arrived on the scene while Deputy Steinert searched the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 5 Deputy
Steinert found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. Corporal Amore Neck then arrived on
the scene to conduct a search of the Plaintiff’s person. It is at this point that the parties’
accounts of the incident diverge.

R. Docs. 82.
R. Doc. 101.
3 R. Doc. 2 at ¶ 6.
4 Id. at ¶ 5.
5 Id. at ¶ 9.
1

2

1

The Plaintiff alleges Corporal Neck conducted “an illegal and unconstitutional full
body cavity search at the traffic stop which amount to a sexual assault.”6 According to the
Plaintiff, Corporal Neck “forced Ms. Marks to bend over while handcuffed, putting her
hand down Ms. Marks’ pants, and with her fingers, entering Ms. Marks’ vagina and then
separately, her rectum. Deputy Amore then checked Ms. Marks’ feet and mouth without
changing gloves.”7
The Defendants’ accounts, however, differ significantly from the Plaintiff’s. Deputy
Hyneman, who observed the search performed by Corporal Neck, provided testimony that
the search was a “basic pat down” and Corporal Neck did not search the Plaintiff’s body
cavities.8 Corporal Neck testified the search she conducted on the Plaintiff was a usual
pat-down search, which did not include searching any of the Plaintiff’s body cavities. 9
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, bringing claims against the St. Tammany Parish
Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Randy Smith in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and other state-law causes of action. The Plaintiff also brings claims against Corporal
Amore Neck, Deputy Samuel Hyneman, and Deputy Bryan Steinert in their individual
capacities under section 1983 for violations of her Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
The Plaintiff’s claims against the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff
Randy Smith in his official capacity have been dismissed. The remaining claims are those
against Corporal Neck, Deputy Steinert, and Deputy Hyneman in their individual
capacities.

Id. at ¶ 10.
Id. at ¶ 11.
8 R. Doc. 46-4 at 26–27.
9 R. Doc. 46-5 at 15–16.
6
7

2

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants seek to exclude evidence and testimony challenging the traffic stop,
vehicle search, and arrest of the Plaintiff.10 Defendants argue any such evidence is
contrary to the Court’s ruling dismissing certain of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey.11 According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff intends to “show that the entire
series of events, beginning with the traffic stop and culminating in the alleged body cavity
search, were the result of improper procedure and the officers’ decision to target Ms.
Marks.”12 The Defendants contend allowing such evidence would allow the Plaintiff to “be
awarded damages for the improper procedure and overall context, which would
necessarily include the traffic stop and search of her vehicle.”13
In response, the Plaintiff contends she “will not argue or attempt to show that the
stop or vehicle search were the result of improper police procedure.”14 Instead, she seeks
to “admit evidence of the Defendants’ continuum of conduct culminating in [the body
cavity] search” and such evidence is relevant because it “will assist the jury in making the
fact of the illegal search . . . more or less likely.”15 The Plaintiff argues this evidence will
“show an unreasonable attempt by the Defendant officers to target and harass her and
justify their searches, culminating in an invasive and illegal body cavity search.” 16

R. Doc. 82.
512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court granted summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice “[a]ny claim
attempting to collaterally challenge the Plaintiff’s conviction for possession of marijuana by contesting the
validity of her traffic stop and the search of her vehicle.” R. Doc. 71.
12 R. Doc. 82-1 at 8.
13 Id.
14 R. Doc. 101 at 4–5.
15 Id. at 2.
16 Id. at 3.
10
11

3

The holding in Heck presents a procedural bar to the prosecution of a section 1983
claim and does form the basis for the exclusion of certain evidence. The Plaintiff may not
question the Defendants or any other witness about whether the officers followed proper
police procedure or whether they had an adequate legal basis to effectuate a traffic stop,
to arrest her, or to search her vehicle. The Plaintiff may not introduce evidence or argue
that the Defendants targeted or harassed her with respect to the traffic stop, her arrest, or
the search of her vehicle. Further, the Plaintiff may not introduce evidence or present
argument with respect to the Defendants’ motives in effectuating the traffic stop, search
of her vehicle, or her arrest.
Heck, however, does not control the admissibility of evidence, or “serve as an
evidentiary bar.”17 “[T]he application of Heck focuses only on whether a claim itself is
viable, not on whether a particular piece of evidence is admissible.” 18 Although the Court
has precluded the Plaintiff from bringing any claim that collaterally attacks her conviction
of marijuana by contesting the validity of her traffic stop, the Plaintiff “is still entitled to
tell the jury the entire story.”19
The Plaintiff will be allowed to question the Defendants with respect to the facts
and circumstances surrounding the traffic stop, her arrest, and the vehicle search to
provide context to the alleged body cavity search.20

Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Heck is not an evidentiary doctrine.”).
Melton v. Murphy, No. 05-366, 2008 WL 2697333, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 9, 2008) (citing Simpson, 528
F.3d at 695); see also Calloway v. C/O Oaks, No. 08-1896, 2013 WL 4586422, at *4 (E.D. Ca. Aug. 28,
2013) (citing Simpson, 528 F.3d at 695–96) (refusing to preclude evidence in a civil rights action that
corrections officers initiated physical contact with the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was convicted
of battery on a peace officer).
19 Simpson, 528 F.3d at 696.
20 In its ruling on the Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert, Michael
Quinn, the Court excluded Mr. Quinn’s testimony, finding his “opinions with respect to the officers’ motives
in effectuating the stop are irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury.” R. Doc. 78 at 7. Mr. Quinn’s opinion
testimony related to the reasonableness of the officers’ actions related to the traffic stop, vehicle search, and
17

18

4

CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine to exclude evidence or testimony
relating to the facts and circumstances surrounding the traffic stop, the Plaintiff’s arrest,
and the vehicle search is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of May, 2017.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

arrest of the Plaintiff. The Court’s ruling did not exclude all testimony regarding facts and circumstances of
the traffic stop, vehicle search, and arrest.

5