Marks v. St. Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office, et al
ORDER AND REASONS denying 83 Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Policies and Procedures. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/18/2017. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JENNIFER R. MARKS,
SHERIFF RANDY SMITH, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE
PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, ET AL.,
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 The Court rules on the motion
as set forth below.
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. 83.
R. Doc. 100.
3 R. Doc. 2 at ¶ 6.
4 Id. at ¶ 5.
5 Id. at ¶ 9.
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
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
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
Id. at ¶ 10.
Id. at ¶ 11.
8 R. Doc. 46-4 at 26–27.
9 R. Doc. 46-5 at 15–16.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants seek to exclude evidence or testimony that “attempt[s] to challenge
policies and procedures related to dash-cameras or retention, to claim that the policies
and procedures are insufficient, or to claim that the Sheriff lacked adequate policies and
procedures.”10 Defendants argue such evidence is precluded under the “law of the case”
doctrine because this Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against Sheriff Smith,
including a claim related to the Sheriff’s failure to institute and enforce policies and
procedures.11 Defendants contend the jury may improperly award damages based on the
Sheriff’s failure to maintain adequate policies and procedures, which would be an award
against Sheriff Smith, not the remaining defendants in this matter—Corporal Neck,
Deputy Steinert, and Deputy Hyneman in their individual capacities.12 The Defendants
further contend evidence referencing the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office’s policies
and procedures with respect to the dash cameras is irrelevant because no dash camera
video was recorded of the incident in question.13
In response, the Plaintiff states she does not intend to attack the sufficiency of the
St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Offices policies and procedures with respect to dash
cameras. Instead, the Plaintiff argues evidence of the dash camera policies and
procedures is relevant to the credibility of Deputy Steinert, who had the opportunity to
delete videos on the dash camera memory card at his discretion.14 Plaintiffs further
contend the question of whether a dash camera video was recorded with respect to the
incident at issue is a question of fact in this case, which should be decided by the jury.
R. Doc. 83.
12 R. Doc. 83-1 at 6.
13 Id. at 7.
14 R. Doc. 100 at 3.
The Court finds evidence with respect to the dash camera in Deputy Steinert’s
patrol car to be relevant and not precluded by the “law of the case” doctrine. The Plaintiff
is not seeking to admit evidence with respect to the dash camera to relitigate her claims
against Sheriff Smith for failure to maintain adequate policies and procedures. The facts
surrounding the existence of and use of the dash camera is relevant to whether a recording
of the incident existed and whether it was deleted—either intentionally or accidentally.
Such facts are relevant to the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendants had the motive and
opportunity to spoliate evidence by deleting the video of her traffic stop.15
The Plaintiff may question Deputy Steinert and other defense witnesses with
respect to the facts surrounding the deputies’ use of the dash camera, the recordings
made, and the deletion and/or storage of recordings made.16 The Plaintiff may not
question Deputy Steinert or other defense witnesses about the existence, content, or
adequacy of the policies and procedures with respect to dash cameras.
United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir. 2000) (“A district court has discretion to admit evidence
of spoliation and to instruct the jury on adverse inferences.”). The Court will only instruct the jury on the
issue of spoliation of evidence if the Plaintiff presents evidence of bad faith of the Defendants. Anderson v.
Prod. Mgmt. Corp., No. 98-2234, 2000 WL 492095, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 25, 2000) (“[T]he Fifth Circuit
holds that in order to permit the fact-finder to draw an inference adverse to the destroying party, there must
be a showing of bad faith or bad conduct.”).
16 For instance, the Plaintiff may wish to ask Deputy Steinert whether his patrol car was equipped with a
dash camera and when it was installed; whether the camera recorded the incident; whether Deputy Steinert
thought the incident was being recorded at the time of the incident; how the video would be stored if there
had been a recording; whether any video of the incident was burned to a CD; how the camera worked and
how videos were stored; whether Deputy Steinert ever deleted videos from the memory card; when the
camera was removed from the patrol car; when Deputy Steinert discovered the incident was not recorded,
how that information was ascertained, and by whom; when Deputy Steinert gave the memory card at issue
to someone else and to whom it was given; and whether the dash camera in Deputy Steinert’s patrol car
worked correctly on previous and subsequent patrol shifts.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony
regarding to the dash camera in Deputy Steinert’s patrol car is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of May, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?