Percle v. The City of Baton Rouge et al

Filing 48

RULING: A ruling on the 34 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Drug Use is deferred to the time of trial. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/23/2016. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRETT PERCLE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

14-449-SDD-RLB

THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL.

RULING
Before the Court is Plaintiff, Brett Percle’s, Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
of Alleged Drug Use.1 The Motion is opposed.2 For the reasons which follow the Motion
is deferred to the time of trial.
I.

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is a 42 USC §1983 civil rights claim which arises out of a warranted search of

a dwelling by BRPD Narcotics agents on June 11, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that Officer
Robert Moruzzi, a member of the Special Response Team (“SRT”) team that executed
the warrant, “curb stomped” him after he had obeyed orders to lie on the floor, causing
him injury. Plaintiff further alleges that “[o]ther officers later strip searched [him] and
ransacked his car.”3
Officer Moruzzi relates a vastly different story of the events. According to Moruzzi,
“when SRT made entry into the home [a Marijauna] bong broke spilling water everywhere
[and] that Percle must have either slipped on the water from the bong, or in shear panic,
dove face first into the kitchen floor. Moruzzi advised that once Percle was on the ground

1

Rec. Doc. 34.
Rec. Doc. 40.
3
Rec. Doc. 34-1.
2

he put his knee in Percle’s back to stabilize him until he handcuffed him [and] that once
he got Percle off the floor and onto his feet; [Moruzzi] saw that Percle’s two (2) front teeth
were on the floor.”4 Moruzzi denies doing anything to cause Percle to lose his teeth.
II.

FRE 404(b) ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence, and preclude argument, that Percle used

marijuana or any other illicit drug on the day of the events at issue or at any prior or
subsequent time.
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or
other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character”.
Defendant’s contend that evidence of the Plaintiff’s drug use on the date of the
incident will not be offered to show that Percle is a ‘bad person’, rather Defendant’s argue
that the relevance goes to Percle’s perception at the time of this incident. As to evidence
of subsequent drug use, Defendant’s argue that Plaintiff’s medical records establish that,
subsequent to the incident, Percle was abusing illegal drugs, which evidence the
Defendant’s contend is probative of whether Percle has given cause to retard his medical
treatment for the injuries allegedly caused by BRPD officers.
Gleaning from the briefs, evidence of the Plaintiff’s alleged drug use on the date of
the incident is disputed. The mere presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia at the situs
of the execution of the search warrant is not probative of the Plaintiff’s state of mind or
perception. Hence, the Court shall defer ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion5 to exclude alleged
evidence that Percle was under the influence of narcotics at the time of the incident.

4
5

Rec. Doc. 40, p. 2.
Rec. Doc. 34.

III.

CONCLUSION
Likewise, evidence that subsequent alleged drug use by the Plaintiff interfered with

or delayed his recovery from the injuries he claimed is disputed. Hence, the Court shall
defer ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion6 to exclude alleged evidence of subsequent alleged drug
use by Plaintiff to the time of trial. The Court will conduct an FRE 403 hearing outside the
presence of the jury to determine the probative value, if any, of the proposed evidence at
the time of trial. The Defendants shall not argue, offer, or refer to evidence of
contemporaneous or subsequent drug use by the Plaintiff unless and until the Court has
determined admissibility after hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on February 23, 2016.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6

Rec. Doc. 34.