Rockwell et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 3/6/2015. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DANIEL L. ROCKWELL, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS
VS.

*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-3049

DETECTIVE CLYDE RAWLINS, ET AL. *
DEFENDANTS
*

*

*

*

*
*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION IN LIMINE
The Court has before it Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
[Document 109] and the materials submitted relating thereto.
The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.

A.

Qualified Immunity

Defendant seeks a qualified immunity instruction.
as long recognized, for example in

However,

Meyers v. Baltimore County,

Md., 713 F.3d 723, 733-34 (4th Cir. 2013), if a jury should find
that a defendant used excess force in effecting an arrest, the
jury would find that he engaged in objectively unreasonable
conduct.

In that situation, it is necessary to determine

"whether the [police officer's] objectively unreasonable conduct
violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at
the time the conduct occurred."

Id. at

734.

And, as the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated,
1

"officers

using unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate

force to seize a secured, unarmed citizen, do not act in an
objectively reasonable manner and, thus, are not entitled to
qualified immunity."

Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 744–45

(4th Cir. 2003).
Defendant Rawlins shall not refer to qualified immunity
before the jury, and the Court shall not give the jury the
requested qualified immunity instruction, Defendant's Jury
Instruction Number 11 [Document 106] at 19-20.

B.

Marijuana Use

Defendant Rawlins will, it appears, seek to present
evidence to establish that Plaintiff Daniel Rockwell had, some
time prior to the incident at issue, used marijuana.

The Court

finds this evidence admissible in regard to the Plaintiff's
credibility to contradict a statement that he had not used
marijuana for several years prior to the incident.

The Court is

not deciding, of course, that the evidence referred to in
Defendant's opposition [Document 111] to Plaintiff's Motion
does, in fact, establish any such marijuana use.

However,

Defendant has not referred to evidence that would be adequate to
establish that Plaintiff Rockwell used marijuana or any other

2

drugs within 24 hours of the incident.

Nor has Defendant

referred to any evidence that would be adequate to establish
that Plaintiff Rockwell could have been affected by marijuana
use during the incident.
Accordingly, Defendant shall not, before the jury, refer to
any alleged marijuana use within 24 hours of the incident or any
possible effect on Plaintiff Daniel Rockwell relating to the
incident.

Defendant's only reference to marijuana use may be in

regard to a contention that Plaintiff Daniel Rockwell made a
false statement about not having used marijuana in the year
prior to the incident.
Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [Document 109] is
DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.
a.

Defendant Rawlins shall not refer to
qualified immunity to the jury.

b.

Defendant's only reference to marijuana use
may be in regard to a contention that
Plaintiff Daniel Rockwell made a false
statement about not having used marijuana in
the year prior to the incident.

SO ORDERED, on Friday, March 6, 2015.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge
3

4