Tohono O'odham Roadblock Incident

 

Civil Rights Lawsuit:

After charges against me were dismissed by the Ajo Justice Court during the defense phase of this incident, a civil rights lawsuit was filed against the TOPD officers on December 19, 2003 in the Arizona Superior Court. In late March 2004, the TOPD accepted service of the complaint and retained various attorneys to represent them regarding different aspects of the complaint. U.S. Attorneys for the District of Arizona, Paul Charlton and Gerald Frank, agreed to represent the TOPD regarding the lawsuit's malicious prosecution claim while Roger Frazier of Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C. was hired to represent the TOPD regarding the constitutional claims.

Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed several documents with the federal district court. The first document was a notice of removal to move the case to the federal district court from the Arizona Superior Court. To justify this action, a certification was filed that alleges the officers were under contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the time of the roadblock and consequently were considered federal employees under the Federal Tort Claim Act. Also, a motion to substitute the United States in place of the officers was filed in order to shield the officers from personal responsibility for their unlawful malicious prosecution.

In response, we filed an opposition to the motion to substitute based upon the fact that no contract with the BIA can empower the TOPD to enforce State law along with a motion to remand the case back to the Arizona Superior Court where issues of compelling state interest could be adjudicated. The defense countered with an opposition to the motion to remand and a joint motion to dismiss based upon sovereign and qualified immunity claims. In short, the defense claimed that because they were employed by a sovereign entity, the Tohono O'odham Nation, they have no obligation to obey state law, the state constitution, or the federal constitution. Further, because they are police officers, they argued they enjoy qualified immunity from such lawsuits. We responded with an opposition to the motion to dismiss which pointed out the officers were acting under color of state law during the incident which effectively bars arguments of sovereign immunity and that their conduct was clearly violative of well established principles for conducting sobriety roadblocks which addresses the issue of qualified immunity. In response, our opposition was countered by a reply from the defense.

A hearing regarding these issues was held in the Tucson Federal District Court on December 9, 2004 with district Judge John Roll presiding. During the hearing, the judge made several decisions in which he allowed the removal and substitution to stand along with dismissing the malicious prosecution claim without prejudice. This charge, the judge declared, could be re-filed at a later date but all administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claim Act must be exhausted before doing so. In response, I filed a notice of claim with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in which they had six months to respond. Under such circumstances, if a settlement isn't reached after six months, the malicious prosecution charge can be refiled against the United States but action against the individual officers is effectively barred.

During the hearing, the judge took arguments regarding sovereign and qualified immunity under consideration but did not make a final ruling. Several weeks later, the judge issued a court order re-iterating his earlier decisions and allowing our constitutional claims to go forward. The judge rejected the defense's motion to dismiss based in part on a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Evans v. McKay, where a dismissal was reversed in a similar case based upon plaintiff's evidence that the tribal police were acting under color of state or federal law.

Shortly thereafter, the defense filed a formal answer to our original complaint after realizing they weren't going to be able to make the charges go away anytime soon. They also filed a motion to reconsider based upon case law referenced in the judge's order. The judge granted the motion which paved the way for limited discovery for both sides. In preparation, I put together evidence that the TOPD officers were acting under color of state and/or federal law at the time of the incident.

Originally, an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for April 25, 2005 but Judge Roll ordered that his decision (on whether or not sovereign immunity applies regarding roadblock operations prior to the unlawful arrest) would be made in chambers absent further oral argument. Judge Roll also extended the timeline for submitting additional documentation. As new evidence came forward, we amended our complaint to include a 42 U.S.C. 1983 federal civil rights and Bivens claim while the defendants motioned the court for a jury trial.

We filed an amended response regarding the motion to reconsider with a statement of facts in May 2005. The defendants responded with a reply along with their own statement of facts and a request for oral hearing. In June 2005, I finally received a response to my U.S. Customs FOIA request regarding their involvement at the roadblock. The documents we received were so incriminating, we filed an additional motion with the court. The Customs documentation contradicted several key statements made by the defendants under penalty of perjury & showed that federal agents were directly involved in roadblock operations and tribal police actively assisted U.S. Customs agents with transporting and interrogating individuals in the custody of U.S. Customs agents.

The defendants filed an objection with the court asking the judge to disallow the new evidence which we countered with a request for oral hearing. During this same time frame, I received a final administrative denial from the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding my malicious prosecution claim. Consequently, we also requested to amend the complaint to roll the malicious prosecution claim back into the lawsuit.

In late September 2005, Judge Roll ordered the third amended complaint filed and dismissed our 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens claims. We filed a motion for reconsideration only to wait nearly eight months for a terse response from Judge Roll denying the motion. Shortly afterwards, a scheduling order for additional discovery and a trial date was set. In an attempt to avoid discovery however, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In addition to the legal maneuvering described above, I also came across additional evidence from U.S. Customs that the roadblock was a joint task force operation as we claimed all along. It would appear that TOPD Chief Richard Saunders, one of the police defendants in the lawsuit, represented the Tohono O'odham Nation at a Border Security Conference held in Washington, D.C. in either 2002 or 2003. At the U.S. Customs sponsored conference, a detailed analysis regarding the implementation of joint task force operations between tribal and federal authorities was discussed.

In October of 2006, we filed Notice of Depositions with the tribal police defendants along with a subpoena for U.S. Customs agent Bill Dreeland. Dreeland was the Senior Special Agent who I observed actively participating in roadblock operations in the middle of the road with tribal police officers. He also was the agent the police defendants allowed to directly confront me at the roadblock and demand my obedience or face arrest. In early November, we conducted the depositions and filed our objection to the defendants motion for summary judgment with a supporting statement of facts.

At about this time, the attorney's representing the United States filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment regarding our malicious prosecution claim which we responded to in Opposition. Judge Roll ruled in favor of both Motion's for Summary Judgment and awarded the defendants fees in the amount of $2,641.30.

In response, we filed a Notice of Appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. A full briefing was filed on September 4, 2007.

In October 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals notified us that a three judge panel would be convened to hear oral argument regarding the Appeal. On November 5, 2008, the 9th circuit issued an order granting the Tohono O'odham Nation's motion to file an Amicus Curiae Brief and denied a Motion for Sanctions filed by the defendants alleging frivolous arguments raised on appeal. The court did however strike the Right To Travel argument raised in our Opening Brief.

The Appeals court hearing in San Francisco was held on November 20, 2008 and an update along with the audio file of the hearing were posted on November 27, 2008. On August 4, 2009, the court ruled largely in favor of Checkpoint USA and remanded the case back to district court for further proceedings regarding the constitutionality of the roadblock itself.

The case languished in federal court for the next few years with Judge Roll refusing to take any action or schedule any hearing dates to move the case along. This despite numerous calls by my attorney to get the case back on schedule. This was the scenario we were faced with in January 2011 when Judge Roll became one of several shooting victims at an event in Tucson, AZ sponsored by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. A short time later, semi-retired 9th circuit judge Wallace Tashima volunteered to pick up Judge Roll's civil calendar which included our case. From that point forward, the case began to move forward again.

In February 2011, the deposition of former TOPD Officer Nicholas Romero was taken by the defense regarding an incident report he authored at the checkpoint in 2002. In the incident report, Romero indicated the checkpoint's primary purpose was expansive and included checking for things such as drugs and illegal aliens along with stolen vehicles & sobriety checks - exactly the things we had alleged from the beginning & right in line with the Shonk Memo authored two years before the incident. Since such checkpoint purposes are illegal with the exception of sobriety checks, the defense went our of their way to try and get former TOPD Officer Romero to recant his written report nine years after he wrote it.

In April 2011, a scheduling conference joint report was submitted to the court and in May we filed our 4th amended complaint to consolidate the remaining issues for trial after the 9th circuit court decision. In June 2011, a second round of discovery was conducted and in August 2011, summary judgment motions, responses and reply's were filed. The district court filed an order granting oral argument regarding summary judgment in December 2011 & scheduled a hearing for December 21, 2011. On January 23, 2012, Judge Tashima ruled on the summary judgment motions granting part of the defendant's motion in so far as the actual stop was concerned but denied the defendant's summary judgment on the constitutionality of the roadblock itself. This ruling paved the way for scheduling a jury trial later in the year & additional filings in March 2012, including the defendant's memorandum for pretrial conference and our memorandum for pretrial conference.

In late April of 2012, we filed our motion in limine while the defendant's filed nine separate motions to try and suppress as much evidence and testimony at trial as possible. Judge Tashima never had an opportunity to rule on the motions however because settlement talks in early May 2012 resulted in a settlement agreement in mid-May and notification to the court on May 15, 2012. The court vacated all hearing & trial dates shortly thereafter and I signed a release of all claims on May 31, 2012 in exchange for payment of $210,000. A stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice was filed with the court on May 31, 2012 along with a proposed court order.

As such, after nine years and a tortured legal history, this lawsuit is officially over. Tribal police anywhere within the jurisidction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can no longer claim sovereign immunity while conducting suspiconless checkpoints along state 'right of ways' running through tribal land & are bound by state and federal constitutional constraints while doing so per the 9th circuit's decision in this case. A more detailed analysis of this case now that it is officially over will be forthcoming in the near future.

Comprehensive lawsuit documentation appears in mostly chronological order below. In addition, a comprehensive document timeline is available here that also contains documentation associated with the original incident when I was facing charges. For quick reference, lighter colored table entries below contain documentation filed by the plaintiff, gray table entries are motions filed by the police defendants and darker table entries are court orders.

Initial Complaint

Document Title:
Post Date:
Plaintiff Initial Complaint - A copy of the complaint naming four TOPD officers as defendant's in the civil rights lawsuit
19-Dec-2003
Plaintiff Arbitration Statement - A document accompanying the complaint stating the reasons why the case is not eligible for arbitration
19-Dec-2003
Plaintiff Notice of Lawsuit / Waiver Request - A lawsuit notice sent to each defendant requesting waiver of service of the summons
Feb-2004
Defendant Waiver of Service Acceptance - The defendants agree to waive service of the complaint.
22-Mar-2004

Main

Document Title:
Post Date:
Defendant Certification - Certification from United States Attorney Jennifer Guerin that the defendants were acting within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the incident.
18-May-2004
Defendant Notice of Removal - U.S. Attorney's motion to remove the lawsuit from the Arizona Superior Court to the United States District Court
19-May-2004
Defendant Motion to Substitute - U.S. Attorney's motion to substitute the United States in place of the defendants for the malicious prosecution claim
19-May-2004
Plaintiff Motion to Remand - Our motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Arizona Superior Court
24-May-2004
Plaintiff Opposition to Substitution - Our reply to the U.S. Attorney's motion to substitute the U.S.A. in place of the defendants
24-May-2004
Defendant Motion to Dismiss - The defendants seek dismissal of the lawsuit based upon sovereign and qualified immunity claims.
26-May-2004
Defendant Opposition to Motion to Remand - The TOPD really wants to keep the case out of the State court system.
08-Jun-2004
Plaintiff Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - Our response to the proposition that the defendants can't be held liable for their unlawful actions.
15-Jun-2004
Defendant Reply to Motion to Dismiss Opposition - Defendant's reply to our objection to the motion to dismiss.
25-Jun-2004
Defendant Jury Trial Demand - Defense demands a jury trial for the upcoming court action
04-Feb-2005

Initial Court Appearance:

Document Title:
Post Date:
Court Order - A judicial hearing regarding the lawsuit was held on December 9, 2004 in the Federal District Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona. This court order stems from that hearing.
06-Jan-2005
Defendant Answer - After the court refused to dismiss the case out of hand, the defendant's finally responded to the original complaint.
24-Jan-2005
Evans v McKay - A 9th Circuit Appeals court decision referenced by Judge Roll in his decision to allow the lawsuit to go forward.
06-Mar-2005

Reconsideration/Discovery

Document Title:
Post Date:
Defendant Motion to Reconsider - The Defense's motion to Reconsider the January 6th court order refusing to dismiss the lawsuit
24-Jan-2005
Court Order - Court Order granting, in part, the Motion to Reconsider
31-Jan-2005
Evidence - A links page to evidence that the defendant's were acting under color of state/federal law at the roadblock
Mar-2005
Discovery - A links page to documentation related to limited discovery authorized by the court regarding the January 31st court order.
Mar-2005
Affidavits - A links page to several affidavits related to the lawsuit
Mar-2005
Plaintiff Motion For Reconsideration Reply - Our reply to the defendants request for reconsideration
14-Mar-2005
Defendant Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration - The defense responds to our reply to their Motion For Reconsideration with supplemental evidence
28-Mar-2005
Court Order - A court order vacating a scheduled April 25th hearing in lieu of an in-chambers determination and extended time for discovery
29-Mar-2005
Plaintiff Amended Response to Motion for Reconsideration - Our earlier response is amended to incorporate discovery documentation and highlight the defense's co-mingling of tribal, state, and federal authorities during the roadblock.
06-May-2005
06-May-2005
27-May-2005
Defendant Statement of Facts Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment with Attachments - A links page to this filing & accompanying attachments
27-May-2005

U.S. Customs FOIA Appeal Response Cover Letter - A five page cover letter from the Department of Homeland Security - U.S. Customs and Border Protection granting my 20 month old FOIA Appeal.

FOIA Response Attachments - Copies of redacted incident reports from December 20, 2002 included with the response to my FOIA Appeal. The documents conclusively show that U.S. Customs agents were on scene prior to the first report of illegal narcotics and actively assisted the TOPD with roadblock operations.

07-Jul-2005

 

07-Jul-2005

Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Reply on Motion for Reconsideration - Additional evidence submitted showing the joint task force nature of the operation and direct involvement of federal agents
11-Jul-2005
Defendant's Objection to Recent U.S. Customs FOIA Evidence - The defense argues against allowing the recent evidence from U.S. Customs to be entered into the court record
21-Jul-2005
Plaintiff's Request for Hearing on Latest Motions - We request a hearing to flush out all the issues associated with the outstanding motions and to discuss possible perjured defendant statements
02-Aug-2005
Court Order granting defendant Motion for Reconsideration - Judge Roll discounts the overwhelming evidence of federal involvement at the roadblock and dismisses our Bivens claim and 42 USC 1983 civil rights claim regarding everything that happened prior to the arrest. The order was signed 26-Sep-2005 but we received no notification until late October.
28-Oct-2005
Remarks of U.S. Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner: Native American Border Security Conference (10/07/2002) - A conference attended by native american tribal representatives where models for increased cooperation between federal and tribal authorities is discussed in detail. Specifically the 'joint task force' model is highlighted. This is important in that the Tohono O'odham Nation is represented and used as an example for cooperative efforts with federal authorities. This conference took place 2 months before the unconstitutional roadblock on the Tohono O'odham Reservation that led to this lawsuit.
28-Oct-2005
Closing Remarks of CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner: Native American Border Security Conference (10/08/2002) - Commissioner Bonner explicitly thanks TOPD Chief Richard Saunders for participating in the conference. This document shows that the defendants were very familiar with 'joint task force' operations prior to carrying out their illegal roadblock and that they were actively seeking ways to implement such joint task forces on the reservation.
28-Oct-2005
Plaintiff Motion For Reconsideration - Our request for reconsideration given errors in fact in the ruling and a failure to consider evidence regarding federal involvement at the roadblock
07-Nov-2005
Defendant Response to Plaintiff Motion For Reconsideration - even though the federal rules of civil procedure bar a party from responding to a motion for reconsideration until ordered to do so by the judge, the defendants in this case took it upon themselves to respond without such an order...
22-Nov-2005

Amended Complaint/Pre-Trial Documentation

Document Title:
Post Date:
Plaintiff Motion to Amend Complaint - Our motion to amend the complaint to include issues of Federal law
10-Feb-2005
Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint - The amended complaint including a recently added federal Biven's claim
10-Feb-2005
Defendant Reply to Motion to Amend - Defendants have no objection to the filing of an amended complaint but reserve the right to seek a dismissal
28-Feb-2005
Court Order - Court order granting motion to amend the complaint
28-Mar-2005
Defendant Second Amended Complaint Answer - Defendant response to second amended complaint
11-May-2005
Plaintiff Response to Motion To Dismiss Biven's Claim - Evidence is referenced indicating the defendants were acting within the scope of their federal powers based upon the active participation of the Border Patrol & U.S. Customs at the roadblock
11-May-2005
Motion For Leave to File Third Amended Complaint - Our request to amend the complaint to include the malicious prosecution charge after the claim was denied administratively by the BIA
20-Jul-2005
Response to Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint - The defendants indicate they do not object to the motion but will seek to separate the malicious prosecution claim from the other claims at a later date
03-Aug-2005
Third Amended Complaint Court Order - Judge Roll accepts our third amended complaint. Malicious prosecution claim to be rolled back into lawsuit after administration denial by BIA
28-Oct-2005
Court Order denying our motion for reconsideration.
23-May-2006
Court Order to setup a pre-trial scheduling conference.
31-May-2006
Joint scheduling conference report filed with the court to establish proposed dates for all pre-trial action
27-Jun-2006
Court issued scheduling order received. This document lays out the pre-trial schedule through April of 2007
05-Jul-2006
Defendants file a Motion for Summary Judgment with the court in an attempt to avoid full discovery
22-Aug-2006
Defendants file Statement of Facts in Support of Summary Judgment
22-Aug-2006
Court approves two month extension to plaintiff's response to to Motion for Summary Judgment
21-Sep-2006
Notice of Depositions - Links to notice of depositions served on defendants Ford, O'Dell, Saunders, and Traviolia and one Subpoena served on DHS Agents Bill Dreeland
28-Oct-2006
Defendant Motion for Protective Order - Defendants seek not only to impermissibly limit the scope of deposition questions but to also prohibit plaintiff from disseminating digital audio files of the upcoming depositions.
28-Oct-2006
Defendant Exhibits in Support of Protective Order - Defendant supporting documentation regarding the protective order referenced at 149.
28-Oct-2006
Defendant Motion for Expedited Hearing on Protective Order - Defendant seek an expedited oral hearing take place to decide the issue of the protective order.
28-Oct-2006
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order - We file our opposition to defendant's proposed protective order that would deny the public access to discovery information and unreasonably limit the scope of deposition questioning
30-Oct-2006
30-Oct-2006
30-Oct-2006
24-Nov-2006
24-Nov-2006
Deposition of U.S. Customs Senior Special Agent William Dreeland - On November 2-3, 2006, we deposed four defendant tribal police officers and one federal agent who was on-scene during the roadblock and participated in roadblock operations. William Dreeland, a senior agent with over 23 years of experience, was that federal agent.
25-Feb-2007
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - This is the defendant's response to our motion in opposition to summary judgment
25-Feb-2007
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts - This is the defendant's response to our facts associated with our motion in opposition to summary judgment
25-Feb-2007
Defendant United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment - U.S. Attorney Gerry Frank seeks summary judgment regarding out claim of malicious prosecution
25-Feb-2007
Defendant United States of America's Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment - Gerry Frank's statement of facts regarding his motion for summary judgment
25-Feb-2007
05-Mar-2007
05-Mar-2007
Tucson District Court Order issued by judge John Roll granting defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the remaining claims against the defendant police officers. This action paves the way for a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenge regarding Judge Roll's cumulative rulings in this case.
29-Mar-2007
Defendant United States Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment - Assistant U.S. Attorney Gerald Frank responds to our opposition to his motion for summary judgment
03-Apr-2007
Judge Roll grants summary judgment to USA. Amended notice of appeal to be filed with 9th circuit
16-May-2007
November 2006 Deposition of Tohono O'odham Police Chief Richard Saunders
02-Aug-2007
November 2006 Deposition of Tohono O'odham Police Lt. Michael Ford
02-Aug-2007
November 2006 Deposition of Tohono O'odham Police Detective George Traviolia
02-Aug-2007
November 2006 Deposition of Tohono O'odham Police Officer Eric O'Dell
02-Aug-2007

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Documentation

Document Title:
Post Date:
Plaintiff-Appellant Notice of Appeal filed with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
03-May-2007
Plaintiff-Appellant 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opening Brief Filed
04-Sep-2007
Defendant-Appellee police officers response to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opening Brief has ben filed
18-Oct-2007
Defendant-Appellee USA responds separately to the 9th Circuit Opening Brief regarding malicious prosecution claim
18-Oct-2007
Defendant-Appellee Motion For Sanctions filed with 9th Circuit alleging frivolous arguments in opening brief
26-Oct-2007
Tohono O'odham Nation Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief with 9th Circuit
29-Oct-2007
Tohono O'odham Nation Amicus Curiae Brief
29-Oct-2007
Plaintiff-Appellant Consolidated Reply Brief filed. Now we wait for oral argument
05-Nov-2007
9th Circuit court order granting motion to file Amicus Curiae Brief & denying Motion for Sanctions
05-Nov-2008
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Hearing update & audio posted
27-Nov-2008
9th Circuit rules in favor of Checkpoint USA and remands case back to District court for further proceedings
04-Aug-2009

Remanded District Court Proceedings (post 9th circuit)

Document Title:
Post Date:
Deposition of Former TOPD Officer Nicholas Romero Posted 17-Feb-2011
Joint Report For Scheduling Conference - a report filed with the court by both parties laying out the issues for trial 12-Apr-2011
Plaintiff's 4th Amended Complaint (consolidates remaining claims after 9th circuit ruling) 17-May-2011

Discovery (second set - post 9th circuit)

Document Title:
Post Date:
Defendant's Request For Admissions (second set)
28-Jun-2011
Defendant's Request For Non-Uniform Interrogatories (second set)
28-Jun-2011
Defendant's Request For Documents & Things (second set)
28-Jun-2011
Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (second set)
01-Jul-2011
Plaintiff's Request For Documents & Things (second set)
01-Jul-2011
Defendant's 3rd Supplemental Disclosure Statement
25-Jul-2011
Plaintiff's Responses To Request For Admissions (second set)
25-Jul2011
Plaintiff's Responses To Non-Uniform Interrogatories (second set)
25-Jul2011
Plaintiff's Responses To Request For Documents & Things (second set)
26-Jul2011
Court Order Granting 4th Amended Complaint
26-Jul-2011
Defendant's 4th Supplemental Disclosure Statement
01-Aug-2011
Defendant's Privilege Log Regarding Plaintiff's Request For Production of Documents & Things (second set)
01-Aug-2011
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Request For Admissions (second set)
01-Aug-2011
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Request For Production of Documents & Things (second set)
01-Aug-2011

Summary Judgment (second round - post 9th circuit)

Document Title:
Post Date:
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Statements Of Fact In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Exhibit #1: Responses To Requests For Admissions
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Exhibit #2: Selected Deposition of Nicholas Romero
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Exhibit #3: Traviolia Incident Report
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Exhibit #4: TON Subpoena
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Exhibit #5: Affidavit of Joseph Delgado, 2008 TOPD Checkpoint Guidelines, etc
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Exhibit #6: Declaration of Joseph Martinez & TON DUI Statistics
06-Sep-2011
Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment
06-Sep-2011
Plaintiffs’ Statements Of Fact In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment
06-Sep-2011
Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
11-Oct-2011
Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff’s Statement Of Facts Of September 6, 2011, And Defendants’ Separate Statement Of Facts In Support Of Their Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
11-Oct-2011
Defendant Summary Judgment Reply Exhibit #1: Affidavit Of Former Chief of Police Richard Saunders
11-Oct-2011
Defendant Summary Judgment Reply Exhibit #2: Affidavit Of Current TOPD Chief of Police Joseph Delgado
11-Oct-2011
Defendant Summary Judgment Reply Exhibit #3: Affidavit Of TOPD Officer Michael Ford (exhibit 3)
11-Oct-2011
Defendant Summary Judgment Reply Exhibit #4: Affidavit Of TOPD Officer George Traviolia
11-Oct-2011
Defendant Summary Judgment Reply Exhibit #5: Deposition of Former TOPD Officer Nicholas Romero
11-Oct-2011
Defendant Summary Judgment Reply Exhibit #6: Affidavit Of Joseph Martinez
11-Oct-2011
Plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Motion For summary Judgment
11-Oct-2011
Plaintiffs’ Statement Of Fact In Support Of Plaintiff's Response To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment
11-Oct-2011
Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff’s Statement Of Facts In Support Of Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment
31-Oct-2011
Defendant’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (exhibit 1)
31-Oct-2011
Defendant’s Amended Non-Expert Witness List (exhibit 2)
31-Oct-2011
Reply On Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment
31-Oct-2011
Court Order Granting Oral Argument for Summary Judgment
01-Dec-2011
Court Order Re Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment
23-Jan-2012
Court Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference
23-Jan-2012
Joint Pretrial Report/Order
22-Feb-2012
Court Order Regarding Pretrial Conference for March 19, 2012
23-Feb-2012
Defendant Memorandum For Pretrial Conference
09-Mar-2012
Plaintiff's Memorandum For Pretrial Conference
13-Mar-2012
Defendant Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum For Pretrial Conference
14-Mar-2012
Defendant Exhibit to Response To Plaintiff's Memo For Pretrial Conference
14-Mar-2012

Motions In Limine

Docket #: Document Title: Post Date:
216
Plaintiff's Motion In Limine
27-Apr-2012
217
Defendants’ Motion In Limine (First) Re: Adequate Training
30-Apr-2012
218

Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Second) Re: To Admit Incident Reports Of Other Incidents

* Exhibit A: Incident Reports

30-Apr-2012
219

Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Third) Re: Damages For Stress Of Litigation & Fear Of Losing Employment

Exhibit A: Non-uniform Interrogatories

30-Apr-2012
220
Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Fourth) Re: Evidence Of
Compensatory Damages
30-Apr-2012
221

Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Fifth) Re: Shonk Memorandum & Saunders’ Deposition Testimony That It Was “Policy” On December 20, 2002

* Table of Contents for Defendant's Exhibits in Support of 5th Motion in Limine
* Exhibit A: Shonk Memorandum
* Exhibit B: Deposition of Richard Saunders
* Exhibit C: Deposition of Michael Ford
* Exhibit D: Response To Request For Production #1

30-Apr-2012
222

Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Sixth) Re: Evidence Of Line Officers Traviolia’s & Romero's Thoughts Or Subjective Intent Of Purposes Of Checkpoint

* Table of Contents for Defendant's Exhibits in Support of 6th Motion in Limine
* Exhibit A: Report of Officer Nicholas Romero
* Exhibit B: Deposition of Nicholas Romero

30-Apr-2012
223

Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Seventh) Re: Transcript Of Evidentiary
Hearing In State V. Bressi

* Table of Contents for Defendant's Exhibits in Support of 7th Motion in Limine
* Exhibit A: Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing
* Exhibit B: Deposition of Michael Ford

30-Apr-2012
224

Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Eighth) Re: Work Product Privilege Related To Communications With Nicholas Romero

* Table of Contents for Defendant's Exhibits in Support of 8th Motion in Limine
* Exhibit A: Deposition of Nicholas Romero
* Exhibit B: Defendants Response to Plaintiff's Request For Documents & Things (Second Set)

30-Apr-2012
225
Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Ninth) Re: 1) Details Of Arrest And Detention, And Refiling Of Charges, 2) Facts Of Checkpoint's Reasonableness, 3) Bressi's Prior SR86
Checkpoint Experience, 4) Guidelines Promulgated After Checkpoint Or From
Other Agencies
30-Apr-2012
226

Request For Judicial Notice

* Westlaw Printout for City of Indianapolis et. al.
* Westlaw Printout for Michigan Dept. of State Police
* Proposed Judicial Order

30-Apr-2012
227
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (First) Re: Adequate Training
10-May-2012
228
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Second) To Admit Incident Reports Of Other Incidents
10-May-2012
229
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Third) Re: Damages For Stress Of Litigation And Fear Of Losing Employment
10-May-2012
230
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Fourth) Re: Evidence Of Compensatory Damages
10-May-2012
231
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Fifth) Re: Shonk Memorandum
10-May-2012
232
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Sixth) Re: Traviolia And Romero “Thoughts Or Subjective Intent”
10-May-2012
233
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Seventh) Re: Transcript Of Evidentiary
Hearing In State V. Bressi
10-May-2012
234
Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Eighth) Re: Work Product Privilege
10-May-2012
235

Response To Defendants’ Motion In Limine (Ninth) Re: Various Facts About The
Roadblock

* Romero Deposition Excerpt In support of Response

10-May-2012
236
Defendant Response To Plaintiff's Motion in limine
10-May-2012
239
Notice of Settlement
15-May-2012
240
Joint Motion & Stipulation To Vacate Hearing & Trial Dates
18-May-2012
241
Court Order Vacating Trial Dates
18-May-2012
----
Plaintiff's Release Statement
31-May-2012
243
Stipulation To Dismiss With Prejudice
31-May-2012
243-1
(Proposed) Order of Dismissal With Prejudice
31-May-2012