Opinion
Case No. 02-4101-SAC
March 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendants' motion in limine, which plaintiff opposes. Defendants seek an order prohibiting any reference to the fact that plaintiff was acquitted in Municipal Court of having violated Salina's intoxicated pedestrian ordinance and resisting arrest, and to certain disciplinary or other negative incidents involving the defendant police officers.
Municipal court acquittal
The court has reviewed plaintiff's response to defendants' motion in limine. Plaintiff's claims in this case are that she was arrested without probable cause and that the defendants used unreasonable force in effecting her arrest. Plaintiff need not show that the municipal judge found her not guilty of being an intoxicated pedestrian or of resisting arrest to prove either of these claims. Nor would the municipal court judge have had to base its acquittal on the same issue which the plaintiff now seeks to prove by introducing evidence of her prior case. Because no issue of collateral estoppel is raised, the court relies upon the balancing approach in determining whether to exclude this evidence under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 403.
As the parties recognize, the standard for conviction of a crime is different from the standard for probable cause to arrest, which does not require facts sufficient for a finding of guilt. Probable cause to arrest will be found where, under the totality of circumstances, the officer learned of facts and circumstances through reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested. United States v. Patane, 304 F.3d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting U.S. v. Morris, 247 F.3d 1080, 1088 (10th Cir. 2001)). Admitting evidence of themunicipal court acquittal could not be done without instructing the jury on the burden of proof in that case, and attempting to distinguish it from the burden of proof in this case.
These different quantums of proof may confuse the average person, leading them to infer from the fact that plaintiff was acquitted in municipal court that her arrest lacked probable cause. Evidence of plaintiff's acquittal on the criminal charges would thus have "an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis." See U.S. v. Martinez, 938 F.2d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 1991). To the extent that evidence of plaintiff's acquittal in municipal court may arguably be relevant to the claims or defenses in this case, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the likelihood that its admission would confuse the issues or mislead the jury. Accordingly, the court will sustain the motion as it relates to this issue.
Other incidents — law enforcement officers
Defendants additionally seek to prohibit mention of the facts that defendant Moreland was involved in a motor vehicle accident which resulted in employee discipline, and that defendant Gregg was disciplined after plaintiff's arrest for an unrelated matter. No specifics are given regarding such incidents. Defendants cite to rules 402, 404, 404(b), 405, and 802 in support of their motion.
Plaintiff responds that he has no knowledge of the specifics regarding these incidences, but concludes that "both these incidences may become relevant and subject to cross examination of Officer Gregg should he open the door regarding his character and reputation as a law enforcement officer." Dk. 58 at 3.
The court has insufficient facts to rule upon this motion at this time, so reserves its ruling on this issue. At trial, neither party is to refer before the jury to evidence of Officer Moreland or Officer Gregg's employee evaluations, discipline, or complaints about the defendants without first approaching the court, summarizing the specific incident sought to be admitted, stating the relevance thereof, and receiving a ruling permitting the admission of such evidence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion in limine is granted in part on the terms stated above.