MINNESOTA YMCA YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT
TRIAL COURT
TRIAL PACKET
Nelson v. Lakeville Police Officers, Daly and Brown
2012
Case #2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 2
CLAIMS 6
JUDGE’S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY 8
WITNESSES AND TESTIMONY 11
WITNESS PROFILE – PLAINTIFF – CHRIS NELSON 11
WITNESS PROFILE – PLAINTIFF – KIM JONES 16
WITNESS PROFILE – PLAINTIFF – TERRY MASON 19
WITNESS PROFILE – PLAINTIFF – DR. LEE SMITH 22
WITNESS PROFILE – DEFENDANT – ROBIN DALY 24
WITNESS PROFILE – DEFENDANT – COREY BROWN 28
WITNESS PROFILE – DEFENDANT – ALEX ROBINSON 30
WITNESS PROFILE – DEFENDANT – SANDY JOHNSON 32
EXHIBITS 34
2
Nelson v. Lakeville Police Officers, Daly and Brown
Trial Court
2009
INTRODUCTION
This case stems from the arrest of the Plaintiff, Chris Nelson, on Saturday, April 2, 2007. The Plaintiff was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and obstructing legal process. The Plaintiff claims Lakeville Police Officers Robin Daly and Corey Brown utilized excessive force during his/her arrest. He/She also claims that the officers subjected him/her to a false arrest. The criminal charges against the Plaintiff were later dropped. Subsequently, the Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against the Defendants claiming they violated his/her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure in violation of the federal statute, 42 USC §1983.
BACKGROUND
The City of Lakeville is a small community with a population of 15,000 located in southern Minnesota. Although this incident occurred in early April, there was an unseasonable cold streak at the time of this incident. There had been an ice and snowstorm the night prior to this occurrence. On the night in question, the temperature dipped below freezing. Consequently, the conditions were very icy and slippery.
The Plaintiff lives with his/her parents on the outskirts of the City of Lakeville. his/her parents live on a small hobby farm. There is a house and a large barn on the property. The barn has been converted to a large heated recreation “room.” The Plaintiff’s parents regularly entertain large groups of people in this barn. The Plaintiff’s parents were gone on vacation to Bermuda at the time of this incident. The Plaintiff’s home is located on the curve of a road just outside of Lakeville. It is considered to be a dangerous curve as numerous accidents have happened at this curve in previous years.
The week preceding the April 2, 2007 party, the Plaintiff’s best friend, Kim Jones, asked the Plaintiff if she/he could organize a party over at the Plaintiff’s house since the Plaintiff’s parents would be gone. The Plaintiff claims he/she approved of having a small group of people coming over. According to the Plaintiff, he/she believed there would be less than 20 people coming over. Jones supported this claim.
On April 2, 2007, people started arriving around 6:00 p.m. They congregated in the barn. There was a large parking area between the barn and the house to accommodate a large number of cars. At first there were only 10 or 15 people at the party. They were all members of the basketball team of Lakeville High School. Somebody had brought a case of beer and all of the students were partaking. After a short period, the Plaintiff decided he/she was going to cruise Main Street to see what was happening. The Plaintiff ran into some of his/her other classmates in town. They then went to the pizza shop to eat. They were having a good time and lost track of time. The Plaintiff then invited the three friends he/she had just met to come back to his/her house for the party.
The Plaintiff arrived back home approximately 10:00 p.m. When the Plaintiff arrived, the party was in full swing. There were between 300 to 400 people crowded into the barn. It was clear that word had gotten out that a big party was being held in the barn. A number of the people at the party were wearing letter jackets from surrounding communities. There were cars parked on both sides of the road on the curve outside of the Plaintiff’s home. The driveway and parking area were completely jammed with vehicles.
At around 10:00 p.m., the Plaintiff’s neighbor, Sandy Johnson, who lived across the street, called the police. Johnson was concerned about the size of the party. Johnson also believed the cars parked on the curve presented a safety hazard since he/she had just avoided hitting a group of students walking across the road in the dark.
Lakeville Police Officers Robin Daly and Corey Brown responded to the call. They drove to the scene and arrived at approximately 10:15 p.m. When they arrived there were cars on both sides of the road. Because of the size of the party, they called for backup. They turned on their emergency lights and parked on the side of the road behind some of the other vehicles. The officers got out of their car and started walking toward the barn. As the high school students saw the officers, many of them scattered for their cars. The officers entered the barn and tried to find out who was the owner of the premises. However, the place was walltowall people. The officers then proceeded to the house. The house was similarly filled with people. The officers then encountered the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff admitted that he/she lived at the premises. The officers requested the Plaintiff’s assistance in breaking up the party. The Plaintiff agreed to help get people to leave. The officers and the Plaintiff then proceeded down to the barn to clear the party out. There was loud music coming from the barn when the officers arrived. However, someone had shut off the music after the police arrived.
At this point, a backup squad arrived to direct traffic. The officers proceeded to one end of the barn and observed a keg. It appeared a number of the people had plastic cups in their hands. As the officers approached the various people, they quickly discarded the cups. Because of the large number of people in the barn, the officers did not attempt to arrest anyone. They simply determined that the best course of action would be to disperse the crowd as quickly and safely as possible.
Officer Daly remained in the barn with the Plaintiff and was able to clear the majority of the people out. There were people hiding in the hayloft above. These people had to be chased out. Meanwhile, the other officer, Officer Brown, went into the house and started clearing the house out of people. The officers told everyone that unless they lived at that address, they had to leave the premises at that time.
The Plaintiff had planned on having Terry Mason stay overnight. A dispute arose between Officer Daly and the Plaintiff concerning whether Mason could stay. The dispute started when the Plaintiff and Officer Daly were halfway between the house and the barn. Officer Daly indicated everyone had to leave. The Plaintiff did not dispute that the party should be broken up but insisted that Mason should be able to stay. He/She maintained that it was his/her right to have whoever he/she wanted to spend the night. In addition, Mason lived approximately 60 miles away. During this discussion, Officer Brown was still in the house getting people to leave.
The Plaintiff became frustrated with Officer Daly and told Mason to go into the house. Officer Daly responded that if he/she went in the house he/she would be arrested. Mason then froze not knowing what to do. The Plaintiff, admittedly frustrated, then turned and grabbed the arm of Mason and said that they were going in the house and intended to stay there. They then began walking toward the house. Officer Daly followed them and demanded that Mason leave the premises.
According to the Plaintiff, Officer Daly then grabbed the Plaintiff on the right arm and flung him/her around. The Plaintiff claims that the officer was very angry and threw him/her to the ground. It was very icy where the officer and the Plaintiff were standing. The Plaintiff claims he/she did nothing to provoke the officer’s action other than questioning his authority. While on the ground, the Plaintiff demanded to know why he/she was being treated this way. He/she claims the officer told him/her to shut up and put his/her hands behind his/her back. The Plaintiff did not immediately comply. Instead, he/she held his/her arms under her body demanding to know why he/she had been thrown to the ground and if he/she was being arrested.
At this point, Officer Brown exited the house and saw Officer Daly struggling with the Plaintiff. Officer Daly was not able to handcuff the Plaintiff originally because the Plaintiff had his/her arms under her body. Officer Brown maintained security around the arrest scene. After a couple of minutes, Officer Brown went to the assistance of Officer Daly. Together, they were able to handcuff the Plaintiff. They claim the Plaintiff was yelling at them and was noncooperative.
Officer Daly, on the other hand, maintains that as he/she followed the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff suddenly spun around with his/her arms raised in a threatening manner. Officer Daly maintains that the Plaintiff then charged at Officer Daly. Officer Daly indicated he/she then pushed the Plaintiff down to avoid being hit. When he/she pushed the Plaintiff, he/she fell to the ground with the Plaintiff. He/she maintains that a struggle ensued in which the Plaintiff would not allow himself/herself to be handcuffed. Finally with the assistance of Officer Brown, the officers were able to handcuff the Plaintiff. They deny that they struck any blows to the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff fell to the ground, they claim his/her face hit first.
After the Plaintiff was handcuffed, he/she was picked off the ground and taken up to the police car on the road.
The Plaintiff’s neighbor, Sandy Johnson, observed the officers taking the Plaintiff up to the police car. Johnson observed this through his/her window which was approximately 150 yards off of the road. When the officers and Plaintiff got to the squad car, the Plaintiff claims the officers slammed his/her head on the hood of the squad car and then performed a pat search. It is undisputed the Plaintiff did not offer any provocation after being handcuffed or any resistance after being handcuffed. The officers on the other hand, maintain they simply laid the Plaintiff on the hood as they performed the routine patdown search. The Plaintiff was then transported to jail.
At the jail, the Plaintiff was met by Alex Robinson, the jailer. A medical screening form was completed during the booking process. The Plaintiff was booked on charges of disorderly conduct and obstructing legal process. The Plaintiff was booked at approximately 12:30 a.m. The Plaintiff did not report any problems while going through the medical screening form. The Plaintiff was very upset and crying during the booking process.
The Plaintiff was released from custody the next morning. The Plaintiff later sought treatment at the emergency room at Mercy Hospital. The Plaintiff was admitted at 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, April 3, 2007. Dr. Lee Smith attended to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff complained of severe nose pain. Xrays were taken of the Plaintiff's nose. The xrays revealed a fracture of the nose. Dr. Smith treated the Plaintiff over the next several months. The Plaintiff told the doctor his/her nose was broken during a struggle with the police officers. Approximately one month later, Dr. Smith performed surgery on the Plaintiff to straighten his/her nose. The Plaintiff had a history of broken noses from his/her athletic activities; therefore, the Plaintiff’s nose was not perfect before her/his arrest. However, the Plaintiff maintains his/her nose was much worse after the accident and affected his/her breathing.
The criminal charges against the Plaintiff were later dropped and this civil rights action was brought by Chris Nelson against the two police officers.
Note: The background information may conflict with testimony offered by individual witnesses.
CLAIMS
A. Claims. The Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants falsely arrested and used unreasonable or excessive force in detaining the Plaintiff.
1. Count 1 -- False Arrest.
a. The defendants are charged with false arrest. In order to find that the defendants falsely arrested the Plaintiff, you must decide if a reasonable police officer, based on the facts and circumstances available to the defendant at the time of the incident, would believe there to be sufficient probable cause to justify an arrest. Your decision should be made without regard to whether the Plaintiff was charged with a particular offense, but whether, at the time of incident, the officer’s actions were reasonable.
2. Count 2 – Unreasonable or Excessive Force. An officer may use reasonable force when effecting a lawful arrest or when protecting the officer or the public from imminent harm.
a. Reasonable Use of Force. In order to determine if the officer’s use of force was justifiable, the officer must first, have a reasonable belief that (a) probable cause exists to effect the arrest or that (b) the officer or a member of the public is in threatened by imminent harm.
i In judging whether the officer’s belief that use of force was reasonable, you must look at the facts and circumstances at the time of the incident and evaluate them from the position of a reasonable person, in the officer’s position. This means that if the officer reasonably believed that danger was present, even if danger was not present, the officer’s use of force was justified.