Bonds v. Dautovic
725 F. Supp. 2d 841, 83 Fed. R. Serv. 184, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73894 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A supervisor's statement that an employee's conduct was 'inappropriate' is relevant and admissible as a party-opponent admission in an excessive force claim. However, a statement that the same conduct violated internal department policy or training is irrelevant to the objective reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment and is therefore inadmissible for that purpose.
Facts:
- On September 13, 2008, Des Moines Police Officers M. Dautovic and J. Mailander initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle carrying Erin Evans and Octavius Bonds.
- During the stop, officers forcibly removed Evans from the vehicle.
- Officer Mailander struck Evans twice with a steel, tactical baton (ASP baton).
- Officer Dautovic sprayed Bonds in the face with pepper spray.
- The officers then repeatedly struck Bonds with their ASP batons.
- Bonds was subsequently transported to Broadlawns General Hospital to be treated for numerous injuries.
- In a later deposition regarding the incident, Des Moines Police Chief Judy Bradshaw stated that the officers' use of their batons was 'inappropriate' and not consistent with their training or department policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Octavius Bonds and Erin Evans filed a lawsuit against the City of Des Moines and two of its police officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
- The complaint alleged assault under state law and violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- During the discovery phase of litigation, the plaintiffs took the deposition of Des Moines Police Chief Judy Bradshaw.
- Before trial, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Evidentiary Ruling, asking the court to rule on the admissibility of certain statements from the Chief's deposition.
- The City of Des Moines filed a Resistance, arguing the statements should be excluded from evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are a police chief's deposition statements, which characterize her officers' use of force as 'inappropriate' and inconsistent with department policy, admissible as party-opponent admissions against the city in a § 1983 excessive force lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Robert W. Pratt
Yes, in part. A police chief's statements that her officers' use of force was 'inappropriate' are admissible, but her statements that the force violated internal policy are not admissible to prove a constitutional violation. The court reasoned that the Chief's statements are not hearsay because they qualify as admissions by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). The statements opining that the force was 'inappropriate' have substantial probative value regarding the 'objective reasonableness' of the force, which is the central inquiry in a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. In contrast, statements that the officers violated internal training or policy are irrelevant to the constitutional question, as the Fourth Amendment standard is an objective one that does not depend on local police procedures. Furthermore, the court rejected the city's argument that the statements were inadmissible subsequent remedial measures under Rule 407, finding that the Chief's opinions are not 'measures' that could have prevented the harm.
Analysis:
This ruling highlights a critical distinction in excessive force litigation between evidence of general unreasonableness and evidence of internal policy violations. It affirms that the Fourth Amendment provides a uniform, objective standard that is not defined by the varying policies of local police departments. For future litigants, this decision shows that admissions from supervisors can be powerful evidence, but only when framed in terms of general appropriateness or reasonableness, rather than mere non-compliance with internal rules. The case serves as a practical guide on how to parse an opponent's admissions for relevance to a constitutional claim versus a policy violation.
