Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02500/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02500-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 04cv2500

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HALE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04-CV-2500 BEN (POR)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF

ARREST, [Doc. # 73];

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF

OTHER ARRESTS, [Doc. # 74]; and

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF

PROBATION VIOLATIONS, [Doc.

# 75]

vs.

GABRIEL GIL, an individual; and JOSHUA

WEBER, an individual,

Defendants.

This case arose out of an arrest and detention of Plaintiff John Hale (“Plaintiff” or “Hale”). 

The trial is scheduled to start on January 16, 2008. On November 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed in limine

motions. Having received no opposition, the Court issued rulings on December 6, 2007. Also on

December 6, 2007, Defendants filed their oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions. On December 13,

2007, Defendants filed their replies. In the interests of justice, the Court will consider the

oppositions and replies. 

Plaintiff alleges as following: he was a passenger in a car driven by his friend. (Second

Case 3:04-cv-02500-BEN-POR Document 91 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1This deputy is not a defendant in this action.

- 2 - 04cv2500

Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ¶¶ 13). The car was pulled over for speeding, and the driver was

arrested for driving under the influence. (SAC, ¶ 13-14). Plaintiff got out of the car and asked if

the car could be left at his home, which was one block away. (SAC, ¶ 16). The deputy sheriff1

said that the car would be impounded. (SAC, ¶ 16). Plaintiff and the deputy engaged in an

argument, and the deputy arrested Plaintiff. Id. 

After his arrest, Plaintiff was taken to the San Diego jail and booked. (SAC, ¶ 17). When

Plaintiff was walking to his cell, a deputy sheriff crumpled up a sheet of paper and threw it at

Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶ 19). The paper ball hit Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff picked up the paper and tossed it

back through the door. (SAC, ¶ 20). Defendants deputy sheriffs Gabriel Gil (“Gil”) and Joshua

Weber (“Weber,” collectively “Defendants”) ran toward Plaintiff, pushed him down, and beat him,

striking him on the face, head and body. (SAC, ¶21). Plaintiff was knocked unconscious. Id. He

was then hogtied by another individual, no longer a defendant in this action. Plaintiff received

lacerations on his chin and forehead which required stitches. The Second Amended Complaint

asserts violations of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and violations of the First, Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments under the California Civil Rights Act. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Evidence of the Arrest

This motion remains denied. Plaintiff moves to exclude any evidence related to the

circumstances of the traffic stop and his arrest. Plaintiff acknowledges and is willing to stipulate

that he “was arrested for being drunk in public and resisting arrest.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1). Plaintiff

argues, however, that his “drunken conduct” during the traffic should be not used “to dirty him up

in front of the jury.” (Id. at 3). 

Defendants intend to prove the following. At the time of the traffic stop, Plaintiff was

intoxicated. He yelled at the deputies at the scene and interfered with their duties. After a warning

that he could be arrested for being drunk in public, Plaintiff was in fact arrested around 2:50 p.m. 

He continued to be verbally abusive and combative. When at 3:40 p.m. on the same day Plaintiff’s

booking photograph was taken at the jail, he did not stop arguing and threatening the deputies. 

Case 3:04-cv-02500-BEN-POR Document 91 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 04cv2500

Once booked, Plaintiff threw something at the California Highway Patrol officer with

whom Plaintiff had been arguing earlier. Then Plaintiff proceeded to his cell where Defendant

Deputy Gil was waiting for him. Gil commanded Plaintiff to do something as Plaintiff was

walking by, but Plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff was also verbally threatening Gil. Plaintiff then

made a sudden movement which Gil perceived as a threat. Gil grabbed Plaintiff and tried to hold

him against the wall. Plaintiff started to fight.

Plaintiff denies any allegations of belligerence at the time of the incident in the jail, which

took place around 4:50 p.m. Plaintiff provided a video from the jail closed-circuit monitoring

system. As a preliminary matter, the video is not properly authenticated. It is accompanied by a

Notice of Lodgment, but no declaration from counsel regarding its origin. In addition, the video

does not offer any conclusive evidence regarding the incident. The video has no sound. The tape

shows the same sequence of events from different angles. The different excerpts can be connected

only by the passage of time marked on the screen. The quality of the tape does not allow to make

out the details in the background. 

The video shows the following from one of the angles: Plaintiff is walking through a

doorway toward the holding cells, approaching the viewer. He then picks something up and tosses

it back through the doorway from which he came. Plaintiff then puts his hands in his pockets and

walks down the hallway, disappearing from sight. A deputy runs toward Plaintiff and also

disappears from sight.

From another angle, the video picks up when a deputy runs toward Plaintiff, and both

appear to come down on the floor fighting. More officers arrive. Plaintiff and the officers are

shown from a distance, in the background. The quality of the video does not allow the viewer to

see the details. It is hard to see who is fighting whom or how hard. One cannot tell whether

Plaintiff is still intoxicated or hostile to the deputies. The absence of sound also leaves room for

interpretation. In sum, the video itself does not conclusively establish that Plaintiff was provoked

by deputies or that he was attacked by deputies without any provocation on his part. 

As this Court stated before, the evidence of Plaintiff’s condition is relevant and probative. 

Relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the

Case 3:04-cv-02500-BEN-POR Document 91 Filed 01/08/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 04cv2500

danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

The events described in the SAC are close in time to the stop and arrest and are likely to be parts of

the same continuous conduct. Therefore the evidence of Plaintiff’s condition and behavior at the

time of the arrest may aid the jury in determining the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. The danger of

unfair prejudice, confusion or misleading the jury does not outweigh the probative value. 

Further, the evidence may indicate Plaintiff’s possible motive in throwing the piece of

paper and the ensuing incident. Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” is not admissible to

prove a person’s character, but may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive,

intent or plan. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Plaintiff’s attitude before and during the arrest may

demonstrate his attitude toward the deputies. Therefore the evidence of Plaintiff’s conduct during

the traffic stop and arrest is admissible. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Evidence of Other Arrests

This motion remains granted. Plaintiff has been arrested both prior to this incident and

after this incident for acts related to alcohol consumption. Plaintiff moves to exclude the evidence

of all other arrests. 

Defendants now argue that the evidence of prior arrests is admissible because it shows

Plaintiff’s state of mind, habit and pattern of conduct in recent years, bias against law enforcement

and motive to sue. Including the underlying arrest in this case, Plaintiff has been arrested five

times for being intoxicated in public: in 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2007. On each of those

occasions Plaintiff was uncooperative with the police. He pleaded guilty to resisting arrest once

and was found guilty of resisting arrest once. On three of the occasions, Plaintiff threatened to sue

the arresting officers. Plaintiff also has violated the terms of his court-ordered probation. 

The evidence of the priors arrests is character evidence and, in any event, is too prejudicial

to be admitted. “Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the

purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” Fed.R.Evid. 404(a). 

The prior arrests are not factually related to the one at issue here. The officers are not alleged to be

the same. Therefore the evidence of the prior arrests appears to show Plaintiff’s propensity to

become belligerent every time he is arrested by any police officer. 

Case 3:04-cv-02500-BEN-POR Document 91 Filed 01/08/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 04cv2500

This evidence does not pertain to habit. Unlike character evidence, evidence of habit is

admissible. Fed.R.Evid. 406. Although character and habit are close akin, habit is more specific. 

See Henderson v. Prado, 2007 WL 1229330, 2 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing the Advisory Committee

notes to FRE 406). Character is one’s general disposition. Habit describes one’s regular response

to a repeated specific situation. See id. This response may become “semi-automatic.” See id.

Plaintiff’s alleged hostility toward police officers, when drunk and being placed under arrest, is a

general disposition of his character. His uncooperative attitude is a matter of choice, and not a

reflexive response.

It is possible to interpret the evidence of the prior arrests as showing Plaintiff’s ongoing

bias against law enforcement officers and his intent to sue. It will be too hard for a jury, however,

to draw the rather fine line between Plaintiff’s bias and motive, and his propensity to resist and

abuse any police officer who arrests him. Therefore the evidence of the prior arrests is excluded. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Evidence of Probation Violations 

This motion remains granted. According to Defendants, Plaintiff has committed multiple

probation violations, including his failure to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and to pay

fines, as well as consumption of alcohol and violations of the law. Plaintiff seeks to exclude the

evidence of any such violations as prejudicial. 

Defendants argue that the violations will show Plaintiff’s disregard of probation conditions,

his attitude and bias against law enforcement, as well as “habit and behavior with respect to law

enforcement and the judiciary.” (Defs.’ Opp. to Pl.’s Motion in Limine No. 3). As concluded

above, Plaintiff’s attitude toward law enforcement is evidence of his general disposition and

therefore inadmissible character evidence. 

Defendants, however, also assert that this evidence will be used for impeachment. The

Court will reserve the ruling on the admissibility of this evidence for impeachment purposes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02500-BEN-POR Document 91 Filed 01/08/08 Page 5 of 5