UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RONALD FIELDS, )

) 

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-189 RLM

)

JOHN FOLK, et al., )

)

Defendants )

OPINION AND ORDER

Ronald Fields filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

various State Excise Officers, the City of Marion, Captain Faw of the Marion Police

Department, and the State of Indiana alleging that he was the victim of an illegal

search and seizure on July 1, 2012, when police raided his bar, “One Nation.” The

amended complaint also asserted claims of battery, excessive force, false arrest,

false imprisonment “as well as the laws and public policies of the State of

Indiana.” The claims against all but the six excise officers were dismissed [Doc.

Nos. 61 and 87], and summary judgment was granted on April 8, 2015 with

respect to all but one claim – Mr. Field’s unreasonable search and seizure claim

against Excise Officers Folk (retired), Drake, Catterson, Tackett, and Mayotte

based on the seizure of two flat screen TV’s during the raid. The defendants’

second motion for summary judgment on that claim is before the court. For the

following reasons, the motion is granted.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery materials,

disclosures, and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact, such

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Protective Life Ins. Co.

v. Hansen, 632 F.3d 388, 391-92 (7th Cir. 2011). The court construes the

evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from the evidence in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of informing the court

of the basis for its motion, together with evidence demonstrating the absence of

any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party can’t rest

upon the allegations in the pleadings, but must “point to evidence that can be put

in admissible form at trial, and that, if believed by the fact-finder, could support

judgment in his favor.” Marr v. Bank of America, N,A., 662 F.3d 963, 966 (7th Cir.

2011); see also Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaFollette, No. 1:07-cv-1085, 2009 WL

348769, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 6, 2009)(“It is not the duty of the court to scour the

record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather, the

nonmoving party bears the responsibility of identifying the evidence upon which

he relies.”); Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir.

2005) (summary judgment is “not a dress rehearsal or practice run; it is the put

up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has

that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events”). 

2
II. DISCUSSION

The defendants moved for summary judgment on Mr. Fields’ remaining

unlawful search and seizure claim, contending that the flat screen televisions

seized during the search of his bar had the capacity to be, and/or were in fact,

used for surveillance purposes, and so were within the scope of the warrant,

which authorized the officers to seize “[a]ny surveillance equipment used to

observe, from inside the residence, building or other structure, anyone who might

attempt to approach the residence, building, or other structure.” In support, they

submitted the affidavit of Master Officer Michelle Catterson, the Evidence

Technician at the scene, and photographs Officer Catterson took during the

search. 

Officer Catterson attests in her affidavit that: (1) “[she] was responsible for

determining which items were seized pursuant to the warrant”; (2) a DVR

surveillance system with cameras “was hooked up to one of the flat screen

televisions and was in use, running through the television, when [officers] arrived

to execute the warrant”; (3) “[she] personally unhooked the television from the

DVR system”; (4) based on the proximity of the televisions and the fact that the

DVR system had a capacity of up to 8 channels, she believed that both televisions

“were or could be used to view the various cameras set up around the interior and

exterior of the building”, and ensured that both were taken; and (5) she took

photos of the evidence seized, including the DVR surveillance system and

televisions. The photographs show two televisions sitting or hanging side-by-side

3
in the bar; one is off, the other shows a split screen with “CH4" at the top of the

screen a picture of the interior of the bar, and “CH7" at the bottom of the screen

showing “VIDEO LOSS.” 

In response, Mr. Fields says there are genuine issues for trial and

“sufficient evidence favoring the plaintiff” for a jury to return a verdict in his favor,

but he hasn’t presented any evidence or identified a genuine issue of fact that

would preclude the entry of judgment for the remaining defendants. To prevail,

Mr. Fields had to “point to evidence that can be put in admissible form at trial,

and that, if believed by the fact-finder, could support judgment in his favor.” Marr

v. Bank of America, N,A., 662 F.3d 963, 966 (7th Cir. 2011). He hasn’t done that. 

The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the defendants had a

reasonable, good faith belief that the televisions were being used as “surveillance

equipment” and were covered under the warrant. Absent evidence to the contrary,

there is no Fourth Amendment violation. See United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d

940, 947 (7th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendants’ second motion for summary

judgment [Doc. No. 160], and DENIES AS MOOT the defendants’ motion in limine

[Doc. No. 152]. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: September 29, 2016 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

4