Opinion ID: 2975705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Pursuit and Shooting

Text: At approximately 1:14 a.m. on August 27, 2002, Officer Scott Clayton observed a vehicle make a “quick turn” onto West 85th Street, in Cleveland, Ohio. After broadcasting the license number to dispatch, Clayton was advised that the vehicle, a 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix, was an “entered” vehicle, that is, it was stolen or otherwise suspected to be involved with a crime. And after observing another patrol car, Unit 113, approaching from the opposite direction on West 85th Street, Clayton activated his lights and sirens and attempted to stop the suspect. This was accomplished by Unit 113 pulling in front of the Pontiac at an angle, with Baeppler driving and Taylor in the passenger seat. The parties dispute what happened next. The officers claim that as Taylor and Baeppler began to exit their vehicle, the driver of the Pontiac squealed his tires and made a hard turn around Unit 113, almost striking Taylor. Conversely, the driver of the Pontiac, Malcolm Hoyle, claims that he did not attempt to hit the patrol car or the officer and that he went “way around” the vehicle and through an alley to 83rd Street. Hoyle was accompanied by two passengers in the Pontiac: Mason in the front passenger seat, and Adam Michael in the backseat. Following the incident on 85th Street, Hoyle committed several traffic violations in an attempt to evade the police. Eventually, Taylor and Baeppler took over the pursuit while Clayton paralleled their path on a different street. -2- The chase continued for less than three minutes until Hoyle made an abrupt turn into a vacant lot. Hoyle testified that he saw another police car approaching from the opposite direction and turned into the vacant lot to avoid a head-on collision. When the Pontiac entered the vacant lot, Taylor announced over the radio that the suspects were “bailing.” According to Taylor, he made this announcement because he believed that the lot was a dead-end and that the suspects would leave the car and run, based on his past experiences. Hoyle drove the Pontiac through the vacant lot and attempted a left turn. However, Hoyle failed to negotiate the turn and crashed into a fence.1 It is undisputed that the Pontiac came to a stop after the crash, although the engine was still running. Baeppler immediately pulled-up behind the suspect vehicle with his patrol car at a fortyfive degree angle approximately six to twelve inches from the Pontiac’s rear bumper. With their guns drawn, Baeppler approached the driver side of the Pontiac while Taylor approached the passenger side. Again, the parties dispute what happened as the officers approached the suspect vehicle. Baeppler claims that he reached the driver side door and instructed the occupants to show their hands, but they failed to comply. Taylor claims that the passenger side of the vehicle was blocked by a fence and shrubbery and that he was forced to stand behind the vehicle on the right side to safely cover his partner. He further claims that the engine was revving and that he became pinned between the vehicle, the fence, and the patrol car. Taylor claims that he yelled to Baeppler “I’m trapped.” According to Baeppler, he heard Taylor’s plea as the car “lurched backward.” Baeppler fired a single shot at the driver, hitting him in the face. Taylor also claims that the vehicle lurched backwards, striking him in the left leg and causing him to lose his balance and stumble backward. 1 Hoyle claims that the police car bumped the Pontiac, causing it to crash into the fence. -3- Taylor asserts that, as he was being struck by the vehicle, he fired his weapon (purportedly aiming at the driver). He also asserts that he did not hear Baeppler fire his weapon first. Taylor fired two shots, both of which struck Mason (the front seat passenger) in the back. Taylor eventually went to the hospital and was treated for a contusion and abrasion on his left knee. Green’s version of the shooting differs significantly from that of the officers. Green claims that the suspects showed their hands as instructed, that the vehicle did not lurch backwards, that Taylor was actually standing on the passenger side of the vehicle rather than behind it, and that multiple officers attempted to manipulate the scene to fit Taylor’s version of events. In support, Green relies upon the deposition testimony of Hoyle and Michael, the Internal Affairs investigation report, and the affidavit of an eye-witness, Daniel Sears. At his deposition, Hoyle testified that he could not exit the Pontiac after it hit the fence because the doors were locked. According to Hoyle, the police were by the back window cussing at them, so he told the passengers to raise their hands. Hoyle asserts that although he and the other passengers raised their hands, the officer shot him without provocation. Hoyle further testified that he did not put the car in reverse, but the engine was still running.2 In his affidavit, Hoyle claims that the front of the car was against a fence and that a police car was very close behind it. The backseat passenger, Michael, also testified that he raised his hands and that the car never backed up after striking the fence.3 According to Michael, the officers instructed Hoyle to put his 2 Although Hoyle maintains that he did not put the car in reverse, a police report indicates that Hoyle previously stated that “he did not know he had hit the police officer and only heard a loud pow while backing up the car.” 3 Michael’s statement is contrary to a prior written statement allegedly given to police officers at the scene of the incident. At that time, Michael stated that, -4- hands on the steering wheel, and Hoyle complied. Michael further contends that he witnessed the officers move the Pontiac backward after the shooting but prior to taking crime scene photographs to “cover up” the officer’s use of excessive force.4 Daniel Sears claims to have witnessed the shooting from the vacant lot. Sears asserts that one officer was standing by the driver side window and that the other officer fell on one knee as he went into the alley. According to Sears, the officer at the driver side window opened fire when the other officer fell, and the passenger of the suspect vehicle turned to hold the driver. Sears claims that he heard someone yell “don’t shoot” before the officer who had fallen fired his weapon. Sears states that the officer who had fallen was standing on the passenger side of the vehicle and that the vehicle did not appear to be running and did not move backward. Sears further claims that he saw two officers move the vehicle away from the pole and scratch the front of the patrol car with a chisel. Finally, Sears claims that a sergeant yelled at the officers for moving the car. [w]e hit the fence and tried to back up. That’s when the cop came out and said “Stop. Let me see your hands.” I felt the car moving backwards at not even 5 miles per hour. That’s when I heard the gun shot. The car stopped. The district court noted that Michael stated in his deposition that “he signed the police statement without reading it because he was tired of the police and tired of being at the police station.” However, the cited portion of Michael’s deposition is not contained in the record on appeal. 4 The spoliation of evidence claim is not before this Court. However, the district court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the Pontiac was moved after the shooting. The district court concluded that, [t]he parties agree that the physical evidence shows the Pontiac moved to the left at some time between the crash and the police photographs. The parties, and their experts and witnesses, disagree as to when the movement occurred. . . . The court is unaware of any physical evidence that conclusively establishes when the Pontiac moved or who moved it. Thus, these are fact questions for the jury. (District Ct. Op. 37-38) -5- The Internal Affairs investigation report and a City of Cleveland internal report also indicate that Taylor was standing on the passenger side of the vehicle. The Internal Affairs report notes that one of Taylor’s bullets passed through the passenger side window, and the City of Cleveland report expressly concludes that Taylor was standing on the passenger side of the vehicle. It states that “Officer Taylor attempted to gain access to the suspect’s vehicle by entering the passenger’s side of the vehicle, but became pinned between the passenger side of the vehicle and some bushes.” Taylor admits that the patrol car (Unit 113) was moved prior to processing the crime scene because another officer mistakenly believed that the patrol car needed to be moved to allow EMS access to the suspects. However, he contends that the Pontiac was not moved and that any tire tracks were the result of the vehicle reversing into him. Both parties have submitted expert reports which support their respective positions concerning the movement of the Pontiac. Ultimately, it is undisputed that Baeppler fired one shot through the driver side window, wounding Hoyle. It is also undisputed that Taylor fired two shots, one passing through the rear window, and one passing through the passenger side window, both of which struck Mason in the back, resulting in his death. The police radio log states that an officer first reported a shot fired at 1:18:47, and multiple shots fired at 1:18:51. Thus, the police log indicates that the first shot was fired eleven seconds after Taylor reported that the suspects were “bailing” at 1:18:36. The entire pursuit including the stop and shooting lasted less than four minutes. Hoyle was criminally charged with Mason’s death and pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a misdemeanor.