Opinion ID: 3002585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Best’s Fourth Amendment Claims

Text: First, Best argues that the district court erred in its ruling on collateral estoppel. He begins by renewing an argument that he made to the district court: by not raising No. 07-2765 5 collateral estoppel until their motion for summary judgment, the officers waived the defense. Collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense that must ordinarily be included in the defendant’s answer, see F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(c), but “a delay in asserting an affirmative defense waives the defense only if the plaintiff was harmed as a result.” Curtis v. Timberlake, 436 F.3d 709, 711 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court called Best’s argument that he was harmed by the delay a “technical argument” and did not rule on it, reasoning that it had the power to raise the issue of collateral estoppel on its own. See Kratville v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 195, 198 (7th Cir. 1996). Indeed, a district court can raise an affirmative defense sua sponte when “a valid affirmative defense is so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can be regarded as frivolous.” Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (7th Cir. 2002). But we question whether a ruling on an issue can be described as having been made “sua sponte” when a party has actually raised the issue. In any event, as explained below, collateral estoppel does not bar Best’s Fourth Amendment claims. And since collateral estoppel is not a valid defense, we need not consider the defendants’ delay in raising it. The district court began its analysis by citing our opinion in Adair v. Sherman, 230 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2000), for the four elements that must be met for a claim to be collaterally estopped. Adair, however, addressed the collateral estoppel effect of a federal court ruling in a later federal court case. To determine the collateral estoppel effect of a state court ruling in a later federal court case, the district court should have used Indiana’s 6 No. 07-2765 law of collateral estoppel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 790-91 (7th Cir. 2004). Indiana law on collateral estoppel is similar to federal law, but it is not identical. Under Indiana law, collateral estoppel “ ‘bars subsequent litigation of an issue necessarily adjudicated in a former suit if the same issue is presented in the subsequent suit.’ ” Bourbon Mini-Mart, Inc. v. Gast Fuel & Services, Inc., 783 N.E.2d 253, 257 (Ind. 2003) (quoting Shell Oil Company v. Meyer, 705 N.E.2d 962, 968 (Ind. 1998)). Collateral estoppel requires a “final judgment on the merits” in the first suit. Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 94 (Ind. 1998). A court asked to apply collateral estoppel must “determine what the first judgment decided and then examine how that determination bears on the second case.” Sullivan v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 605 N.E.2d 134, 139 (Ind. 1992). In this case the officers argue, and the district court held, that the legality of the searches was necessarily and finally adjudicated in Best’s criminal prosecution and cannot be relitigated. But this argument ignores the preliminary nature of the ruling on Best’s pretrial suppression motion. Under Indiana law, “rulings on pretrial motions are not necessarily final.” Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 393 (Ind. 1997). “ ‘[A] ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress is not intended to serve as the final expression concerning admissibility.’ ” Id. (quoting Gajdos v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1017, 1022 (Ind. 1984)). The court was free to reconsider its earlier ruling on the pretrial suppression motion at any time before the evidence was No. 07-2765 7 offered at trial. Id. In fact, Best asked the court to do just that before the prosecutor dismissed the case. The officers respond that Best could have presented earlier the new evidence that he presented in his second motion. But under Indiana law, Best was not required to do that. He was free to file a later suppression motion based on new evidence, id., and he did so. In fact, to preserve the issue for another appeal, Best would have been required to renew his objection when the evidence was offered at trial. Jackson v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2000); see also Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (reversing conviction because evidence was seized illegally even though court had earlier affirmed denial of motion to suppress in an interlocutory appeal). Thus, the suppression ruling was not final because it was open to reconsideration—both by the trial court on Best’s renewed motion and during a second appeal if he was convicted. The ruling lacks preclusive effect for another reason: because the prosecutor voluntarily dismissed the case, there was no “final judgment on the merits,” as collateral estoppel requires. Had the case terminated with a final judgment of conviction, the denial of Best’s suppression motion would have preclusive effect. See Doe v. Tobias, 715 N.E.2d 829, 830 (Ind. 1999) (conviction has preclusive effect on “issues that were defended vigorously in the criminal case”); Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 87 F.3d 872, 877 (7th Cir. 1996); Studio Art Theatre of Evansville, Inc. v. City of Evansville, 76 F.3d 128, 130-31 (7th Cir. 1996). But under Indiana law, a prosecutor may voluntarily dismiss 8 No. 07-2765 an indictment or information before trial for any reason and without court approval. See IND. C ODE § 35-34-1-13; Willoughby v. State, 660 N.E.2d 570, 577 (Ind. 1996). The case thus ends with no merits judgment by the court. Consequently, when a prosecutor dismisses a case following a ruling on a suppression motion and refiles the case, the ruling in the first case does not foreclose reconsideration of the issue in the second one. Joyner, 678 N.E.2d at 393-94. As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained, “the preliminary ruling on the defendant’s motion to suppress would have been subject to modification at trial.” Id. at 393. This reasoning applies with equal force to the ruling in Best’s case. Had the prosecutor not voluntarily dismissed, the suppression ruling could have been reexamined by the trial court, and again in a second appeal, based on new evidence. See, e.g., Parker, 697 N.E.2d at 1267. But because the prosecutor dismissed the case while Best’s motion to reconsider was pending, there is no merits judgment. Accordingly, the suppression ruling has no preclusive effect in later litigation. The district court should not have granted summary judgment to the officers on Best’s Fourth Amendment claims on this basis. In so holding, we express no opinion about the merits of Best’s Fourth Amendment claims. Ordinarily, we may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any alternative basis found in the record as long as that basis was adequately considered by the district court and the nonmoving party had an opportunity to contest it. Cardoso v. Robert Bosch Corp., 427 F.3d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 2005). However, there is no such alternative basis here. Best did No. 07-2765 9 not have the opportunity to present the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim because collateral estoppel was the only argument that the officers raised in support of summary judgment. Therefore, a remand for further proceedings is appropriate. See Smurfit Newsprint Corp. v. Southeast Paper Mfg., 368 F.3d 944, 954 (7th Cir. 2004) (“the non-moving party [must have] had an opportunity to submit affidavits or other evidence and contest the issue.”).