Opinion ID: 2709092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Raised

Text: Jones sued the City of Elkhart and Officers Snyder, Moore, and Jeff Gorball, as well as Elkhart Police Chief Dale Flibsen. His suit alleges that Snyder unlawfully stopped and seized Jones without probable cause; that Snyder and Moore did not have probable cause to search the vehicle or arrest Jones; that Moore and Snyder conspired to deprive Jones of 6 No. 12‐3912 his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on racial animus; and that Officer Gor‐ ball, who was present at the jail, maliciously and without probable cause recorded that Jones refused the chemical test at the police station. As to the City of Elkhart’s liability, the Complaint states: On information and belief, the violation of plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by the defendants was consistent with an institutionalized practice of the City of Elkhart Police Department, which was known to and ratified by defendant City of Elkhart, the defendants acted with deliberate indiffer‐ ence, having at no time taken effective action to prevent Elkhart Police Personnel from continu‐ ing to engage in such conduct, including stop‐ ping of citizens without probable cause based on race. Based on these facts, Jones appears to raise the following separate claims:
ment violations against some combination of Snyder, Moore, and Gorball alleging false arrest, excessive force, and unlawful search;
claim against Snyder and Moore alleging that they made the traffic stop and arrest without probable cause based on racial animus, and conspired in ser‐ vice of this violation; No. 12‐3912 7 3. A § 1983 claim against the City of Elkhart alleging the existence of a policy or custom that, through arrests without probable cause based on racial animus, in‐ flicts constitutional injury. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment that explicitly addressed the false arrest, excessive force, and un‐ lawful search Fourth Amendment claims as well as the con‐ spiracy claim. The summary judgment motion also argued that the Monell claim should fail because Jones suffered no constitutional injury.