Opinion ID: 796343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of the CPD's General Orders Regarding Use of Force

Text: 25 As stated heretofore, the defendants-appellees filed a pretrial motion in limine asking the trial court to exclude the CPD's General Orders concerning the appropriate use of force. The district court granted the defendants' motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, concluding that such evidence [was] not relevant and that the probative value of such evidence [was] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and jury confusion. See Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence, Thompson v. City of Chicago, No. 01-C-8883 (N.D.Ill. July 7, 2004); Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403. On appeal, the Thompsons argue that the CPD's General Orders were relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, because the Orders would have given the jury an objective criteria with which to judge the officer's action and that the introduction of such evidence actually would have allayed rather than perpetuated jury confusion under Rule 403. We disagree.
26 Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401 (emphasis added). To be relevant, evidence need not conclusively decide the ultimate issue in a case, nor make the proposition appear more probable, `but it must in some degree advance the inquiry.' E.E.O.C. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., 256 F.3d 516, 533 (7th Cir.2001) (Flaum, C.J., concurring in part & dissenting in part) (quoting 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 401.04[2][b]). 27 In this case, the text of the CPD's General Orders pertaining to the use of force would not have been of any consequence whatsoever and would have failed to advance the inquiry into whether Officer Hespe violated Thompson's Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force in apprehending him. In order to establish an excessive force claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must demonstrate that a state actor's use of force was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. See DeLuna v. City of Rockford, Ill., 447 F.3d 1008, 1010 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). What constitutes reasonableness with regard to an officer's actions in apprehending a suspect under the Fourth Amendment is `not capable of precise definition or mechanical application' but `requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.' Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 768 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865). The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). This calculus of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Id. at 387, 109 S.Ct. 1865. 28 The fact that excessive force is not capable of precise definition necessarily means that, while the CPD's General Order may give police administration a framework whereby commanders may evaluate officer conduct and job performance, it sheds no light on what may or may not be considered objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the infinite set of disparate circumstances which officers might encounter. Indeed, the CPD's General Orders state that they are intended merely to provide members guidance on the reasonableness of a particular response option, when taking a suspect into custody. 26 See CPD General Order 02-08(III)(D). 29 What's more, this court has consistently held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations, not violations of state laws or, in this case, departmental regulations and police practices. Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir.2003); see Pasiewicz v. Lake County Forest Preserve Dist., 270 F.3d 520, 526 (7th Cir.2001); Soller v. Moore, 84 F.3d 964, 969 (7th Cir.1996). In other words, the violation of police regulations or even a state law is completely immaterial as to the question of whether a violation of the federal constitution has been established. See id. In Scott, the plaintiff in a Fourth Amendment excessive force action sought to defeat summary judgment based on affidavit testimony demonstrating that a police officer who shot into a moving vehicle breached a municipality's police procedures and thus violated the Fourth Amendment's excessive force prohibition. The district court granted summary judgment and we affirmed, holding that whether [the officer's] conduct was either good police practice or a violation of Illinois law was immaterial to whether he violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 760, 761. 30 In Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the use of police manuals and standard procedures to evaluate what a reasonable officer would do under the Fourth Amendment in the context of a traffic stop. 517 U.S. 806, 815-16, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). The Court concluded that because police rules, practices and regulations vary from place to place and from time to time, they are an unreliable gauge by which to measure the objectivity and/or reasonableness of police conduct. Id. at 815, 116 S.Ct. 1769. Although Whren involved the constitutionality of searches rather than excessive force, both inquiries—whether a search is constitutional and whether the officer has used excessive force—involve an evaluation of the reasonableness standard of an officer's conduct under a particular set of facts and circumstances. See id.; Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we are confident that, if confronted with the question of whether police manuals, guidelines or general orders are reliable gauges of the reasonableness of an officer's use of force, the Court would reach the same conclusion that it did in Whren. 31 Whether Officer Hespe's conduct conformed with the internal CPD General Orders concerning the use of force on an assailant was irrelevant to the jury's determination of whether his actions on December 5, 2000 were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It may be that Officer Hespe's possible violation of the CPD's General Orders is of interest to his superiors when they are making discipline, promotion or salary decisions, but that information was immaterial in the proceedings before the district court and was properly excluded. Instead, the jury in all probability properly assessed the reasonableness of Officer Hespe's split-second judgment on how much force to use by considering testimony describing a rapidly evolving scenario in which Thompson attempted to evade arrest by leading the police on a high speed chase, crashed his car, and actively resisted arrest.
32 Even if we were to assume arguendo that evidence concerning the CPD's General Orders, policies and procedures were improperly excluded, any such error was harmless. See, e.g., Barber v. Ruth, 7 F.3d 636, 641 (7th Cir.1993). As this court has consistently held, [n]o error in either the admission or exclusion of evidence is ground[s] for ... vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. Goodman v. Illinois Dept. of Financial and Professional Reg., 430 F.3d 432, 439 (7th Cir.2005) (quoting Speedy v. Rexnord Corp., 243 F.3d 397, 404 (7th Cir.2001)). In other words, [e]ven an erroneous evidentiary ruling can be deemed harmless if the record indicates that the same judgment would have been rendered regardless of the error. Id. Such is certainly the case here. 33 While direct reference to the CPD's General Orders was avoided at trial, references and testimony concerning the CPD policies and procedures were ubiquitous during the proceedings. For example, Sgt. Campbell testified at length concerning the CPD's use of force guidelines and answered a number of questions regarding what use of force would have been authorized in a situation like the one the officers encountered with Thompson. See supra, p. 451. Regarding the application of choke holds, Sgt. Campbell specifically stated that such a procedure was not authorized by the CPD and that officers had not been trained in such a technique since 1983. See id. at p. 451 n. 21. In addition, Sgt. Campbell stated that a choke hold constituted deadly or lethal force and that such force would not have been authorized for an assailant behaving in a manner similar to that of Thompson. See id. 34 Another witness, Dr. Alpert, also testified regarding CPD regulations and procedures and corroborated Sgt. Campbell's testimony. Specifically, Alpert testified that the officers who arrested Thompson would not have been entitled to use lethal force when attempting to subdue him pursuant to CPD procedures in place at the time. Further, Alpert gave his response to a number of questions regarding the propriety of choke holds. Like Sgt. Campbell, he stated that since the mid-1980s, the CPD had not authorized the technique and that officers were not allowed to use the procedure under any circumstances. He added that, if such a procedure were used, it would constitute deadly force, which as he stated earlier in his testimony would not have been applicable to Thompson under the circumstances because his resistance did not place the public or the officers in peril of serious bodily injury or death at the time he was being handcuffed. Alpert added that, in lieu of deadly force, i.e., a choke hold, the officers could have employed a number of techniques in attempting to quell Thompson's resistance, such as employing pepper spray (one or a number of sprays to the facial area) to blind, confuse, and subdue him temporarily. See id. 35 Given that evidence of the CPD's policies, values, and procedures was introduced at length at trial on direct and cross-examination, it would have been of very little help to the Thompsons' cause to introduce the actual text and provision numbers of the CPD's General Orders. As such, even if such evidence were relevant, which we have concluded it was not, any error in failing to allow such evidence to be admitted was harmless because the same judgment would have been rendered regardless of the error. Goodman, 430 F.3d at 439.
36 As discussed above, the law is clear that introduction of evidence of the CPD's General Orders was immaterial to the Thompsons' § 1983 claims. Nonetheless, the Thompsons argue that this evidence would have been relevant to their wrongful death claims under state law. While we assume, without deciding, that the CPD's General Orders were relevant to the Thompsons' wrongful death claim, we conclude that they were properly excluded under Rule 403. 37 Rule 403 provides a district court with discretion to exclude evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. This court has explained that `[e]vidence is considered unfairly prejudicial, not merely because it damages the opposing party's case, but also because its admission makes it likely that the jury will be induced to decide the case on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, rather than on the evidence presented....' United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 418 (7th Cir.1989) (quoting Young v. Rabideau, 821 F.2d 373, 377 (7th Cir.1987)). 38 Under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/1, a plaintiff must establish that the: (1) defendant owed a duty to decedent; (2) defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach of duty proximately caused decedent's death; and pecuniary damages arising therefrom to persons designated under the Act. Leavitt v. Farwell Tower Ltd. P'ship, 252 Ill.App.3d 260, 192 Ill.Dec. 88, 625 N.E.2d 48, 52 (1993). Thus, under the Act, the breach of duty is an important determination. A problem with allowing the CPD's General Orders into evidence is that those orders do not create a duty to the public at large. See Morton v. City of Chicago, 286 Ill. App.3d 444, 222 Ill.Dec. 21, 676 N.E.2d 985, 992 (1997) (stating the oft-reiterated proposition under Illinois law that the violation of self-imposed rules or internal guidelines, such as General Order 81-8, does not normally impose a legal duty, let alone constitute evidence of negligence, or beyond that, wilful and wanton conduct); Blankenship v. Peoria Park District, 269 Ill.App.3d 416, 207 Ill.Dec. 325, 647 N.E.2d 287, 291 (1995) (stating: While the violation of a statute or ordinance designed to protect human life or property is prima facie evidence of negligence, a legal duty is normally not established through rules or internal guidelines, and the failure to comply with self-imposed regulations does not necessarily impose upon municipal bodies and their employees a legal duty) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (italics in original). As mentioned above, the General Orders regarding use of force are intended only in order to provide members guidance on the reasonableness of a particular response to the actions of an assailant. See CPD General Order 02-08(III)(D). 39 While it may be that failure to adhere to the General Orders may cause an officer problems with his superiors in the CPD, or possibly even lead to disciplinary proceedings against him or her, they have little or no bearing on whether the officer breached his duty of care in apprehending Thompson. Any limiting instruction explaining to the jury that, although the General Orders do not create a duty on the part of an officer and can only be used as evidence of a breach of protocol in a disciplinary proceeding—and that they could not be considered in conjunction with the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims—would have led to unnecessary and detrimental jury confusion. See, e.g., Tanberg, 401 F.3d at 1164-65. In short, evidence about the specifics of the CPD's General Orders might very well have contributed to unfair prejudice and would have caused confusion regarding the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such evidence. 40