PHILADELPHIA – A Chester County man who claimed he was illegally subjected to detainment, search, arrest and a blood test for DUI without probable cause by a Pennsylvania state trooper and who won a $500 verdict after a three-day jury trial, has settled his case after post-trial motions for a new trial and an award of attorney’s fees.
Byron Quinn-Winne of Oxford first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 27, 2020 versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Trooper Christopher F. Tustin and Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Robert Evanchick.
Winne said he was traveling southbound on Interstate 95 in Delaware County on May 28, 2018 when Tustin pulled him over for a traffic stop and asked for his driver’s license, vehicle registration and vehicle insurance card, which he provided.
“Trooper Tustin then ordered plaintiff out of the vehicle and patted him down, which yielded negative results. Trooper Tustin then called for a backup K-9 unit which proceeded to search plaintiff’s vehicle. The vehicle search yielded negative results for narcotics, firearms or some other contraband,” the suit stated.
“Following the search, without conducting a field sobriety test, Trooper Tustin placed plaintiff in handcuffs and had him transported to Riddle Hospital for a DUI blood test. Plaintiff was detained at the hospital for several hours, then released after the blood test. Despite being detained, searched and arrested, then subjected to a DUI blood test, plaintiff was never formally charged with a crime. There was clearly no legal cause to justify the detention and arrest of plaintiff.”
The lawsuit alleged Tustin “failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and pursue information that would have indisputably negated any such legal cause” and pointed to the state and Evanchick as policymaker and implementer of practices, procedures and customs used to train Pennsylvania state troopers.
Nearly 18 months later, the Commonwealth defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on Nov. 10, 2021.
“The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claim against the Commonwealth for alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Sections 1981 and 1983 claims contained in Count II. Absent consent by the State, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by a private party against states, state agencies and state officials in their official capacities,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiff sues the Commonwealth, a sovereign governmental unit. None of the exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity apply to this case. Section 1983 does not abrogate immunity and the Commonwealth has not waived immunity or consented to this action. Moreover, there is no private right of action for damages against state actors under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, which only applies to private actors.”
Furthermore, the motion said that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim against Evanchick and the Commonwealth.
“Regardless of whether Commissioner Evanchick theoretically can be sued in his individual capacity under a Monell-like theory for a subordinate’s alleged constitutional violations, here he has been sued solely as an agency head under a respondeat superior theory – which is not permissible. A supervisor can be held liable for the acts of a subordinate only if she knows that the subordinate is violating someone’s rights and fails to act to stop the subordinate from doing so,” the motion added.
“No such allegation exists in the complaint. Instead, plaintiff merely alleges that the Commissioner knew of citizens’ ‘clearly established’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Such generalized knowledge has nothing to do with whether plaintiff can establish if Commissioner Evanchick knew Trooper Tustin was violating Quinn-Winne’s rights on May 28, 2018 and whether the Commissioner failed to stop the trooper from doing so. Further, it is well-established that a supervisory official has no affirmative duty under Section 1983 to take action against an offending subordinate after the fact.”
On March 14, 2022, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Michael M. Baylson ordered the dismissal of several claims associated with the case.
“Both plaintiff and defendants agree that plaintiff’s claims against the Commonwealth are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and plaintiff has requested to withdraw these claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all claims against the Commonwealth. Plaintiff asserts that his claims against Commissioner Evanchick are brought pursuant to the Monell doctrine. As an initial matter, it is an unsettled question in the Third Circuit whether a state official, as distinct from a municipal official, who is sued in their individual capacity can be held liable on a Monell theory,” Baylson said.
“Assuming, arguendo, that a state official can be held liable on a Monell theory, plaintiff has nonetheless failed to state a Monell claim. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Commissioner Evanchick are vague, conclusory, and amount to a boilerplate recitation of the elements of a Monell claim. Detailed facts as to the alleged policy, practice or custom must be stated. The Court will therefore dismiss all claims against Commissioner Evanchick, without prejudice.”
As to the state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Tustin, Baylson stated that “because Trooper Tustin was acting within the scope of his duties, plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred.”
Baylson then dismissed the claim, without prejudice.
Tustin’s counsel filed an answer with affirmative defenses on March 30, 2022.
In the answer, Tustin admitted to conducting field sobriety tests on the plaintiff before placing him in handcuffs and before transporting him to the hospital, that the “K-9 search” did not occur until after he conducted said tests and that he brought the plaintiff to the hospital for blood testing and that he was not released until after the test concluded.
In nearly all other respects, Tustin’s counsel denied the plaintiff’s assertions.
“Defendant Trooper Tustin is entitled to qualified immunity. To the extent a portion of Count I is based on state law, sovereign immunity bars any and all claims brought by plaintiff under state law. At all material times, defendant Tustin performed his duties in good faith. At all material times, defendant Tustin’s actions were privileged under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any,” per the answer’s affirmative defenses.
After more than a year of continued litigation, the case went to a jury trial on June 20 in court before Baylson, one which lasted three days. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in Quinn-Winne’s favor for $500.
“In accordance with the verdict rendered by the jury in this matter on this date, it is ordered that judgment be and the same is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff Byron Quinn-Winne and against defendant Pennsylvania State Trooper Christopher T. Tustin in the amount of $500. The Clerk shall mark this case closed,” stated a civil judgment order from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Deputy Clerk Lori K. DiSanti.
UPDATE
On June 30, plaintiff counsel motioned for a new trial, charging that the jury’s decision not to award punitive damages was in error.
“Clearly, the jury’s verdict not awarding plaintiff punitive damages was against the weight of the evidence, where Trooper Tustin acted with reckless indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights in admitting under oath that he did not have probable cause when he arrested plaintiff and the jury found that defendant Tustin arrested plaintiff without probable cause, resulting in plaintiff sustaining damages,” the motion stated.
That same day, plaintiff counsel also motioned for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees at $800 per hour for 52 hours, totaling $41,160.
Both of these motions were opposed by defense counsel, which argued that the plaintiff “did not present any evidence that Trooper Tustin’s actions were motivated by evil motive or intent or reckless or callous indifference to a federally protected right” or that the requested fee amount was reasonable.
Instead, defense counsel argued that it “should be a reasonable amount as low as $10,000 and no higher than $21,500.”
However, before those matters could be resolved, it was noted on Aug. 1 that the case had been settled among the parties. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed,” according to the Court’s order.
The plaintiff was represented by Earl D. Raynor Jr. in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Matthew R. Skolnik of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02493
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com