A man who sought 1 cent in a suit alleging he was unlawfully arrested after refusing to cooperate during a traffic stop, has reached a settlement.
U.S. District Judge David Dugan entered an order on June 1 dismissing the case with prejudice after the parties reached a settlement.
Dugan wrote in a separate order on March 25 that the parties advised that they had settled the case and needed 60 days to finalize the documents.
Plaintiff Mark Pearson filed his original complaint on Feb. 20, 2020, in the Madison County Circuit Court against officers Alex Hawthorne, Gerard Spratt and James Murray. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on March 25, 2020.
According to the complaint, Pearson claimed he was pulled over on Sept. 11, 2019, for failing to use a turn signal to merge onto Interstate 270 from Illinois State Route 159 and its merge ramp. He claimed a turn signal is not required under Illinois law to merge onto an interstate.
The suit stated that Peasron video and audio recorded the officers using a cell phone and refused to provide his identification. Pearson claimed “a conviction cannot stand for obstructing a police officer by merely failing to identify oneself.”
Pearson was also issued a citation for carrying a concealed handgun. He claimed he had a concealed carry license and could travel with the weapon, but he refused to provide the identification. Similarly, he was given a ticket for operating an uninsured motor vehicle. Pearson claimed he had insurance on the vehicle, but refused to provide the information.
Pearson sought 1 cent and a declaration that the defendants’ actions were unconstitutional, plus attorney’s fees.
The defendants answered the complaint on April 1, 2020, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims are barred and that he has no compensable damages. They also argued they had probable cause.
“Defendants’ actions were reasonable, taken in good faith, necessary, in self-defense and justified given plaintiff’s actions,” the affirmative defenses stated. “In addition, plaintiff consented to any actions by defendants.”
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Nov. 20 through attorney Paul Knobbe of Goldberg Segalla LLP in Buffalo, N.Y.
They argued that Pearson failed to establish that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
In their memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that Hawthorne had sufficient probable cause to conduct the traffic stop after observing Pearson’s failure to use his turn signal. Pearson was arrested for resisting or obstructing a peace officer.
“At the time of the arrest, defendants believed plaintiff Pearson had committed the offense of obstructing a peace officer from performing authorized acts when plaintiff failed to identify himself which obstructed and interfered with the officers’ ability to conduct a valid traffic stop. This belief is sufficient to support probable cause for arresting plaintiff.
“Additionally, the search of plaintiff was conduct (sic) lawfully as it was a search incident to an arrest. Since there was sufficient probable cause to arrest plaintiff, his claim for unlawful arrest and unlawful search must fail. Plaintiff cannot put forth any evidence that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated,” the memorandum stated.
The defendants also argued that the citation for operating an uninsured motor vehicle was proper as Pearson allegedly failed to produce evidence of insurance when asked. Additionally, the citation for unlawful use of a weapon did not violate Pearson’s rights, they argued.
“A loaded handgun was found in plaintiff’s vehicle during the inventory search of plaintiff’s vehicle following his arrest. Defendants were unable to ascertain whether plaintiff had a valid conceal carry license,” the memorandum stated.
The defendants also argue that an inventory search of Pearson’s vehicle was valid and did not violate his constitutional rights as it was done according to standard policy before a vehicle is towed.
“In this case, defendants conducted a valid inventory search of plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the tow of plaintiff’s vehicle from the Interstate 270 on-ramp,” the memorandum stated. “After plaintiff was taken into custody, Officer Hawthorne called for the next available tow truck to respond to take possession of plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff’s vehicle, located on the on-ramp to Interstate 270, certainly posed a threat to public safety. Prior to towing plaintiff’s vehicle, an inventory search was conducted. This search was done solely as an inventory search pursuant to standard policy prior to towing plaintiff’s vehicle.”
Pearson filed a response in opposition to the motion on Dec. 14, 2020, through attorney Peter Maag of Maag Law Firm LLC in Wood River. Pearson argued that he did use a turn signal.
“In this case, Mark Pearson’s position is that none of the tickets related to obstructing a police officer, failure to have insurance, or for alleged concealed carry violations would have occurred but for the disrupted turn signal violation,” Maag wrote.
The defendants filed a reply on Dec. 23, 2020, arguing that there was sufficient probable cause to make the traffic stop.
“Plaintiff erroneously maintains that since the traffic stop was unsupported by probable cause, the subsequent stop, arrest, and search were unlawful and would not have occurred. However, plaintiff fails to create a genuine dispute of material fact as the law is clear that Officer Alex Hawthorne had reasonable and articulate suspicion for conducting the traffic stop on September 11, 2019,” Knobbe wrote.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:20-cv-309