Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-10-2023
Case Style:
Amanda Wood v. City of San Antonio, et al.
Case Number: 5:21-cv-00187
Judge: Orlando L. Garcia
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Bexar County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: http://www.morelawtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/San_Antonio_TX_Fed.png
Description: San Antonio, Texas civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on civil rights violation theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
"This case arises out of Plaintiff's arrest in San Antonio, Texas, in the early morning hours of February 27, 2019. (Docket Entry 1, at 5.) The incident was captured on video by two officers (see Docket Entry 51-2); that video evidence is cited in recounting the events below.
While on patrol, Defendants San Antonio Police Officers Jimmy Ortiz and Martha Martinez received a call at approximately 1:15 A.M., informing them that an individual appeared to be using a machine to break through a metal fence. (Docket Entry 51-1, at 2.) When the officers arrived at the scene, they saw a male individual using welding equipment on a metal fence. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 0:40.) As they approached the man, Plaintiff exited her vehicle parked right next to the gate and moved toward the officers. (Id. at 0:50.) Officer Ortiz asked the man, who identified himself as Harry Lozano, what he was doing so late at night and why he was locking his gate when the officers approached him. (Id. at 0:50-0:57.) At that point, Plaintiff interjected and asked, with a slurred voice, “Wait. I'm sorry, is there something going on?” (Id. at 0:56-0:58.) Officer Ortiz was still interacting with Lozano, who was in the process of locking the gate against the officers. (Id. at 0:58-1:05.) Plaintiff asked again what was wrong, and if Officer Ortiz needed to see her identification despite not being spoken to by the officers. (Id.) Officer Ortiz said yes, and Plaintiff approached the rear of her vehicle where Officer Ortiz was standing and began to rummage through her trunk. (Id. at 1:05-1:14.) Meanwhile, the officers were still attempting to question Lozano about why he was locking the gate and why he was welding at that time of night. (Id.)
Plaintiff again interjected and told Officer Ortiz that she would be seeking a copy of the police report and that she and Lozano hadn't done anything wrong. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 1:14-1:21.) Officer Ortiz told her not to reach into her bag, which was in the trunk of her car, and to come towards him away from the vehicle. (Id. at 1:21-1:26.) He then told her “You want to do this the hard way, we can do this the hard way.” (Id. at 1:26-1:32.) He began to lead her towards his vehicle. (Id.) Officer Ortiz then told Plaintiff, “First of all, you smell like weed.” (Id. at 1:33-1:38.) Plaintiff disagreed, and Officer Ortiz reiterated that he could smell burnt marijuana. (Id.) He instructed Plaintiff to put her hands behind her back and, when she did not immediately comply, began to tug her hands behind her back and place her in handcuffs. (Id. at 1:38-2:00) Plaintiff started asking to speak to her attorney, but Officer Ortiz informed her that she wouldn't be speaking to anybody. (Id. at 2:00-2:10.) He led Plaintiff to sit in the back of his vehicle while he resumed trying to question Lozano, who had retreated into the gated property. (Id. at 2:20-6:47.)
Four and a half minutes after handcuffing Plaintiff, Officer Ortiz initiated a search of her vehicle. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 2:20-7:00.) Officer Ortiz told other officers who had arrived at the scene that “she smells like weed so we can [search her car].” (Id. at 6:57-6:59.) Plaintiff did not consent to this search. (Id. at 7:22-7:26.) Officer Martinez performed a search of Plaintiff's vehicle and noted a smell of burnt marijuana upon opening the door. (Docket Entry 51-4, at 0:350:39.) During her search, Officer Martinez found a “small roach,” a small amount of burnt marijuana, in the driver's side door handle compartment. (Id. at 2:00-2:10.) Officer Martinez gave it to Officer Ortiz, who placed it on the passenger seat of his police vehicle. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 13:20-13:55.) Officer Ortiz then informed Plaintiff that she was under arrest for possession of marijuana. (Id. at 13:55-14:00.) Officers continued to search the rest of Plaintiff's vehicle after discovering the marijuana. (Id. at 14:00-16:00.)
Plaintiff complained that her handcuffs were too tight, specifically that one was fastened tighter than the other. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 23:10-23:40.) Officer Ortiz went to help her while she was buckled into the back seat, instructing her to move forward so he could reach her handcuffs behind her back. (Id.) He adjusted the size of her handcuffs and asked her if it was better, to which she responded affirmatively. (Id. at 23:40-24:28.)
Procedural history. Plaintiff filed this case against Officers Ortiz and Martinez, unnamed staff at Bexar County Jail, Bexar County, and the City. (Docket Entry 1.) Bexar County moved to have the claims against it and the unnamed employees dismissed; the motion was granted by District Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (Docket Entry 17.) The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (Docket Entry 59.) Officers Ortiz and Martinez and the City then moved either for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) or summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docket Entries 51 and 52.) Plaintiff responded (Docket Entry 54), Defendants replied (Docket Entries 60 and 61), and the District Court subsequently referred the case to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket Entry 62)."
This case arises out of Plaintiff's arrest in San Antonio, Texas, in the early morning hours of February 27, 2019. (Docket Entry 1, at 5.) The incident was captured on video by two officers (see Docket Entry 51-2); that video evidence is cited in recounting the events below.
While on patrol, Defendants San Antonio Police Officers Jimmy Ortiz and Martha Martinez received a call at approximately 1:15 A.M., informing them that an individual appeared to be using a machine to break through a metal fence. (Docket Entry 51-1, at 2.) When the officers arrived at the scene, they saw a male individual using welding equipment on a metal fence. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 0:40.) As they approached the man, Plaintiff exited her vehicle parked right next to the gate and moved toward the officers. (Id. at 0:50.) Officer Ortiz asked the man, who identified himself as Harry Lozano, what he was doing so late at night and why he was locking his gate when the officers approached him. (Id. at 0:50-0:57.) At that point, Plaintiff interjected and asked, with a slurred voice, “Wait. I'm sorry, is there something going on?” (Id. at 0:56-0:58.) Officer Ortiz was still interacting with Lozano, who was in the process of locking the gate against the officers. (Id. at 0:58-1:05.) Plaintiff asked again what was wrong, and if Officer Ortiz needed to see her identification despite not being spoken to by the officers. (Id.) Officer Ortiz said yes, and Plaintiff approached the rear of her vehicle where Officer Ortiz was standing and began to rummage through her trunk. (Id. at 1:05-1:14.) Meanwhile, the officers were still attempting to question Lozano about why he was locking the gate and why he was welding at that time of night. (Id.)
Plaintiff again interjected and told Officer Ortiz that she would be seeking a copy of the police report and that she and Lozano hadn't done anything wrong. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 1:14-1:21.) Officer Ortiz told her not to reach into her bag, which was in the trunk of her car, and to come towards him away from the vehicle. (Id. at 1:21-1:26.) He then told her “You want to do this the hard way, we can do this the hard way.” (Id. at 1:26-1:32.) He began to lead her towards his vehicle. (Id.) Officer Ortiz then told Plaintiff, “First of all, you smell like weed.” (Id. at 1:33-1:38.) Plaintiff disagreed, and Officer Ortiz reiterated that he could smell burnt marijuana. (Id.) He instructed Plaintiff to put her hands behind her back and, when she did not immediately comply, began to tug her hands behind her back and place her in handcuffs. (Id. at 1:38-2:00) Plaintiff started asking to speak to her attorney, but Officer Ortiz informed her that she wouldn't be speaking to anybody. (Id. at 2:00-2:10.) He led Plaintiff to sit in the back of his vehicle while he resumed trying to question Lozano, who had retreated into the gated property. (Id. at 2:20-6:47.)
Four and a half minutes after handcuffing Plaintiff, Officer Ortiz initiated a search of her vehicle. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 2:20-7:00.) Officer Ortiz told other officers who had arrived at the scene that “she smells like weed so we can [search her car].” (Id. at 6:57-6:59.) Plaintiff did not consent to this search. (Id. at 7:22-7:26.) Officer Martinez performed a search of Plaintiff's vehicle and noted a smell of burnt marijuana upon opening the door. (Docket Entry 51-4, at 0:350:39.) During her search, Officer Martinez found a “small roach,” a small amount of burnt marijuana, in the driver's side door handle compartment. (Id. at 2:00-2:10.) Officer Martinez gave it to Officer Ortiz, who placed it on the passenger seat of his police vehicle. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 13:20-13:55.) Officer Ortiz then informed Plaintiff that she was under arrest for possession of marijuana. (Id. at 13:55-14:00.) Officers continued to search the rest of Plaintiff's vehicle after discovering the marijuana. (Id. at 14:00-16:00.)
Plaintiff complained that her handcuffs were too tight, specifically that one was fastened tighter than the other. (Docket Entry 51-2, at 23:10-23:40.) Officer Ortiz went to help her while she was buckled into the back seat, instructing her to move forward so he could reach her handcuffs behind her back. (Id.) He adjusted the size of her handcuffs and asked her if it was better, to which she responded affirmatively. (Id. at 23:40-24:28.)
Procedural history. Plaintiff filed this case against Officers Ortiz and Martinez, unnamed staff at Bexar County Jail, Bexar County, and the City. (Docket Entry 1.) Bexar County moved to have the claims against it and the unnamed employees dismissed; the motion was granted by District Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (Docket Entry 17.) The case was subsequently transferred to this Court. (Docket Entry 59.) Officers Ortiz and Martinez and the City then moved either for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) or summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docket Entries 51 and 52.) Plaintiff responded (Docket Entry 54), Defendants replied (Docket Entries 60 and 61), and the District Court subsequently referred the case to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket Entry 62).
Wood v. City of San Antonio (W.D. Tex. 2022)
Outcome: Summary judgment should be entered for Defendants, and I therefore recommend that Defendants Jimmy Ortiz's and Martha Martinez's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) and/or Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (Docket Entry 51) and Defendant City of San Antonio's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) and/or Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (Docket Entry 52) be GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: