Date: 06-17-2012

Case Style: Chuck Wheeler v. Town of Valley Brook

Case Number: CJ-2010-5470

Judge: Lisa T. Davis

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Carl Hughes and Scott Adams

Defendant's Attorney: David W. Kirk

Description: Chuck Wheeler sued the Town of Valley Brook and Shelby N. Field on a Personal Tort theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, is a resident of the City of Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, is an incorporated town located in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, Shelby N. Field, is a police officer with the Town of Valley Brook and was at all times an agent, servant, and employee of the Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, located in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
4. The acts complained of herein occurred in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, therefore jurisdiction and venue are proper here.
5. That on or about September 26, 2009, Plaintiff was traveling northbound in his vehicle, along with three passengers, on South Eastern just north of Southeast 59th Street in the City of Oklahoma City.
6. While driving northbound on South Eastern, Plaintiff observed a black and white police car, later identified as a Valley Brook police car, on a traffic stop approximately one block north of Southeast 59th Street on South Eastern against the east curb line.
7. As Plaintiff approached the traffic stop, he drove his vehicle towards the center line in an effort to avoid the stop and as he did, he honlced and waived at the Valley Brook officer, later identified as Officer Field.
8. The Plaintiff continued northbound to the 4800 block of South Eastern and pulled into the Oklahoma City Limits Club parking lot located at 4801 South Eastern in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and parked his vehicle facing South Eastern.
9. As the Plaintiff was exiting his vehicle, he noticed a police car with its overhead lights on pulling up behind him.
10. Plaintiff approached the police car and Officer Field began to curse at the Plaintiff and instructed him to get back into his vehicle, Unsure of what the officer was telling him to do, the Plaintiff continued to approach Officer Field and he continued to curse at him.
11. At that time, Plaintiff identified himself as an Oklahoma City police officer.
12. Officer Field then attempted to grab the Plaintiff by the shirt and shove him backwards.
13. Officer Field again cursed at the Plaintiff and told him he did not care who he was and that the Plaintiff was going to jail.
14. Officer Field then handcuffed the Plaintiff and placed him in the backseat of the patrol car without probable cause to arrest him and without an arrest warrant, thus constituting a false arrest. The Plaintiff was not free to leave at this time and was therefore under arrest.
15. Officer Field then accused the Plaintiff of attempting to run over him. The Plaintiff again identified himself as a veteran police officer and that he was simply being friendly when he honked and waved at him.
16. Officer Field again informed the Plaintiff that he was going to jail.
17. Officer Field then attempted to argue with the Plaintiff’s wife, who was still sitting in the Plaintiffs truck. He then advised her that the Plaintiff was going to jail and she could follow him to Valley Brook to post the bond.
18. Officer Field transported the Plaintiff to the Valley Brook police station in a reckless maimer and at speeds of over seventy miles per hour.
19. Upon arrival at the Valley Brook police station, the Plaintiff was placed on a bench inside the station and not free to leave, therefore continuing the false arrest and imprisonment of the Plaintiff
20. The Plaintiff repeatedly requested that he be allowed to speak to a supervisor of the Valley Brook police department and was denied each time.
21. The Plaintiff overheard Officer Field telling an unknown person that he was three blocks out of Valley Brook’s jurisdiction.
22. After approximately fifteen minutes had passed since arriving at the pollee station, an officer with the Valley Brook police department arrived at the station and identified himself as Captain Stamp. Sometime later another officer with the Valley Brook police department arrived at the station and identified herself as Captain Camacho.
23. Captain Stamp and Captain Camacho then interviewed the Plaintiff and Officer Field about the arrest.
24. Captain Stamp then escorted the Plaintiff outside while Captain Camacho continued to interview Officer Field. At this point, the Plaintiff had been unlawfully detained and under arrest for approximately one hour.
25. The Plaintiff’s wife was then brought into the police station for an interview with Captain Stamp and Captain Camacho. At some point during the interview, Captain Stamp and Captain Camacho went outside the police station and left the Plaintiff and his wife inside for approximately forty-five to fifty minutes.
26. After the Plaintiff had been unlawfully detained and under arrest for approximately two hours and thirty minutes, Captain Stamp advised the Plaintiff that he would soon be free to leave.
27. After approximately thirty minutes had passed, the Plaintiff was allowed to leave the police station. The total time of the unlawful detention and arrest of the Plaintiff was approximately three horns.
28. That as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, Town of Valley Brook and Officer Field, individually and collectively, Plaintiff Chuck Wheeler suffered and is continuing to suffer physically and emotionally.
29. That on or about December 21, 2009, Plaintiff mailed a written ‘Notice of Tort Claim� to the Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, pursuant to Title 51 O.S. § 151 et seq.
30, That on or about December 23, 2009, Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group (hereinafter “OMAG�), sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledging receipt of the “Notice of Tort Claim� of the Plaintiff against the Town of Valley Brook.
31. That on or about January 11, 2009, OMAG sent a revised letter to Plaintiffs counsel again acknowledging receipt of the “Notice of Tort Claim� of the Plaintiff against the Town of Valley Brook.
32. That Plaintiff nor his counsel has received anything else from the Town of Valley Brook or OMAG either approving or denying the Plaintiff’s claim within ninety days of January 11,2009, therefore by statute the claim is denied.
33. That this action has been properly conmienced within one hundred eighty (180) days of denial pursuant to statute.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, and for his First Cause of Action, incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts:
34. That Defendants, Town of Valley Brook and Officer Field, individually and collectively, intentionally and violently grabbed and detained Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, thereby making offensive contact with him and without his consent.
35. That as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, Town of Valley Brook and Officer Field, individually and collectively, Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, suffered physical and emotional injury.
36, That the Defendants, Town of Valley Brook, acting through its agent, servant, and employee, Officer Field, committed the tortious act of assault and battery on the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, and for his Second Cause of Action, incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts:
37. After the Plaintiff was handcuffed by Officer Field and placed in the backseat of the patrol car, he was detained unlawfully, without probable cause and against his will.
38. That Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, was then taken to the Valley Brook police station and held there for approximately three hours unlawfully, without probable cause and against his will.
39. That Plaintifl Chuck Wheeler, was not free to leave at anytime during the approximately three hour detention.
40. That the Defendants, Town of Valley Brook, acting through its agent, servant, and employee, Officer Field, committed the tortious act of false imprisonment against the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, and for his Third Cause of Action, incorporates the allegations set forth above and fhrther asserts:
41. That Defendants acted improperly and without cause when they unlawfully detained and restrained Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler against his will.
42, That Defendants falsely asserted a legal authority to detain Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler.
43. That Defendants acted without probable cause and without an arrest warrant.
44. That Defendants, Town of Valley Brook, acting through its agent, servant, and employee, Officer Field, committed the tortious act of false arrest against the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler,
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, and for his Fourth Cause of Action, incorporates the allegations set forth above and flwther asserts:
45. That Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, was negligent in its hiring, training, supervision and monitoring practices of its employees.
46. That Defendant, Town of Valley Brook’s negligence was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler’s damages.
47. That Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, acting through its agent, servant, and employee, Officer Field, committed the tortious act of negligence against the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, and for his Fifth Cause of Action, incorporates the allegations set forth above and flirther asserts:
48. That Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, acting through its agent, servant, and employee, Officer Field, was unnecessarily physically and verbally abusive towards Plaintiff.
49. Specifically, that Officer Field used numerous expletives towards the Plaintiff during the traffic stop and ensuing unlawful detention and arrest.
50. Moreover, that Officer Field intentionally and violently grabbed and detained Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler without probable cause.
51. Further, that Officer Field acted in a reckless manner when he transported Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler, to the Valley Brook police station.
52. That the actions of Defendant, Officer Field, were so extreme and outrageous that he went beyond all possible bounds of decency and were atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
53. Further, that Officer Field, through his actions, intentionally and recklessly caused severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff.
54. That Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, acting through its agent, servant, and employee, Officer Field, committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff Chuck Wheeler, and for his Sixth Cause of Action, incorporates the allegations set forth above and further asserts:
55. That the actions of the Defendant, Officer Field, as agent, servant and employee of the Defendant, Town of Valley Brook, were intentional, willful and wanton and constitute gross negligence for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages.
56. That the actions and wrongful conduct of the Defendants, Town of Valley Brook and Officer Field, individually and collectively, were such a nature that Plaintiff, Chuck Wheeler is entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; Chuck Wheeler, seeks recovery from the Defendants, Town of
Valley Brook and Officer Field for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Ten
Thousand and no/l00 Dollars ($10,000.00), for punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten
Thousand and no/l00 Dollars ($10,000.00), and for such other and further relief as the Court
deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, court costs, attorneys fees and interest.

Defendant Shelby N. Field answered and claimed:

1. This Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition and so these are denied.
2. Admitted.
3. Defendant Field denies that he currently serves as a police officer with the Town of Valley Brook but admits that the was so employed at all times relevant to the allegations in Plaintiffs Petition.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7, Denied.
8. Admitted.
9. This Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny any allegation regarding what Plaintiff noticed. However, this Defendant admits that he entered the parking lot with his overhead lights on and pulled up behind the Plaintiff
10. Defendant Field denies that he was cursing at Plaintiff but admits that Plaintiff exited his vehicle and continued to walk towards Field and his vehicle despite Field’s lawful orders to him to remain in Plaintiffs vehicle.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Denied.
14. Defendant Field admits that he handcuffed Plaintiff and placed him in the backseat of Field’s squad car. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was not free to leave at this time and was under arrest. However, Defendant denies that the arrest occurred without probable cause and denies that the arrest constitutes a “false arrest.�
15. Defendant Field admits that he advised Plaintiff that it was Field’s perception the Plaintiff had been driving recklessly or intentionally trying to harm Plaintiff. The allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
16. Admitted.
17. Denied, although Defendant admits that occupants of the Plaintiffs car were advised that they could follow Officer Field to Valley Brook.
18. Denied.
19. Defendant admits that Plaintiff sat on a bench at the Valley Brook Police Station and remained there for a period of time. However, Defendant denies that such constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment.
20. Admitted.
21. This Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny any allegation regarding what Plaintiff purportedly “overheard.� Accordingly, the allegations of paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
22. Admitted.
23. Admitted.
24. Defendant admits the first sentence contained within paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition but denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition.
25. This Defendant admits that conversations and exchanges such as those described in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Petition occurred but denies that these lasted between 45 and 50 minutes.
26. Defendant denies that Plaintiff had been unlawfully detained or unlawfully arrested. Defendant is also without sufficient information to either admit or deny any allegation regarding elapsed time. However, Defendant admits that Captain Stamp advised Plaintiff at some point that he would be free to leave.
27. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was allowed to leave the police department. The remaining allegations of paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
28. Denied.
29. Admitted.
30. Admitted.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. Admitted.
34. Denied.
35. Denied.
36. Denied.
37. Denied.
38. Denied.
39. Defendants admit that Plaintiffwas not free to leave while he was at the Valley Brook Police Department until he was notified he could leave. To the extent the allegations of paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Petition are inconsistent with this admission, they are denied.
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
42. Defendants admit that they asserted a legal authority to detain Plaintiff Wheeler but deny that it was false.
43. Denied. Except that Defendant admits there was no arrest warrant; nor was there any need of one.
44. Denied.
45. Denied.
46. Denied.
47. Denied.
30. Admitted.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. Admitted.
34. Denied.
35. Denied.
36. Denied.
37. Denied.
38. Denied.
39. Defendants admit that Plaintiffwas not free to leave while he was at the Valley Brook Police Department until he was notified he could leave. To the extent the allegations of paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Petition are inconsistent with this admission, they are denied.
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
42. Defendants admit that they asserted a legal authority to detain Plaintiff Wheeler but deny that it was false.
43. Denied. Except that Defendant admits there was no arrest warrant; nor was there any need of one.
44. Denied.
45. Denied.
46. Denied.
47. Denied.
48. Denied.
49. Denied.
50. Denied, except that Defendant admits that Plaintiff was detained.
51. Denied.
52. Denied.
53. Denied.
54. Denied.
55. Denied.
56. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Defendant Shelby N. Field is an improper party defendant for any claim made against him regarding his conduct within the scope of his employment, pursuant to 51 OS. § 163(C), “in no instance shall an employee of the state or political subdivision acting within the scope of his employment be named as defendant....�
2. Defendant Field, as a law enforcement officer, is privileged to use reasonable force under the circumstances. Because his stop, detention and arrest of Plaintiff was supported by probable cause, he was privileged to use reasonable force and all force used was reasonable.
3. Plaintiff committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, namely a motor vehicle, causing Defendant Shelby Field to fear for his life. This is a felony offense and Field had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for the offense without a warrant. Alternatively, Plaintiffs actions constituted a number of misdemeanor violations, misdemeanors committed in the presence of Defendant Field, authorizing Field to arrest without a warrant.
4. Plaintiff and the occupants of his car, had the odor of alcoholic beverages on their breath and person, establishing probable cause for the detention of Plaintiff.
5. Defendant Field is reasonably supervised.
6. Defendant Field is reasonably hired.
7. Defendant Field was not acting as a private citizen during the incident at issue.
8. Plaintiff was negligent with regard to his own liberty and physical well being on the night of the incident at issue and this contributory negligence reduces or bars any recovery herein.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant Shelby N. Field prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Petition and that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with all costs, fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Town of Valley Brook answered and alleged:

1. This Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition and so these are denied.
2. Admitted.
3. Defendant denies that Field currently serves as a police officer with the Town of Valley Brook but admits that he was so employed at all times re]evant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s
Petition.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Denied.
8. Admitted.
9. This Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny any allegation regarding what Plaintiff noticed. However, this Defendant admits that Field entered the parking lot with his overhead lights on and pulled up behind the Plaintiff.
10. Defendant denies that Field was cursing at Plaintiff but admits that Plaintiff exited his vehicle and continued to walk towards Field and his vehicle despite Field’s lawful orders to him to remain in Plaintiffs vehicle. Plaintiffs conduct was contrary to all training he would have received as a law enforcement officer.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Denied.
14. Defendant admits that Field handcuffed Plaintiff and placed him in the backseat of Field’s squad car. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was not free to leave at this time and was under arrest. However, Defendant denies that the arrest occurred without probable cause and denies that the arrest constitutes a “false arrest.�
15. Defendant admits that Field advised Plaintiff that it was Field’s perception the Plaintiff had been driving recklessly or intentionally trying to harm Plaintiff. The allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
16. Admitted.
17. Denied, although Defendant admits that occupants of the Plaintiffs car were advised that they could follow Officer Field to Valley Brook.
18. Denied.
19. Defendant admits that Plaintiff sat on a bench at the Valley Brook Police Station and remained there for a period of time. However, Defendant denies that such constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment.
20. Admitted.
21. This Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny any allegation regarding what Plaintiff purportedly “overheard.� Accordingly, the allegations of paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
22. Admitted.
23. Admitted.
24. Defendant admits the first sentence contained within paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition but denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition.
25. This Defendant admits that conversations and exchanges such as those described in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Petition occurred but denies that these lasted between 45 and 50 minutes.
26. Defendant denies that Plaintiff had been unlawfully detained or unlawfully arrested. Defendant is also without sufficient information to either admit or deny any allegation regarding elapsed time. However, Defendant admits that Captain Stamp advised Plaintiff at some point that he would be free to leave.
27. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was allowed to leave the police department. The remaining allegations of paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.
28. Denied.
29. Admitted.
30. Admitted.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. Admitted.
34. Plaintiff’s first cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
35. Plaintiff’s first cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
36. Plaintiffs first cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
37. Denied.
38. Denied.
39. Defendant admits that Plaintiffwas not free to leave while he was at the Valley Brook Police Department until he was notified he could leave. To the extent the allegations of paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Petition are inconsistent with this admission, they are denied.
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
42. Defendant admits that its officer asserted a legal authority to detain Plaintiff Wheeler but denies that it was false.
43. Denied. Except that Defendant admits there was no arrest warrant; nor was there any need of one.
44. Denied.
45. Denied.
46. Denied.
47. Denied.
48. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
49. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
50. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
51. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
52. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
53. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
54. Plaintiffs fifth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
55. Plaintiffs sixth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
56. Plaintiffs sixth cause of action against Valley Brook has been dismissed.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Defendant Shelby N. Field is an improper party defendant for any claim made against him regarding his conduct within the scope of his employment, pursuant to 51 O.S. § 163(C), “in no instance shall an employee of the state or political subdivision acting within the scope of his employment be named as defendant
2. Defendant Field, as a law enforcement officer, is privileged to use reasonable force under the circumstances. Because his stop, detention and arrest of Plaintiff was supported by probable cause, he was privileged to use reasonable force and all force used was reasonable.
3. Plaintiff committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, namely a motor vehicle, causing Defendant Shelby Field to fear for his life. This is a felony offense and Field had probable cause to arrest Naintiff for the offense without a warrant. Alternatively, Plaintiffs actions constituted a number of misdemeanor violations, misdemeanors committed in the presence of Defendant Field, authorizing Field to arrest without a warrant.
4. Plaintiff and the occupants of his car, had the odor of alcoholic beverages on their breath and person, establishing probable cause for the detention of Plaintiff
5. Defendant Field is reasonably supervised.
6. Defendant Field is reasonably hired and trained. Valley Brook has no duty to train its officers since this duty has be delegated by the Legislature to the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (C.L.E.E.T.). See, 70 OS. § 3311.
7. Plaintiff was negligent with regard to his own liberty and physical well being on the night of the incident at issue and this contributory negligence reduces or bars any recovery herein.
8. The availability of money damages against this Defendant is limited by statute.
9. This defendant is not liable for the conduct of its employees which occur outside the scope of their employment. 51 O.S. § 152 (12), 153 (A).
10. This defendant is exempt from tort liability for plaintiffs claims pursuant to 51 O.S. § 155(4),(5),(6),( 16)and(29).
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant Town of Valley Brook prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Petition and that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with all costs, fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: JUDGE DAVIS: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS, ALL PARTIES RETURN. WITNESS SWORN TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. BOTH PARTIES REST. DEMURRER SUSTAINED IN PART, OVERRULED IN PART. COURT'S INSTRUCTION TO JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. ALTERNATE JUROR EXCUSED. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE, RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000.00. JURY DISCHARGED, CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. COURT REPORTER MARILYN HODGEN

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: