Karim Codrington v. Jay Dolark, et al.

Louisville, Kentucky personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a civil rights violation theory.



Plaintiff Karim Codrington was the victim of an unlawful traffic stop, search, and arrest. During the criminal proceedings arising from that stop, a Kentucky state court suppressed the evidence illegally seized from his vehicle and dismissed his criminal charges. More than three years later, Codrington filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit, claiming that the defendant police officers planted drugs on him, provided those drugs to prosecutors as a basis for his criminal

prosecution, and stole thousands of dollars from him.



In the early morning hours of August 10, 2018, Officers Jay Dolak and Tyler Blissett of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) observed Codrington in the driver's seat of a vehicle with dark tinted windows parked at an odd angle at a gas station. Suspecting criminal activity, Dolak approached the passenger window and scanned the inside of the vehicle with a flashlight. Dolak claims that he saw Codrington throw something inside the center console—an alleged "furtive movement”—but his body camera video shows no such motion.



Dolak asked Codrington if there were any guns in the vehicle and Codrington responded that he had one, which he lawfully possessed, in the back seat. Codrington then complied with Dolak's request to step out of the vehicle. Blissett, who was standing outside of the driver's side of the car, immediately patted down Codrington but did not find anything.



Throughout the stop, the officers asked for consent to search the vehicle, and each time, Codrington politely refused. Despite no evidence of drug use, possession, or paraphernalia, at this point, Blissett requested a canine inspection. While waiting for the canine officer, Dolak continued to use his flashlight to look inside the vehicle; he did not see anything illegal in plain view. When LMPD K-9 Officer John Kirk and his drug-sniffing canine arrived, they performed

the canine scan, and the dog allegedly alerted toward the front of the vehicle. This alert, however, was not captured on the officers' body cameras. Blissett then handcuffed Codrington. After they handcuffed Codrington, the officers explained that they had probable cause to search the car without Codrington's consent based on his alleged furtive movement near the center console and the canine's alert at the front of the vehicle. They asked Codrington where the illegal substances were located, and Codrington consistently denied possessing illegal drugs.



During their 23-minute search of the vehicle, the officers found a large amount of cash, "a little bit of weed,” and a marijuana grinder—but nothing in the center console. No one counted the money at the scene. Though Codrington consistently denied having any illegal substances, Blissett searched him for drugs a second time, to no avail. Nor did the officers' third search yield narcotics, although they did remove cash from Codrington's pockets that they previously noted during his initial pat down. The officers completed a currency-seizure form, seized all the money, and transported Codrington to the LMPD booking facility.



Upon their arrival, Dolak removed Codrington from the back of his patrol car, searched the back seat, and allegedly found a small bag of methamphetamine on the seat where Codrington had been sitting. Once again, body camera footage did not capture this discovery. Codrington insisted that the drugs were not his, but Dolak responded that the drugs were not

there prior to Codrington's transportation.



While the officers booked Codrington into the jail, an officer took a photo that depicted—according to the officers—the items recovered from Codrington. As expected, the photo showed Codrington's firearm, cash, grinder, and the small bag of marijuana that were all recovered at the gas station, as shown on the body cameras. But the photo also included some

items that were indisputably not Codrington's (an additional handgun and two magazines) and two items (the bag of meth and a larger bag of marijuana) that Codrington insists were not his and the discovery of which the body cameras did not capture. Nonetheless, Dolak provided the photo to the county prosecutor as evidence to charge Codrington.



* * *

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, finding that Codrington’s claims either were barred by the statute of limitations or failed on their merits.



Reversed in part and affirmed in part.