The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott United States District Judge
JEANNE E. SCOTT, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Carl Szabo and Sangamon County Sheriff's Office's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 20) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
The parties dispute many material facts in this case. For purposes of the Motion, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff Thomas Frizzell. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The Court does so only for purposes of this Motion and acknowledges that the Defendants dispute many of the facts recited below.
On November 28, 2006, at approximately 5:54 p.m., Frizzell was driving to work at the Lowe's store located on North Dirksen Avenue in Springfield, Illinois. Frizzell was wearing his seatbelt and was not speeding. Motion, Exhibit 1, Deposition of Thomas Frizzell, at 38, 48. Frizzell pulled into the parking lot, parked, exited his car, and started to walk briskly to the store. He was in a hurry because his shift started at 6:00 p.m., and he needed to clock in before that time. Id., at 61.
As Frizzell was parking, Defendant Deputy Sheriff Carl Szabo drove his Sangamon County Sheriff's Office squad car onto the Lowe's parking lot. Szabo started yelling out his car window. Frizzell heard Szabo yelling, but did not know that Szabo was yelling at him. Szabo then used his radio as a public address system to announce that a suspicious black male was in the Lowe's parking lot. Frizzell knew that Szabo must have been talking about him, but he did not know why. Szabo maneuvered his squad car between Frizzell and the Lowe's building. Frizzell went around the squad car and continued toward the store. Szabo told Frizzell that he was being stopped for a seatbelt violation. Frizzell knew that Szabo was ordering him to stop. Frizzell told Szabo that he would come back out after he clocked in. Frizzell pried open the exit door to enter the store. This was his standard practice to get to the time clock as quickly as possible. Motion, Statements of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 8, 14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30; Frizzell Deposition, 63, 67-68, 74-75.*fn1
Szabo exited the squad car and followed Frizzell. Szabo grabbed Frizzell's wrist as Frizzell was going through the exit door. Frizzell pulled out of Szabo's grasp. Frizzell entered the Lowe's foyer, and Szabo followed him. Szabo ordered Frizzell to stop. Frizzell told Szabo he would come back and would bring a manager to verify that he worked at Lowe's. Frizzell turned to go into the store. Szabo then shot Frizzell with a taser. The taser immobilized Frizzell, and he fell to the floor on his back. The prongs from the taser remained in Frizzell's back, connected to the taser weapon by wires. Szabo ordered Frizzell to roll over on his stomach. Frizzell could not because he was immobilized from the electrical shock emitted from the taser. Szabo reactivated the taser four more times, shocking Frizzell each time, because Frizzell did not roll over. Eventually, Szabo handcuffed Frizzell and took him into custody. Szabo sprayed mace in Frizzell's face after he was handcuffed. Frizzell was charged with offenses that included striking Szabo and a seatbelt violation. Frizzell was found not guilty on all charges. Motion, Statements of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 44, 47; Frizzell Deposition, at 74, 83-84, 86, 88-91, 95-96, 109-10, 117.
Frizzell then brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest and use of excessive force in violation of Frizzell's Fourth Amendment rights. Complaint (d/e 1). Szabo counterclaimed for battery. Answer to Complaint/Counterclaim (d/e 7). Szabo states that Frizzell struck Szabo during the altercation. Motion, Exhibit 2, Deposition of Carl Szabo, at 78. Frizzell denies that he struck Szabo. Frizzell Deposition, at 78.
The Defendants now move for summary judgment on Frizzell's claims. At summary judgment, the Defendants must present evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The Court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to Frizzell. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial must be resolved against the Defendants. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Once the Defendants have met their burden, Frizzell must present evidence to show that issues of fact remain with respect to an issue essential to his case, and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In this case, the factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
Frizzell has a constitutional right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Szabo sought to stop Frizzell without a warrant. Szabo could do so constitutionally only if he had probable cause to arrest Frizzell or a reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Frizzell to conduct an investigative stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); Mustafa v. City of Chicago, 442 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2006). Szabo states that he had probable cause to arrest Frizzell for driving while not wearing his seatbelt. Probable cause exists:
[W]hen the facts and circumstances within [the police officer's] knowledge and of which [he has] reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect had committed an offense. The court evaluates probable cause not on the facts as an omniscient observer would perceive them, but rather as they would have appeared to a reasonable person in the position of the arresting officer.
Mustafa, 442 F.3d at 547 (internal citations and quotations omitted). In this case, Frizzell states that he was wearing his seatbelt. For purposes of the Motion, the Court must assume that Frizzell's version of the events is true. The reasonable person in Szabo's position, thus, would have observed Frizzell driving while wearing his seatbelt. The reasonable person would not have had probable cause to arrest Frizzell for driving without wearing a seatbelt. The evidence, viewed favorably to Frizzell, therefore, supports Frizzell's claim that Szabo arrested Frizzell without probable cause. Szabo disputes Frizzell's claim that ...