Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning than Assigned Judge
The defendants' motions for reconsideration [99-1] and [100-1] are denied.
O [ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
Before the court are two motions for reconsideration filed by the defendants, each addressed in turn.
Motion to Reconsider Exclusion of Harold McCadd's June 1, 2011, Arrest [99-1]
In an order dated June 2, 2011, this court denied the defendants' oral motion to admit evidence of plaintiff Harold McCadd's arrest for allegedly participating in a drug transaction outside his home. The defendants sought to admit evidence of the arrest under Rule 404(b) as relevant to Harold's modus operandi. The court denied the motion because whether Harold did or did not participate in a drug transaction on June 1, 2011, has no bearing on whether the defendants had probable cause to arrest Harold and search his home in 2009, which is determined based on what officers knew at the time of the search and arrest.
The defendants now ask the court to reconsider its decision. They begin their motion by asserting that the court neglected to address two other possible bases for admitting evidence of Harold's recent arrest: (1) the arrest is relevant to the question of damages, and (2) the arrest is relevant to the voluntariness of Anna McCadd's consent to search her home. But then instead of discussing either of those bases, the defendants proceed to regurgitate their argument that the June 1, 2011, arrest is relevant to Harold's modus operandi.
A motion to reconsider is not an opportunity to reassert rejected arguments. See Ortiz v. City of Chicago, 09 CV 2636, 2011 WL 1897187, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2011). As the court explained in its June 2, 2011, order, the issue relevant in this civil proceeding is not McCadd's guilt or innocence but, rather, what officers knew at the time they obtained a warrant to search the McCadd home and arrested Harold. Because the June 1, 2011, arrest is not information known to officers in 2009, the arrest is not relevant to whether officers had probable cause to search the McCadd home and effect their arrest of Harold.
Nevertheless, in the motion to reconsider, the defendants contend that they are entitled to present evidence of the 2011 arrest to rebut evidence that no drugs were found either on Harold or in the McCadd home on January 23, 2009, evidence the defendants anticipate the McCadds will present to show that officers lacked probable cause for the January 23 search. However, evidence that no drugs were found is as irrelevant to the issue of probable cause for the January 23 search as is Harold's 2011 arrest-both are facts unknown to officers at the time they initiated the January 23 search. See Beauchamp v. City of Noblesville, 320 F.3d 733, 742-43 (7th Cir. 2003) (in determining whether a search was supported by probable cause, the court looks to what officers knew at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight).
For these reasons, the motion to reconsider is denied.
Motion to Reconsider Court's Denial of Summary ...