United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM T. HART, District Judge.
This case is before the court for consideration of the parties' motions in limine.
1. Plaintiff's motion to bar any argument that defendant officers will be responsible for the payment of compensatory damages is granted. If defendants offer any financial evidence relating to punitive damages, it will only be relevant with respect to such issue.
2. Plaintiff's motion to bar any reference to other bad acts of plaintiff or any of plaintiff's witnesses is granted. If defendants hereafter contend that any such information is admissible, notice must be given to plaintiff.
1. Defendants' motion to bar evidence of the events leading up to and during plaintiff's arrest, including transport to the police station, is denied. The events prior to and at the police station provide the totality of the circumstances. See Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689, 694-95 (7th Cir. 2005).
2. Defendants' motion to preclude any evidence about the battery prosecution and finding of not guilty of plaintiff is granted. There is no longer a false arrest claim in this case. Evidence concerning the criminal prosecution would not be relevant. Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747, 755 (7th Cir. 2005). No mention is to be made that battery charges were filed or dismissed.
3. Defendants' motion to preclude evidence of post-arrest consequences is reserved.
4. Defendants' motion with respect to plaintiff's conduct is reserved.
5. Defendants' motion to bar plaintiff from introducing Evanston Police Department orders and regulations relating only to strip searches is denied. Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2009). However, any reference to Illinois law will be stated only in appropriate jury instructions.
6. Defendants' motion with respect to plaintiff's testimony that other laughing officers were present during the search is denied.
7. Defendants' motion to exclude any reference to indemnification by the City ...