Lindsey v. Macias

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants-police officials subjected plaintiff to false arrest, excessive force and malicious prosecution when plaintiff was arrested on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in refusing plaintiff’s proposed modification of Seventh Circuit Pattern instruction that clarified definition of “possession” by adding language indicating that “mere proximity to the contraband is not enough to establish possession.” While proposed modification was accurate statement of law, pattern instruction already told jury that more than mere proximity to firearm was required to satisfy definition of possession, and case law did not require giving plaintiff’s proposed modification to jury in criminal cases involving unlawful possession of firearm charges. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was not required to give alternative definition of possession, and plaintiff otherwise was able to present his theory that police lacked probable cause to make arrest on unlawful possession of firearm charge because he did not "possess" firearm found near him at time of arrest. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in refusing jury’s request to examine witness’s answers to interrogatories, where said answers had not been admitted into evidence.