3841
Background
- Plaintiffs (Occupy Wall Street protesters) were ordered to vacate Zuccotti Park, refused, and were arrested and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct.
- Plaintiffs sued New York City officials and individual officers alleging Fourth Amendment false arrest and malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation.
- The district court dismissed some claims but allowed the Fourth and First Amendment claims to proceed and denied defendants qualified immunity.
- Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity in an interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v. Forsyth.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, focusing on whether they had arguable probable cause and whether the law was clearly established.
- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for fuller analysis of qualified immunity in light of this Court’s precedents and the Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of qualified immunity was proper | Officers violated clearly established law by arresting protesters without lawful basis | Officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest protesters for trespass/disorderly conduct | Vacated and remanded for fuller qualified-immunity analysis under the "arguable probable cause" standard |
| Whether officers had probable cause/arguable probable cause for false arrest | Arrests lacked probable cause because protesters had defenses or lawful presence | Officers reasonably believed arrests were lawful; need not speculate about possible defenses | Court emphasized that arguable probable cause is more forgiving; district court must analyze this standard |
| Whether consideration of suspects’ possible defenses defeats immunity | Plaintiffs argue officers should have inquired into possible defenses (e.g., permission to be present) | Officers need not engage in speculative inquiry into arrestees’ subjective state of mind or potential defenses | Cited Garcia: officers need not speculate about potential defenses; immunity can apply if legal defenses are not clearly established |
| Scope of remand | Plaintiffs sought to preserve Fourth and First Amendment claims and proceed to merits | Defendants sought dismissal based on qualified immunity at pleading stage | Court remanded for district court to apply correct qualified-immunity framework to Amended Complaint; other arguments rejected on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (establishes interlocutory appeal for denials of qualified immunity)
- Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2014) (officers need not speculate about suspects’ possible defenses; arguable probable cause suffices for immunity)
- Amore v. Novarro, 624 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 2010) (qualified-immunity standard is more forgiving than probable-cause inquiry)