Alfano v. Lynch
847 F.3d 71
1st Cir.2017Background
- On July 11, 2014, Peter Alfano attended a concert after consuming 6–8 beers; he was stopped at venue security and handed to Lt. Thomas Lynch, a police officer working the event detail.
- Lynch, acting under Massachusetts' protective custody statute, administered field sobriety tests; Alfano failed one, refused a breathalyzer, and Lynch then handcuffed him, transported him to the Mansfield police station, and detained him for about five hours.
- Alfano sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Lynch lacked probable cause to place him in protective custody, handcuff, transport, and jail him, asserting a Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Lynch on qualified-immunity grounds, concluding the law was not clearly established.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo, assumed Alfano’s version of facts for summary-judgment purposes, and considered whether controlling/persuasive precedent clearly established that probable cause was required for such custody that resembled an arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause is required before using state protective-custody authority to detain, handcuff, transport, and jail an individual | Alfano: Fourth Amendment forbids such seizure absent probable cause to believe he was incapacitated | Lynch: Law unsettled; qualified immunity shields him because he reasonably relied on protective-custody statute | Held: Clearly established that probable cause is required for protective custody that resembles an arrest; qualified immunity unavailable on summary judgment |
| Whether Lynch had probable cause (objectively reasonable belief) to conclude Alfano was incapacitated | Alfano: Facts (steady gait, coherent answers, cooperative) do not support incapacitation such that he would harm himself/others or property | Lynch: Field sobriety failures and breathalyzer refusal justified belief Alfano was incapacitated | Held: On Alfano’s version (controlling at summary judgment), facts do not support probable cause for incapacitation; material disputes preclude immunity |
| Whether the seizure here was sufficiently like an arrest to trigger the probable-cause requirement | Alfano: Handcuffs, transport miles away, and jail cell made the seizure arrest-like | Lynch: Characterized as protective custody under state statute, not an arrest | Held: The detention resembled an arrest (handcuffs, involuntary transport, station confinement), so Fourth Amendment protections apply |
| Remedy on summary judgment | Alfano: Summary judgment for defendant inappropriate; case should proceed | Lynch: Entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity | Held: District court’s summary judgment vacated and case remanded for further proceedings; costs taxed to Lynch (plaintiff favored) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (establishes probable cause requirement for seizures sufficiently like arrests)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (probable cause required where custodial detention is indistinguishable from arrest)
- Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (transporting a detainee to station against will requires probable cause)
- Ahern v. O'Donnell, 109 F.3d 809 (1st Cir.) (Fourth Amendment applies to involuntary hospitalization/protective custody)
- Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Sys., 195 F.3d 584 (10th Cir.) (probable cause required to place allegedly incapacitated person into protective custody)
- Veiga v. McGee, 26 F.3d 1206 (1st Cir.) (intoxication alone insufficient to show incapacitation)