287 F. Supp. 3d 308
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Scott Boyler created a website and Facebook page criticizing Captain Joseph Leo after prior negative interactions; posts included vulgar, threatening, and harassing language directed at Captain Leo.
- Captain Leo showed screenshots to Detective Brian Lakso; Lakso drafted a criminal complaint charging aggravated harassment in the second degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a).
- A Lackawanna City Court judge issued an arrest warrant (Jan. 2014); Boyler was arrested in April 2014 and pleaded not guilty.
- On May 13, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals decided People v. Golb, striking down the challenged statutory provision as unconstitutionally vague; the prosecution thereafter voluntarily dismissed Boyler’s charges.
- Boyler sued Defendants (City and the two officers) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (malicious prosecution, false arrest, failure to intercede, First Amendment violation, assault, battery) and related New York common-law claims; Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, dismissing all federal and state claims and holding the individual officers entitled to qualified immunity and that probable cause (or arguable probable cause) existed for arrest and prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing criminal complaint/arrest violated Boyler's First Amendment rights | Boyler argues his website posts were protected political speech and not criminal; relied on preexisting state precedent (Mangano) to show protection | Defendants argue posts were threatening/harassing and reasonable to conclude they violated § 240.30(1)(a); officers reasonably relied on statute and probable-cause review | Court: First Amendment right not clearly established pre-Golb; officers entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment for First Amendment claim |
| Whether officers lacked probable cause / arguable probable cause for arrest and prosecution (false arrest and malicious prosecution under § 1983) | Boyler contends his speech was protected, so there was no probable cause | Defendants contend the content (directed, vulgar, punitive language) gave reasonably trustworthy information supporting probable cause | Court: Actual probable cause (and at minimum arguable probable cause) existed under then-applicable statute; qualified immunity; false arrest and malicious prosecution claims dismissed |
| Whether officers failed to intercede to prevent constitutional violations | Boyler contends liability for failure-to-intercede based on the arrest and alleged force | Defendants note no constitutional violation occurred, officers were not present at arrest, and any force was de minimis | Court: Failure-to-intercede claim fails because underlying arrest/prosecution supported by probable cause and no excessive force; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether assault and battery claims (federal and state) are viable | Boyler alleges assault/battery during arrest | Defendants argue federal common-law assault/battery claims are not cognizable under § 1983; any force was minimal (handcuff discomfort); officers were not personally involved in the arrest | Court: Federal assault/battery claims dismissed (not cognizable under § 1983); New York claims dismissed because arrest was lawful and no excessive force; City not vicariously liable after individual claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (framework for analyzing constitutional violation prong of qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (officers may be liable despite prosecutor/magistrate approval if no reasonably competent officer would conclude arrest lawful)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (high threshold for denying qualified immunity where error is obvious)
- People v. Golb, 23 N.Y.3d 455 (N.Y. Ct. App. decision striking down the § 240.30(1)(a) provision as facially unconstitutional)
- People v. Mangano, 100 N.Y.2d 569 (distinguishing proscribable speech; court recognized limits but did not declare statute invalid)
- Barboza v. D'Agata, [citation="676 F. App'x 9"] (2d Cir. 2017) (pre-Golb law did not clearly establish First Amendment right at issue; officers entitled to qualified immunity)
- Pacherille v. Muehl, [citation="619 F. App'x 18"] (2d Cir.) (communications on a website could support probable cause; officers entitled to qualified immunity)