Brown v. City of New York
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14517
2d Cir.2015Background
- In pre-dawn hours after an Occupy Wall Street event, Brown went to a closed Starbucks looking for a bathroom; the store manager called 911 reporting people banging on doors and making "nasty comments."
- Officers Naimoli and Plevritis responded; Brown approached their patrol car asking for a bathroom; after a curt exchange she refused to provide ID when requested.
- Officer Plevritis grabbed Brown, announced an arrest for disorderly conduct, and a physical struggle ensued: Brown was taken to the ground, had one wrist handcuffed, and resisted while trying to retain personal items and pull down her skirt.
- During the struggle, Plevritis twice sprayed pepper spray in Brown’s face; officers completed handcuffing, transported her to the station, and the criminal complaint was later dismissed.
- Brown sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest (Fourth Amendment), excessive force (Fourth Amendment), and First Amendment retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the officers and the City.
- On appeal the Second Circuit: affirmed dismissal of the false arrest (on qualified immunity) and First Amendment claims, but reversed and remanded the excessive force claim for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (probable cause) | Brown argued officers lacked probable cause and unlawfully arrested her for disorderly conduct. | Officers argued they had arguable/collective probable cause based on the 911 report and their observations; qualified immunity shields them. | Held for defendants: qualified immunity applies because pooled information (911 + on-scene) gave at least arguable probable cause. |
| Excessive force (use of pepper spray and takedown) | Brown argued force was excessive given minor nature of offense, lack of threat, and less-aggressive alternatives. | Officers argued Brown actively resisted, warnings were given, pepper spray and takedown were reasonable to subdue resistance. | Remanded: disputed facts and Graham balancing preclude summary judgment; jury must decide reasonableness of force. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Brown claimed arrest was retaliation for attending Occupy protest. | Defendants argued no evidence linking arrest to protected activity. | Held for defendants: retaliation claim dismissed for lack of evidence. |
| Qualified immunity to initial seizure/ID request | Brown contended she could refuse to produce ID and the initial grab was unlawful. | Officers argued they had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop and qualified immunity protects the initial seizure. | Held for defendants: qualified immunity defeats damages claim for the initial detention/ID request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct.) (sets the Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test for use of force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct.) (video evidence may control at summary judgment if undisputed)
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.) (probable cause inquiry may rest on offense other than that invoked by arresting officer)
- Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir.) (collective or imputed knowledge doctrine for probable cause)
- Sullivan v. Gagnier, 225 F.3d 161 (2d Cir.) (resistance may justify some force but does not license unlimited force)
- Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.) (pepper spray near face can be excessive if arrestee already subdued)