662 F. App'x 11
2d Cir.2016Background
- On June 24, 2011 Cabral was stopped, his vehicle searched, and a small quantity of marijuana was discovered; he was arrested and charged under N.Y. Penal Law § 221.10 (later charged under § 221.05).
- Cabral sued the City, NYPD and Officer Tyrone Thompson asserting federal and state claims: false arrest (after initial detention), malicious prosecution, unlawful seizure of property, and an unlawful strip search in jail.
- At trial Cabral received damages for the arrest, a nominal award for the search, and punitive damages; he does not contest those trial results on appeal.
- On summary judgment the district court granted partial judgment for the City and Officer Thompson on the post-discovery false arrest claim, malicious prosecution, property seizure, and refused to allow an unpleaded strip-search claim.
- Cabral appealed only the pre-trial partial summary-judgment rulings; the Second Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and affirms the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest after marijuana discovery | Seizure arose from illegal search; federal and state false arrest claims therefore survive | Under Townes, unlawfully discovered evidence may support collateral prosecutions; Martinez gives NY law reasoned basis for same defense; probable cause justified arrest | Affirmed: federal claim barred by Townes; state claim defeated by Martinez/qualified immunity alternative |
| Whether marijuana quantity barred custodial arrest | §150.75 permits only appearance tickets for marijuana possession; custodial arrest not authorized for small amounts | NY courts locate custodial arrest authority in §140.10; §150.75 applies only when no other offense charged and does not apply here | Affirmed for defendants: arrest lawful under §140.10 and facts charged fell outside §150.75 scope |
| Seizure of van and cash / procedural due process | Retention of property and delay in return violated due process | Probable cause for arrest justified seizure; return of property in Jan 2012 and mere requests for hearings insufficient to show constitutional deprivation | Affirmed: property-seizure claim dismissed; procedural due process claim not pleaded and insufficiently supported |
| Malicious prosecution | Marijuana from an unlawful search cannot supply probable cause to defeat malicious prosecution | No evidence Officer Thompson played an active role in prosecution; Thompson provided accurate account; prosecutor did not consult him; malicious-prosecution requires lack of probable cause and active role | Affirmed for defendants: claim fails because Thompson had no active role in prosecution decisions |
| Unpleaded strip search claim | Strip-search occurred in jail and violated Fourth Amendment; deposition and letters put defendants on notice | Complaint did not mention strip search; notice pleading requires adequate notice; plaintiff never sought to amend before summary judgment | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to allow the unpleaded strip-search claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999) (unlawfully discovered evidence may support subsequent prosecution and defeats federal false-arrest damages for consequences of prosecution)
- Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78 (N.Y. 2001) (probable cause is a legal justification and affirmative defense to false imprisonment even if evidence was suppressed)
- Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2003) (evidence that would be clearly inadmissible cannot establish probable cause to defeat malicious prosecution)
- Bermudez v. City of New York, 790 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2015) (police generally do not commence or continue prosecutions; malicious prosecution requires an officer’s active role)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of malicious prosecution under federal and New York law)
- Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2004) (claimant must show more than negligence to establish constitutional deprivation in procedural-due-process context)