Costello v. Milano, 20 F. Supp. 3d 406

Plaintiff (SUNY Purchase student) was stopped after officers Milano and Sanchez approached his parked car late at night; officers observed signs consistent with intoxication and smelled/alleged marijuana.
Officers searched the vehicle; they recovered a marijuana cigar, a glassine envelope of marijuana, and drug paraphernalia; plaintiff disputes some aspects (placement/ownership) but admits some items were found.
Plaintiff was handcuffed, transported to the campus station, failed field sobriety tests, and registered .08 BAC on a breathalyzer; charges for DWAI/DWI and unlawful possession of marijuana were filed; charges later withdrawn by the DA.
Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution against Officers Milano and Sanchez; defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court treated disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor (e.g., timing of handcuffing) but evaluated whether officers had (arguable) probable cause and whether defendants initiated prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False arrest — whether arrest was privileged (probable cause)	Banks was arrested before marijuana was found; no probable cause to arrest for operation or possession	Officers had observations (bloodshot eyes, alcohol odor, poor coordination, keys present) that gave (arguable) probable cause to arrest for operating while impaired	Dismissed: officers had arguable probable cause to arrest for operating while impaired; false arrest claim fails
Malicious prosecution — initiation by Officer Sanchez	Sanchez participated and thus initiated prosecution	Sanchez did not initiate or participate in prosecution; no contact with DA	Dismissed as to Sanchez: no evidence Sanchez initiated prosecution
Malicious prosecution — initiation by Officer Milano	Milano submitted false/misleading reports to DA, creating causal link despite DA action	Milano signed charging instruments and forwarded facts to DA; probable cause existed regardless	Dismissed as to Milano: Milano initiated prosecution but probable cause (and later BAC/field tests) defeated malicious prosecution claim
Qualified immunity	Plaint iff argues rights were violated	Defendants claim qualified immunity because conduct was objectively reasonable/arguable probable cause existed	Defendants entitled to judgment: officers had arguable probable cause; qualified immunity bars liability

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and credibility/inference rules)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (objective probable cause focuses on validity of arrest, not officer’s stated offense)
Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006) (arrest valid if probable cause for any offense exists)
Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (officer not required to eliminate every plausible innocence theory)
Manganiello v. City of N.Y., 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of malicious prosecution under New York law)
Savino v. City of N.Y., 331 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2003) (knowledge by one arresting officer imputed to others)
Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1991) (probable cause as defense to malicious prosecution)