158 F. Supp. 3d 67
D. Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiff Alexander Cotto (a small-statured, Spanish‑speaking, cognitively limited man) was stopped for traffic violations and subjected to an approximately one‑hour search by Lt. Richard Davis and three other Middletown officers.
- During the encounter Davis performed multiple pat‑downs, used a narcotics canine that alerted to Cotto’s clothing, removed Cotto’s jeans and shoes, pulled down his pajama/sweatpants sufficiently to expose his buttocks/genitals, conducted a visual inspection with a flashlight, and manually felt Cotto’s bare buttocks/genitals with an ungloved hand; no contraband or weapons were found.
- The strip/search occurred on a public street in view of bystanders and passing traffic; officers made no effort to shield Cotto, and several officers laughed and Davis used a racial slur.
- Jury verdict: found unreasonable search (against Davis), failure to intervene (against Buller, Tetrault, Schreiner), invasion of privacy (against all), awarded $1,000 nominal and $60,000 punitive damages apportioned among the defendants.
- Defendants renewed a Rule 50(b) motion arguing insufficient evidence for Fourth Amendment violations, failure to intervene, malicious intent for punitive damages, and argued qualified immunity; the court denied the motion but reduced punitive damages by remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s strip/search violated the Fourth Amendment | Cotto: the strip search (visual + reach‑and‑feel/manual touching) was performed in an unreasonable manner and place (public, prolonged, ungloved manual search, no privacy) | Defendants: any strip search was justified by reasonable suspicion/probable cause (traffic stop, canine alerts); manner/location reasonable or exigent | Court: search could be reasonable in scope, but manner/place (public strip search, ungloved manual search, no shielding) was unreasonable; jury verdict sustained |
| Whether bystanding officers (Buller, Tetrault, Schreiner) failed to intervene in violation of §1983 | Cotto: officers had realistic opportunity, knew rights were violated (laughed/observed) and did nothing to stop or shield him | Defendants: no duty/insufficient evidence they had realistic opportunity or that violation was obvious | Court: officers had opportunity and should have known; failure to intervene violated §1983; verdict sustained |
| Whether punitive damages were supported and in proper amount | Cotto: conduct (racial slur, humiliation, ungloved touching, refusal to provide privacy) showed malice/wantonness warranting punitive damages | Defendants: insufficient evidence of malice; damages excessive | Court: punitive damages supported by malice/reprehensibility but award excessive; court reduced amounts by remittitur (Davis −$25,000; each other officer −$2,500) or new damages trial if refused |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Cotto: law clearly established that public strip searches without exigent circumstances and ungloved manual searches are unconstitutional; officers not reasonable to believe conduct lawful | Defendants: law not clearly established re: public strip searches; actions objectively reasonable given canine alerts and safety concerns | Court: right was clearly established; officers of reasonable competence could not have believed conduct lawful; qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- This Is Me, Inc. v. Taylor, 157 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard for judgment as a matter of law / deference to jury)
- Galdieri‑Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (Rule 50 review; cannot weigh credibility)
- LeBlanc‑Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 1995) (trial court may not substitute its judgment for jury)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest doctrine and its limits)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (reasonableness balancing test for searches, considering scope, manner, justification, and place)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) (limits on searches incident to citation/arrest)
- Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) (public strip searches are highly intrusive and subject to close scrutiny)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity principles; discussion of clearly established law)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (guideposts for excessiveness of punitive damages)