Dukore v. District of Columbia
970 F. Supp. 2d 23
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Samuel Dukore and Kelly Canavan, Occupy D.C. participants, set up a tent on a D.C. public sidewalk around 10:00 p.m. on February 13, 2012 as part of a protest.
- MPD officers warned plaintiffs to remove the tent; after plaintiffs refused, officers consulted a DCRA inspector who advised the tent violated D.C. Municipal Regs. tit. 24 § 121.1; plaintiffs were arrested and their tent was taken.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations and civil conspiracy; they also asserted D.C. common-law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment and conversion of the tent.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for individual officers and arguing plaintiffs failed to state several constitutional and common-law claims.
- The court granted dismissal (or qualified immunity) on First and Fourth Amendment claims, Fifth Amendment procedural due process, civil conspiracy, false arrest and false imprisonment; it denied dismissal on conversion but plaintiffs elected to dismiss that claim without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment — arrest/seizure in retaliation for protest | Arrest and taking of tent retaliated against expressive activity; tent was expressive as part of Occupy | Officers reasonably relied on D.C. Reg §121.1 and thus did not violate clearly established First Amendment rights | Officers entitled to qualified immunity: reasonable to rely on §121.1; probable cause to arrest; seizure of single tent permissible after arrest |
| First Amendment — seizure of tent as protected expressive material | Tent presumptively protected; full seizure requires more than probable cause | Seizure of a single tent after valid arrest is like seizing one copy of a book — permitted on probable cause | Qualified immunity: taking single tent did not violate First Amendment based on probable cause |
| Fourth Amendment — unlawful arrest / warrantless seizure | Arrest and tent seizure were unreasonable and without probable cause | Officers had probable cause to arrest for violating §121.1; seizure incident to arrest justified | Qualified immunity: arrest and seizure were objectively reasonable given belief §121.1 was violated |
| Fifth Amendment — procedural due process for property deprivation | Taking tent without notice/hearing deprived property without due process | D.C. post-deprivation statutory procedures (e.g., D.C. Code §5-119.06) provide adequate remedy | Claim dismissed: adequate post-deprivation remedies negate a federal procedural due process claim |
| §1983 civil conspiracy | Officers and DCRA conspired to deprive constitutional rights | Plaintiffs failed to plead an agreement or facts showing a conspiracy; defendants challenge sufficiency | Dismissed for failure to plead required agreement/facts (plaintiffs did not oppose this argument) |
| Common-law false arrest / false imprisonment | Arrests were unlawful | Arrests were supported by probable cause or reasonable grounds | Dismissed: probable-cause justification defeats false arrest/imprisonment claims |
| Common-law conversion (tent) | Taking and destruction of tent amounted to conversion | Defendants argued no unlawful exercise of ownership/control shown | Conversion claim adequately pleaded; court denied motion on merits but plaintiffs requested dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework permitting prong selection)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (analysis of constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (seizure of First Amendment–protected materials requires heightened scrutiny)
- Lederman v. United States, 291 F.3d 36 (officers may assume statute/regulation is valid absent gross unconstitutionality)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (qualified immunity covers reasonable mistakes of law or fact)