222 F. Supp. 3d 141
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- On Dec. 20, 2011 Colby Fiedler was arrested in Suffolk County after off‑duty Nassau PD officer Michael Incandela followed a Kia he believed matched surveillance of a prior package theft and reported his observations to Suffolk PD.
- Suffolk officers searched 669 S. 6th St. with homeowner consent, found packages the owners said were stolen, and arrested Fiedler based on Incandela’s ID and property owners’ affidavits.
- Suffolk officers prepared misdemeanor informations charging Fiedler with criminal possession of stolen property (N.Y. Penal Law §165.40); charges were later dropped by the Suffolk DA after investigation.
- Fiedler sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and New York law against Incandela, several Suffolk officers, and both counties, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, conspiracy, negligence, and municipal liability.
- Suffolk defendants moved for summary judgment (unopposed by Fiedler); Nassau/Incandela moved as well (opposed). The court granted both motions in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Incandela acting under color of state law (§1983) when he reported/followed the vehicle? | Incandela coordinated response, followed vehicle, identified Fiedler — thus acted as an officer. | He was off‑duty, remained in his car, did not use uniform, badge, weapons, or police powers; he merely reported observations as a private citizen. | Incandela was not acting under color of law; §1983 claims against Nassau/Incandela dismissed. |
| Was there probable cause for arrest/false arrest? | Fiedler disputes having moved packages; argues identification may be false so no probable cause. | Officers had Incandela’s ID plus homeowner affidavits and recovered packages; probable cause existed. | Probable cause existed; false arrest claims dismissed. |
| Malicious prosecution: lack of probable cause and malice? | Incandela knowingly made false allegations and instigated prosecution; plaintiff points to inconsistencies. | Probable cause existed at arrest and no post‑arrest exculpatory information was known; Incandela merely supplied information and did not initiate prosecution or act with malice. | Malicious prosecution claim fails (probable cause/no malice; Incandela did not initiate prosecution). |
| Municipal liability (Monell) / negligent hiring/training/supervision? | Counties liable for officers’ conduct and failures in training/supervision. | No underlying constitutional violation by state actors (or Incandela not acting under color); no policy/custom shown. | Municipal and negligent‑supervision claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal §1983 liability requires a governmental policy or custom)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (probable cause may be based on victim/eyewitness reports absent reasons to doubt veracity)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements of false arrest and examples of state‑action factors)
- Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2000) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
- Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 1994) (off‑duty officer not necessarily acting under color of law; look to nature of acts)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) (probable cause is a complete defense to false arrest)
- United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (state authority element: action made possible because actor was clothed with state authority)
- American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (conduct must be under color of law to fall within §1983)