Figueroa v. Mazza
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- In June 2010 disturbing photos of a naked toddler (date-stamped, with a money order and newspaper) were developed at a Duane Reade; pharmacy staff notified police. Officers considered kidnapping, child pornography, or trafficking.
- Police linked the incident to Shirley Saenz and her son; Saenz had previously taken naked "before-and-after" photos of the child to document alleged abuse and had complained to police earlier in June. Samuel (a spiritual advisor) had assisted Saenz and filed a complaint about the police response.
- Samuel’s phone number was used to call Duane Reade repeatedly to request cancellation/deletion of the photo order. Officers located Samuel at his mother’s Manhattan apartment on June 30, 2010; detectives entered, led him outside, and placed him in an unmarked car.
- While in the cruiser an unidentified officer allegedly assaulted Samuel (punching, choking); two officers seated in front (Failla and Chan) did not intervene. Samuel was arrested for endangering the welfare of a child; the charge was later dropped.
- Procedural posture: Samuel sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for false arrest, excessive force/assault, failure to intervene, and unlawful entry. The jury found for Samuel on several counts, but the district court granted Rule 50(b) judgment for defendants on those claims; district court earlier granted summary judgment to defendants on unlawful entry. Samuel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (probable cause / qualified immunity) | Samuel: officers lost probable cause after learning of Saenz’s prior explanation and Romero’s statement that Saenz and child were together; arrest unlawful. | Defs: facts known (disturbing photos, date indicators, repeated cancellation calls from Samuel’s number, connections between Samuel and Saenz) gave (arguable) probable cause; qualified immunity protects them. | Held: AFFIRMED as to false arrest — officers entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officers could have concluded probable cause existed. |
| Excessive force / state assault | Samuel: force used in arrest and subsequent assault violated Fourth Amendment / state law. | Defs: force used to escort Samuel (grip/push) was minimal and lawful; separate alleged assault was by unidentified officer and not attributable to Karolkowski/Failla; no malicious intent. | Held: AFFIRMED — force during arrest was reasonable as a matter of law; district court properly entered judgment for defendants on excessive force/assault claims against Karolkowski and Failla. |
| Failure to intervene | Samuel: Failla and Chan observed the cruiser assault and failed to stop it; they had realistic opportunity to intervene. | Defs: assault was too brief (district court found ~10–20 seconds) to allow intervention; thus no liability. | Held: VACATED as to failure-to-intervene claims — genuine factual disputes (duration, eyewitness testimony, officers’ ability to intercede) require jury resolution. |
| Unlawful entry into mother’s apartment (standing) | Samuel: he frequently stayed at his mother’s home (about three nights/week) and had a legitimate expectation of privacy; entry required warrant/consent. | Defs: Samuel was not a resident or overnight guest at the time; lacked reasonable expectation of privacy; entry lawful. | Held: VACATED as to unlawful-entry summary judgment — reasonable juror could find Samuel had a legitimate expectation of privacy; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (establishes qualified immunity standard for officers relying on probable cause)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable cause for any crime defeats false arrest claim)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force reasonableness balancing)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (overnight guest may have legitimate expectation of privacy in host’s home)
- Zalaski v. City of Hartford, 723 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2013) (arguable probable cause / qualified immunity standard articulated)
- Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 2004) (probable cause definition)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing lawbreakers)