Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady
728 F.3d 149
2d Cir.2013Background
- Gonzalez sued the City and County of Schenectady and three officers under §1983 and state law for false arrest and an unlawful visual body cavity search.
- Gonzalez’s remark to a confidential informant via wire—“What’s up? I can get you whatever you need”—occurred during a buy-and-bust operation.
- Gonzalez was arrested, brought to the station, and subjected to a visual body cavity search revealing a protruding bag containing crack cocaine.
- A state court later reversed the conviction, holding the cavity search unlawful under Hall (decided after the search).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on qualified immunity; the City and County claims were dismissed as vicarious liability was not pleaded against them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause to arrest Gonzalez? | Gonzalez contends facts supported probable cause to arrest for possession, sale, or attempt. | Defendants contend suspect’s statements and location could justify probable cause. | No probable cause for possession, sale, or attempt; some arguable though not definite cause. |
| Was the visual body cavity search permissible under the Fourth Amendment? | Gonzalez argues the search violated the Fourth Amendment and was not supported by reasonable suspicion. | Officers argue the search was permissible given the circumstances and evolving law. | The search was not clearly established as unlawful at the time; qualified immunity applied to the officers for the search. |
| Whether the right to be free from a suspicionless body cavity search was clearly established for felony arrestees? | Rule was clearly established that such searches require heightened individualized suspicion. | The law was unsettled and there was arguable ambiguity for felony arrestees. | Right was clearly established or foreshadowed; majority found it not clearly established; dissent would reverse. |
| Does Gonzalez’s malicious prosecution claim survive? | Claims that prosecution was vindictive or improper. | Criminal case outcome negates malicious prosecution. | Malicious prosecution claim rejected since prosecution led to drugs found; no favorable disposition necessary. |
| Are the claims against City and County viable? | City/County liable under respondeat superior. | District court dismissed City/County on vicarious liability grounds. | City/County claims were properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (intrusions beyond the body’s surface require probable cause or clear indication that evidence will be found)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (balance of intrusiveness, justification, and place governs body searches in detention contexts)
- Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986) (strip searches of arrestees require reasonable suspicion depending on circumstances)
- Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001) (raised concerns about whether heightened standard applies to felony arrests; later cases foreshadowed broader rule)
- People v. Hall, 10 N.Y.3d 303 (N.Y. 2008) (held that visual cavity inspections require specific articulable facts; elevated standard for body cavity searches)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (U.S. 2012) (upheld blanket visual body cavity searches for inmates in certain contexts; clarifies limits of blanket policies)