Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Suffolk County
87 F. Supp. 3d 386
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Task Force executed a June 3, 2011, search at 115 Broad Street, Greenport, NY, involving Julie Jackson, Elijah Jackson, and Jeffrey Jackson.
- A February 17, 2012 search at 8100 Main Street uncovered drugs in a jacket pocket, leading to Jackson and Jeffrey's arrests.
- Plaintiffs allege Fourth Amendment violations (false arrest, unlawful search, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, equal protection) and Monell claims against County Defendants (Suffolk County, DA’s Office, Task Force, Richert) and Southold Defendants (Town of Southold, SPD).
- Court grants summary judgment to Southold and County defendants in part; only Jackson’s unlawful search claim against Richert (June 3, 2011) survives to trial on disputed factual grounds; other claims are dismissed or resolved in defendants’ favor.
- Judge considers whether Richert personally participated in alleged destruction of property and whether qualified immunity applies; finds issues of fact for jury on scope/intent of the June 3 search affecting property destruction; otherwise, finds qualified immunity or lack of evidence for other claims.
- Procedural posture: motions for summary judgment filed; court on summary judgment standard concludes most claims fail as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful search: reasonableness of June 3, 2011 search | Jackson alleges gratuitous property destruction and improper search. | Defendants contend destruction was incidental to the lawful search. | Summary judgment denied on unlawful search against Richert; genuine disputes as to the search's reasonableness remain. |
| False arrest and malicious prosecution | Richert lacked probable cause and engaged in improper arrest. | There was arguable/probable cause; qualified immunity applies. | Summary judgment granted for Richert on false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution due to arguable probable cause and qualified immunity. |
| Malicious abuse of process | Abuse of process was used to pursue collateral objectives. | Insufficient evidence of collateral objective; probable cause issues control. | Summary judgment granted for defendants on abuse of process claim. |
| Equal protection | Richert or others acted with discriminatory intent. | No evidence of discriminatory intent or selective treatment. | Summary judgment granted for defendants on equal protection claim. |
| Monell/municipal liability | County/Southold liable for policy or training failures. | No evidence of policy, custom, or deliberate indifference; adequate training. | Summary judgment for municipal defendants; Monell claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. (2005)) (detention during a search is permissible; reasonable force may be used for safety)
- Weyant v. James, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) (probable cause and qualified immunity standards; collective knowledge doctrine)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective reasonableness in qualified immunity analysis)
- Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard and arguable probable cause defense to false arrest claim)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal liability for policy/custom)})