Jean-Laurent v. Hennessy, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122767

Pro se plaintiff Phillip Jean-Laurent sues NYPD officers Hennessy, John Doe, and Sergeant O’Donnell under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 plus state tort claims arising from a June 11, 2002 arrest.
Motions in limine were filed by both sides to preclude specific evidence at trial under Fed. R. Evid. Rules 401-402, 403, 404, 602, 608, 609, 801, 802 and 902; ruling is partial grant/partial denial.
Case history includes filing in 2005, transfer to EDNY, amended complaint in 2005, partial summary-judgment denial in 2008, and extended discovery into 2009; proceedings reference a Wilkinson action related to a later strip-search.
Judge Bianco previously granted partial summary judgment in 2008, leaving excessive-force, unreasonable-search/strip-search claims and certain NY tort claims live.
Plaintiff’s damages claims include emotional distress; defendants seek to limit evidence from prior discipline, rap sheets, prior lawsuits, and other acts to minimize prejudice.
The court later addresses admissibility issues, including whether to remove a John Doe defendant, and sets scope for later trial instructions and evidentiary limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of old felony convictions	Convictions over ten years old should be admissible with notice.	Rule 609(b) requires substantial outweighing of probative value by prejudice.	Plaintiff's motion granted; old felonies excluded.
Admissibility of prior misdemeanor conviction from 2002 arrest	Misdemeanor conviction is marginally relevant and prejudicial; should be barred.	Conviction relevant to assess credibility and context of arrest/strip-search.	Plaintiff's motion granted; misdemeanor conviction excluded.
Admissibility of Rap Sheet as character evidence	Rap Sheet is irrelevant and prejudicial; should be excluded.	Rap Sheet could be used as business record and for damages due to prior contacts.	Decision reserved; court to assess probative value vs. prejudice; not admitted yet.
Admissibility of possession of crack cocaine on arrest day	Evidence of drug possession is irrelevant to reasonableness of search.	Drug possession is highly relevant to reasonable suspicion for strip search.	Denied; evidence of possession is admissible and consistent with stipulation.
Evidence of Wilkinson action / prior lawsuits	Prior lawsuits should be broadly precluded as unfair prejudice.	Some Wilkinson Action details may be probative and limited use permissible.	Partial grant: limit Wilkinson evidence to specific aspects; broad references precluded.

Bryant v. City of New York, 404 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2005) (relevance of evidence to objective reasonableness in excessive-force cases)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (factors for determining reasonableness of force during arrest)
Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2008) (reasonable-suspicion standard; objective assessment of circumstances)
Varrone v. Bilotti, 123 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1997) (defining reasonable suspicion as more than a hunch but less than probable cause)
Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986) (context for probable cause/reasonable suspicion analyses)
DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (Supreme Court 2011) (drug-seizure considerations and probative value of drug-type evidence)
N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004) (upholding routine strip searches in certain contexts; relevance to appellate review)
United States v. Brennan, 798 F.2d 581 (2d Cir. 1986) (broad discretion to admit extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) with 403 balancing)