Kerr v. Morrison, 664 F. App'x 48

On Nov. 4, 2011, Donald Kerr accepted and signed for a suspicious mailed package addressed to a name the officers believed fictitious at an address that serviced his office; postal inspectors had an active investigation into similar packages from California containing drugs.
The package displayed several indicia of illicit drug shipment: excessive tape, same origin area, fictitious return/addressee, and a mailing-label sequence matching a prior suspicious package.
Postal Inspectors Morrison and Moriarty stopped and detained Kerr, handcuffed him briefly, and a drug-detection dog alerted on the parcel.
A grand jury returned no indictment; Kerr’s laptop (seized pursuant to warrant) was retained by municipal officers and later returned after Kerr emailed a request.
Kerr sued under § 1983 (and Bivens as to federal officers) for false arrest and unlawful retention of his laptop; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether initial stop was lawful (reasonable suspicion)	Kerr: officers lacked reasonable suspicion tying him to criminal activity	Defs: totality of facts about the package and Kerr’s conduct justified a Terry stop	Court: Stop supported by reasonable suspicion based on package indicia and Kerr’s acceptance of it
Whether handcuffing converted stop to arrest requiring probable cause	Kerr: handcuffing made it an arrest; no probable cause existed then	Defs: either had arguable probable cause or are protected by qualified immunity	Court: even if arrest, officers entitled to qualified immunity for brief handcuffing during the investigatory stop
Whether dog alert and other facts supplied probable cause for arrest/search	Kerr: dog alert didn’t tie him to package; no probable cause for arrest	Defs: dog alert plus his conduct created probable cause to search package and arrest Kerr	Court: Dog alert plus prior facts and Kerr’s actions established probable cause for warrant and arrest
Whether retention of laptop after no-bill violated due process	Kerr: Municipal Defs unreasonably retained laptop after grand jury no-bill	Defs: laptop was returned within seven days of Kerr’s email; no constitutional violation	Court: No due-process violation; return occurred quickly and plaintiff showed no more than negligence

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard under totality of circumstances)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes investigative stops on reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir.) (upheld handcuffing incident to stop)
United States v. Bailey, 743 F.3d 322 (2d Cir.) (clarified suspicion needed to justify handcuffing)
Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (innocent explanation does not negate probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause analyzed under the ‘totality of the circumstances’)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified-immunity standard)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified-immunity framework)
Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 177 (2d Cir.) (mere negligence insufficient for due-process deprivation)