McColley v. County of Rensselaer
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1124
2d Cir.2014Background
- Rensselaer County and Riley appeal a district court denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity for omissions in the warrant affidavit for 396 First Street.
- Riley sought four no-knock search warrants in Troy based on information from a confidential informant with a prior reliable record.
- Omissions included McColley’s identity as the resident and surveillance that showed no criminal activity at her apartment.
- McColley woke to a no-knock entry by Troy ERT; officers seized only a few bills and a college registration, with no drugs or weapons found.
- The district court found material questions of fact about probable cause and denied Riley’s qualified-immunity defense.
- This interlocutory appeal challenges whether the denial can be reviewed and, if so, whether ommissions defeat qualified immunity as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of qualified immunity is appealable | McColley argues the district court’s denial rested on factual disputes, precluding immunity review. | Riley contends the law can be decided based on the corrected affidavits regardless of disputed facts. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether omissions from the warrant affidavit were 'necessary to the finding of probable cause' | Omissions about McColley’s identity and surveillance undermine probable cause. | Omissions do not necessarily defeat probable cause; corrected affidavit could still support it. | Material questions of fact preclude wholesale resolution; cannot review immunity on this record. |
| Whether a corrected affidavit would demonstrate probable cause as a matter of law | Even with omissions, the corrected affidavit would fail to establish probable cause. | A corrected affidavit could establish probable cause, making the warrant valid. | Dependent on factual weight; unresolved, so review is not proper at this stage. |
| Whether no-knock entry was justified by reasonable suspicion or arguable probable cause | No-knock was unwarranted given the residence’s occupant and lack of observed crime. | Corrected facts could support reasonable suspicion or arguable probable cause. | Disputed facts on firearms and danger preclude ruling as a matter of law; jury needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Velardi v. Walsh, 40 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 1994) (probable cause review via corrected affidavits; doubtful cases require jury)
- Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 2004) (corrected affidavits; arguable probable cause; summary judgment framework)
- Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) (weight of omitted information is a mixed question; jury may decide)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (arguable probable cause; distinction of corrective affidavit weight)
- Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (corrected affidavit analysis; probable cause after correction)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1997) (no-knock entry requires reasonable suspicion of danger or evidence destruction)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 115 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (corrected-affidavit approach to probable cause)
- Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (jury when material disputes about probable cause; applicability to qualified immunity)