Mitchell v. the City of New York
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19447
2d Cir.2016Background
- In December 2010 Lt. Caesar entered 2142 Atlantic Avenue (a brownstone) believing it abandoned after observing sparse furnishings and signs of prior use; she later drove by on patrol. A realtor "for-sale" sign was present.
- On January 9, 2011 officers encountered a party at the brownstone with ~30 people, DJ equipment, functioning utilities, and extension cords from another property; officers smelled marijuana and some testified they saw small drug packets.
- Captain Gulotta ordered mass arrests of everyone present for trespass, narcotics loitering, and endangering the welfare of a child; arrests were largely justified by officers’ belief the building was abandoned or part of the NYPD FTAP (beliefs later conceded mistaken).
- Arrestees, including Melinda and Harvey Mitchell, were processed; Melinda received a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) and Harvey’s charges were later dropped on an ACD. Melinda alleged tight handcuffing caused bruising.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, excessive force, and municipal liability; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed all claims. On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed the record for genuine disputes of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for trespass / False arrest | Arrests lacked individualized probable cause because officers failed to verify ownership or FTAP status; for-sale sign and signs of use undercut abandonment inference | Officers had reason to believe building was abandoned or FTAP-controlled; interior observations (extension cords, silence, drug smell) supported arrests | Vacated dismissal — genuine issue of material fact exists whether officers had probable cause; remanded false arrest claim |
| Qualified immunity (false arrest) | Officers were not objectively reasonable in relying on unverified assumptions | Officers claim objectively reasonable basis for arrests | Left open for district court on remand; defendants bear burden to show objective reasonableness |
| Malicious prosecution (Melinda) | DAT commenced prosecution; no probable cause; terminated in plaintiff's favor | DAT issuance not motivated by malice | Affirmed dismissal — elements met except malice; plaintiff produced no evidence of malice |
| Abuse of process | Arrests were retaliatory and aimed at a collateral purpose beyond prosecution | Arrests were to effectuate criminal process only | Affirmed dismissal — no evidence defendants sought a collateral purpose beyond prosecution |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | Mass arrest reflects unconstitutional practice or policy of NYPD causing violation | Single incident absent evidence of policy or custom; no municipal policymaker causation | Affirmed dismissal — plaintiffs presented no evidence of an unconstitutional municipal policy or practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause assessed from perspective of a reasonable officer considering historical facts)
- Jenkins v. City of N.Y., 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (existence of probable cause is a complete defense to § 1983 false arrest)
- Kinzer v. Jackson, 316 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements of malicious prosecution under federal and New York law)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy or custom and causation)
- Stampf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 761 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2014) (issuance of a DAT can commence a prosecution for malicious prosecution claims)
- Colon v. City of N.Y., 455 N.E.2d 1248 (N.Y. 1983) (failure to make a further inquiry when reasonable may show lack of probable cause)
- Davis v. City of N.Y., 902 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (discussing burden to prove lack of license/privilege for trespass under New York law)