509 F. App'x 101
2d Cir.2013Background
- Pane was detained on January 21, 2006 after a marked police car with turret lights blocked her parked car and a spotlight directed inside her vehicle; the stop occurred without an arrest.
- Gramaglia observed Pane at the edge of a drug-prone housing site and claimed to see smoke from her car, which he associated with marijuana use.
- Pane had a ticket for a 9:20 p.m. movie when the stop occurred, suggesting possible movement or exit from the vehicle.
- Pane disputes Gramaglia’s observations, asserting they could not have witnessed marijuana smoking and that she had ceased such activity earlier.
- The district court denied Gramaglia’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, and the Second Circuit addressed whether the appeal could resolve disputed-fact immunity questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pane was seized and required reasonable suspicion | Pane argues there was a seizure that demanded reasonable suspicion | Gramaglia argues facts show reasonable suspicion for the stop | No purely legal basis found; if facts credited to Pane, no reasonable suspicion |
| Whether Gramaglia is entitled to qualified immunity given disputed facts | Pane contends immunity cannot apply due to disputed facts | Gramaglia contends immunity should apply; facts are disputed | Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputed facts; if viewed in Pane’s version, no qualified immunity |
| Whether the second circuit may review the immunity decision given disputed facts | Pane contends interlocutory review is improper due to factual disputes | Gramaglia seeks review under the pure-law exception to interlocutory review | Court preserves lack of jurisdiction to review disputed facts; affirms on the record viewed in Pane’s light |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (established seizure requires reasonable suspicion for brief detention)
- United States v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 1980) (seizure when police block rear of suspect's vehicle)
- People v. May, 81 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1992) (required reasonable suspicion for seizure under New York law)
- People v. Lopez, 75 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (police blocking exit constitutes a stop)
- Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir. 2002) (limits interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity when facts are disputed)
- Holeman v. City of New London, 425 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2005) (establishes whether a right is clearly established for immunity)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (discussed as a context for seizure and movement-related detention)