Penree Ex Rel. Penree v. City of Utica
694 F. App'x 30
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are D.‑M.W., a minor, and his father Daniel Penree; defendants are Utica police officers who entered Penree’s home without a warrant and used a taser during an arrest.
- Officers entered Penree’s residence without a warrant; Penree was inside, holding a small child; officers had seen the child on the porch and were told the child appeared fine.
- Officers allegedly planned to use a taser before entry; Penree retreated upstairs holding the child and closed the door; officers forcibly entered, tasered him without warning, and arrested him.
- District court denied defendants qualified immunity on claims including false arrest, unlawful entry, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and substantive due process.
- Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Second Circuit reviews legal questions de novo but dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging denial as to false arrest for lack of jurisdiction (evidence-sufficiency grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for false arrest | Penree lacked probable cause; arrest unlawful | Officers assert they had sufficient basis and are entitled to qualified immunity | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (district court denial was fact-based) |
| Warrantless entry into home (Fourth Amendment) | Entry was unlawful and not justified by exigent circumstances | Entry justified by exigent circumstances (hot pursuit, emergency aid, fleeing suspect) | Warrantless entry unconstitutional here; no exigent circumstances; qualified immunity denied |
| Excessive force (use of taser) | Tasering non‑resisting, non‑fleeing arrestee holding a child without warning was unconstitutional | Use was reasonable under circumstances; claim is factbound | Use of taser without warning against nonviolent, nonresisting arrestee in officers’ unlawful presence violated clearly established law; qualified immunity denied |
| Malicious prosecution (post‑arrest charging) | No probable cause to prosecute Penree for charged offenses | Charges were supported by officers’ assessment | No reasonable officer could conclude probable cause existed; qualified immunity denied |
| Substantive due process (child’s rights) | Officers’ conduct violated child’s substantive due process rights | Officers invoke Okin to argue conflict with domestic‑violence intervention duties | Okin did not undermine Fourth Amendment or provide qualified immunity; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (establishes appealability of denial of qualified immunity in part)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (summary judgment qualified immunity two‑part inquiry; view facts in plaintiff’s favor)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (discretion in order of qualified immunity prongs)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (do not define clearly established law at high level; need particularized precedent)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry presumptively unreasonable absent exigency)
- Okin v. Vill. of Cornwall‑on‑Hudson Police Dep’t, 577 F.3d 415 (domestic‑violence intervention duties—does not authorize warrantless entry)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (separate analysis for objective reasonableness and qualified immunity)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force objective reasonableness standard)
- Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72 (probable cause standard for malicious prosecution)