Sakoc v. Carlson
656 F. App'x 573
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- On March 5, 2010, Vermont State Trooper Timothy Carlson stopped Fata Sakoc for a defective headlight and conducted field sobriety tests late at night on Route 15.
- Carlson concluded Sakoc was impaired by a drug (not alcohol), gave an Alco-Sensor (breath) test which Sakoc passed, but nonetheless arrested her for driving under the influence of a non-alcoholic drug.
- At the station and hospital Sakoc tested negative on blood tests for alcohol and drugs; the DWI charge was later dismissed.
- Sakoc sued Carlson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest (Fourth Amendment). The district court granted Carlson qualified immunity on summary judgment.
- The parties disputed many facts from the stop (slurred speech, odor of alcohol, confusion, performance on tests); the district court relied on a limited set of undisputed facts (some imperfect performance on field sobriety tests and a corroborating officer’s opinion).
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that material factual disputes precluded resolution of qualified immunity on summary judgment because no reasonable officer could have had arguable probable cause based solely on the minimal, conceded defects in the field sobriety performance and the disputed evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlson had probable cause (or arguable probable cause) to arrest Sakoc under 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(3) for impairment by a drug | Two minor "clues" on field sobriety tests plus disputed observations did not establish probable cause; no reasonable officer could conclude impairment by drugs | Carlson had reasonable (arguable) basis: imperfect field sobriety performance, officer observations, corroboration from another officer; qualified immunity protects him | Vacated district court judgment and remanded: disputed material facts and the minimal, conceded clues mean no reasonable officer could have had arguable probable cause based solely on the test video/audio; jury must resolve credibility and disputed facts |
| Whether qualified immunity applied | Sakoc: disputed facts and lack of clearly established law meant immunity improper on summary judgment | Carlson: even if facts disputed, officers of reasonable competence could disagree, so qualified immunity applies | The court rejected summary judgment for immunity because factual disputes and weak basis for probable cause precluded resolving immunity at this stage |
| Whether field sobriety tests are relevant to non-alcohol drug impairment | Sakoc: Vermont law had not established that such tests reliably indicate drug impairment; relevance disputed | Carlson: field sobriety tests can be considered (Vermont recognizes them for alcohol impairment); reasonable officers could rely on them | Court: law was undeveloped; officers could disagree on relevance, but here the minimal test clues were insufficient on summary judgment |
| Proper standard for reviewing qualified immunity on summary judgment | Sakoc: facts must be construed in her favor and credibility questions for jury | Carlson: objective-reasonableness/arguable probable cause standard allows summary judgment | Court: applied de novo review; because material disputes exist, credibility and probable-cause determinations must go to the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity standards)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishing qualified immunity framework)
- Mangino v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 808 F.3d 951 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (officers of reasonable competence could disagree)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (arguable-lawfulness and objective reasonableness in qualified immunity)
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006) (look to state law for § 1983 false-arrest probable-cause analysis)