Seitz v. DeQuarto
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11025
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- In 2006, Gander Mountain reported a watch larceny; witnesses and surveillance identified a suspect resembling Mr. Seitz and a red pickup truck as getaway vehicle.
- Investigators DeQuarto and Andryshak used eyewitness descriptions, surveillance footage, and later a credit-card trace to link the suspect to Mr. Seitz and his address.
- Investigators visited the Seitz home, questioned Mr. Seitz, and obtained a jacket and shirt from the home, while he supplied alibis about watches and hats.
- A neutral judge issued a search warrant for the Seitz home based on the same facts used to justify the arrest; arrest of Mr. Seitz occurred at work before the home search.
- During arrest and processing, Seitz alleges Miranda rights were not provided and he was subjected to coercive treatment, but these claims are not central to the court’s disposition on qualified immunity.
- Eventually, another individual was tied to the theft and the State dropped the charge against Seitz; the court grants summary judgment on federal claims based on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity standard applied | Seitzes contend no probable cause existed for arrest. | Investigators had arguable or actual probable cause; qualified immunity applies. | Qualified immunity secured; no §1983 liability. |
| False arrest/unlawful imprisonment standard | Arrest without probable cause violated Fourth Amendment. | Probable cause or arguable probable cause existed. | Arrest protected by arguable probable cause; no liability. |
| Malicious prosecution element | State acted with malice and lack of probable cause. | No abuse of process shown; no malice established. | Malice not demonstrated; claim fails. |
| Sovereign immunity governing official capacity claims | State and investigators should be liable under §1983. | Eleventh Amendment bars claims against State and officials in official capacities. | Eleventh Amendment immunity bars official-capacity claims; federal claims dismissed. |
| Exercise of supplemental jurisdiction | State-law claims should proceed alongside federal claims. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction if §1983 claim is resolved in defendant’s favor. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (probable cause based on totality of the circumstances)
- Finigan v. Marshall, 574 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2009) (arguable probable cause; objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
- Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (probable cause standard; role of investigation facts)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (two-step qualified immunity inquiry)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987) (objective reasonableness of officer belief; qualified immunity)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (probable cause and totality of circumstances; innocence explanations do not negate probable cause)
- Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2007) (probable cause and qualified immunity at summary judgment)