Simon v. City of New York
727 F.3d 167
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Alexina Simon was arrested and detained for two days pursuant to a New York material witness warrant obtained by ADA Francis Longobardi in connection with an investigation into a stolen-car report.
- The warrant named “Alexina Simon”; police officers Douglas Lee and Evelyn Alegre executed it after alleged confusion between the intended witness and another person living at the same residence.
- Simon alleges she was compelled to go with officers, held overnight, questioned at the DA’s office and precinct, not brought before a court as the warrant required, and re-detained the following day for further questioning before being released.
- Simon sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and related claims; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting absolute prosecutorial immunity (and alternatively qualified immunity).
- The district court granted summary judgment based on absolute immunity; Simon appealed the denial of her reconsideration motion as to the individual defendants.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that execution and prolonged detention/ interrogation under a material witness warrant are police/investigative functions not protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention under a material witness warrant is a prosecutorial act entitled to absolute immunity | Simon: detention for interrogation is investigatory/police work, not advocacy | Defendants: obtaining and executing the material witness warrant were prosecutorial functions entitled to absolute immunity | Held: No. Execution and extended detention/interrogation are police/investigative functions; absolute immunity does not apply |
| Whether prosecutor’s role in seeking the warrant shields officers acting under his direction | Simon: prosecutor’s participation does not convert police interrogation into advocacy | Defendants: Longobardi’s involvement makes the conduct prosecutorial | Held: Prosecutor’s participation does not transform prolonged extrajudicial detention into a prosecutorial function |
| Whether the material witness warrant authorized detention for questioning outside court proceedings | Simon: warrant does not authorize extrajudicial interrogation; court presentation was required | Defendants: warrant justified the custody taken | Held: Warrant required prompt presentation to court; using it to detain for interrogation exceeded its scope |
| Whether qualified immunity resolution was appropriate on this record | Simon: factual record undeveloped due to lack of discovery; district court erred in dismissing on immunity grounds | Defendants: alternatively asserted qualified immunity | Held: Remanded — record insufficient to resolve qualified immunity; court only decided absolute immunity issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors immune for acts intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (distinguishes prosecutorial advocacy from investigative functions; functional approach)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (burden on official to show absolute immunity justified for the function)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (prosecutor not absolutely immune for certain non-advocacy acts)
- Day v. Morgenthau, 909 F.2d 75 (investigative/arrest functions are police work even if prosecutor participates)
- Flagler v. Trainor, 663 F.3d 543 (prosecutor seeking material witness warrant acts as advocate and is immune for that act)
- Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161 (absolute immunity may apply when core prosecutorial decisions must be made quickly)
- Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653 (limits absolute immunity for prosecutors advising police in investigative phase)
- Bernard v. County of Suffolk, 356 F.3d 495 (qualified immunity for administrative/investigatory prosecutorial functions)
- Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358 (distinguishes procuring arrest warrant from executing arrest)