697 F. App'x 88
2d Cir.2017Background
- Kenneth Smith was arrested in February 2012 outside his apartment for possession of marijuana (fifth-degree and unlawful possession); charges were dismissed at arraignment and he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest.
- Defendants (NYC and multiple officers) moved for summary judgment, submitting police reports, documents, and statements from a confidential informant and a same-day search that recovered 15 bags of marijuana.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; Smith appealed, contesting admissibility of the documents and arguing lack of probable cause and insufficient discovery.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
- The court held the documents could be considered at summary judgment because their contents could be presented in admissible form at trial, and the informant’s statements were not offered for their truth but to show they were made.
- The court found probable cause existed based on information from a reliable confidential informant and the search results, and rejected Smith’s Rule 56(d) discovery objection for failure to show what facts he sought and why.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of police reports and related documents at summary judgment | Smith: documents were hearsay and inadmissible under Rules 803 business/public-records exceptions | Defendants: documents admissible under business/public records; contents could be presented at trial | Court: need not decide hearsay exceptions; documents may be considered if reducible to admissible form at trial (held for defendants) |
| Use of confidential informant statements | Smith: informant statements are hearsay and unreliable | Defendants: statements offered to show they were made (not for truth) and to support probable cause | Court: statements not hearsay when offered to show they were made; relevant to probable cause (held for defendants) |
| Probable cause for arrest | Smith: arresting officers lacked specific knowledge tying Smith to offense | Defendants: collective knowledge doctrine lets arresting officers rely on information known to other officers and informant plus search results | Court: probable cause existed based on informant reliability and 15 bags recovered; collective knowledge applies (held for defendants) |
| Adequacy of discovery under Rule 56(d) | Smith: insufficient discovery to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: Smith failed to show what facts he needed or efforts to obtain them | Court: Smith failed to meet Miller requirements for 56(d); denial of additional discovery proper (held for defendants) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coppola v. Bear Stearns & Co., 499 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing de novo summary judgment)
- Santos v. Murdock, 243 F.3d 681 (2d Cir. 2001) (evidence at summary judgment need not be admissible in same form if contents can be presented at trial)
- Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (focus on admissibility of content not form at summary judgment)
- Porter v. Quarantillo, 722 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2013) (review of district court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Amore v. Novarro, 624 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 2010) (probable cause is a complete defense to false arrest claims)
- United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2001) (collective knowledge doctrine for probable cause)
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (Rule 56(d) affidavit requirements to obtain discovery before opposing summary judgment)