Sorrell v. County of Nassau
162 F. Supp. 3d 156
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- On Oct. 11, 2008 Lynbrook PD received a radio description of three assailants (a Black male and two Black females) and a white four‑door car; officers stopped a white damaged Honda ~1.5 miles from the robbery ~30 minutes later with four occupants (plaintiffs Sorrell, Rosario, Williams, Morency).
- A field show‑up was conducted at the stop; victim Marcello positively identified Sorrell, Rosario, and Williams (disputed whether she identified Morency). A later written statement identified only those three.
- Detectives Arena and Lashinsky later presented a photo array to another victim (Outlaw), who identified Williams; Marcello also later identified the plaintiffs’ vehicle in a precinct parking lot.
- Plaintiffs were arrested and arraigned; charges were dismissed after alibi evidence (surveillance showing Morency in Holtsville at 8:20–8:26 p.m., cell‑phone records, statements) made it physically impossible to be at the robbery at 8:40 p.m.
- Plaintiffs allege § 1983 claims (false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, unreasonable strip searches), and state claims; defendants (Nassau County and Lynbrook plus officers) moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest of Sorrell, Rosario, Williams | Radio description + show‑up were unreliable/suggestive and did not match plaintiffs’ appearance | Radio description, on‑scene show‑up ID, photo array ID and vehicle ID supplied probable cause | Probable cause existed for Sorrell, Rosario, Williams based on the show‑up; false‑arrest claims dismissed for them |
| Probable cause for arrest of Morency | Marcello’s written statement did not identify Morency; no witness ID linked him to the robbery | Defendants assert reliance on Lynbrook information that all four were identified (but record support disputed) | Genuine issue of fact whether Morency was identified — probable cause and malicious‑prosecution/abuse‑of‑process claims survive for Morency |
| Legality of the initial stop | Stop was improper (implied) | Vehicle matched radioed description and stop was close in time/place; reasonable suspicion justified stop | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; any claim based solely on stop dismissed |
| Warrantless strip search of Sorrell and Rosario | Search was a strip search (manipulation of bra/pants, possible breast contact) and unreasonable in scope/manner | Search was limited (no full removal of clothing) and incident to lawful arrest | Denied as to summary judgment: factual disputes about scope, manner, and reasonableness preclude resolution on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search incident to arrest rationale)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (probable cause as defense to false arrest under § 1983)
- Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156 (probable cause inquiry based on officer’s knowledge at time of arrest)
- Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563 (failure to investigate alibi can bear on probable cause/malice)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123 (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (searches must be reasonable in scope and manner)