Stegemann v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office, 1:15-cv-00021-TJM-CFH

Background

Plaintiff Joshua G. Stegemann, a convicted felon, sued multiple law‑enforcement offices and agencies alleging an April–May 2013 multi‑jurisdictional search that damaged, seized, and destroyed his home, personal property, vehicles, landscaping, and seized cash and bank accounts.
He seeks monetary damages (demanding $3,000,000 total) under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and assorted federal and state statutes and constitutional provisions.
Earlier orders dismissed many claims under Heck v. Humphrey because success on those claims would impugn his criminal conviction; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of certain claims.
The magistrate judge reviewed whether Fourth and Fifth Amendment property‑destruction/seizure claims survive initial screening and whether the court should retain or dismiss associated federal and state statutory/constitutional claims.
The court concluded there are factual issues about whether the extent of property damage was unreasonable or merely incidental to a lawful search, so the Fourth Amendment property‑damage claim may proceed.
The court recommended dismissing Fifth Amendment property claims, federal statutory claims for electronic surveillance, and state‑law claims without prejudice under Heck and related jurisdictional/supplemental‑jurisdiction principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleged excessive destruction of property states a Fourth Amendment claim	Stegemann: officers destroyed and scattered belongings, bulldozed landscaping, removed tons of materials, and damaged vehicles beyond ordinary search needs	Defendants: some damage is inevitable in executing a search for contraband and may be reasonable	Fourth Amendment property‑damage claim survives initial review — factual dispute whether damage was unreasonable or malicious
Whether property seizure claims under the Fourth Amendment survive given Heck	Stegemann: seizures were unlawful/without valid warrant	Defendants: challenging seizure validity would necessarily implicate the lawfulness of conviction	Seizure claims dismissed without prejudice under Heck because success would invalidate conviction
Whether plaintiff may assert destruction/seizure claims under the Fifth Amendment (due process)	Stegemann: due process violated by destruction/seizure	Defendants: same injuries are properly framed as Fourth Amendment claims, not independent Fifth Amendment claims	Fifth Amendment destruction claims dismissed without prejudice — duplicative of Fourth Amendment claims
Whether alleged violations of federal surveillance statutes and state law claims may proceed	Stegemann: statutes (e.g., wiretap/pen register provisions) and state search‑warrant rules were violated	Defendants: any finding that surveillance/seizures were unlawful would undermine conviction; many claims are barred by Heck or raise supplemental‑jurisdiction issues	Claims under 18 U.S.C. surveillance statutes and state constitutional/statutory claims dismissed without prejudice under Heck and/or declined supplemental jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

U.S. v. Howard, 489 F.3d 484 (2d Cir. 2007) (excessive property destruction during a search can violate the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) (reasonableness of property damage in searches may still implicate Fourth Amendment)
Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois, 505 U.S. 56 (1992) (seizure occurs when there is meaningful interference with possessory interests)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (due process does not subsume Fourth Amendment wrongful‑arrest/seizure claims)
Hudson v. McMillian, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (limitations on Fourteenth Amendment destruction claims under excessive‑force/search doctrines)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (definition of seizure as meaningful interference with possessory interest)