Terebesi v. Torreso
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16133
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2008 Easton, CT, police sought a warrant to search Ronald Terebesi's home for personal-use crack cocaine and paraphernalia.
- SWAT-style tactics were planned: stun grenades through rear windows, front-door breach with battering ram, and entry with weapons drawn.
- A houseguest, Gonzalo Guizan, was fatally shot during the raid; Terebesi was allegedly injured; no weapons were found in the home.
- Pre-raid interactions included a March 31 seizure incident where Terebesi was found with a handgun and arrested for a later warrant; subsequent events included a May 7 shotgun attack on the house and drug-use rumors.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims; district court denied some summary-judgment motions, others granted; the estate settled and withdrew from appeal, so only Terebesi's claims remained on appeal.
- The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part (notably on the SWERT activation), and dismissed remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deploying SWERT violated the Fourth Amendment | Solomon's SWERT activation caused excessive force | Activation was reasonable under case law | Solomon entitled to no immunity for SWERT activation; plan denial affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether the raid plan itself violated the Fourth Amendment | Plan contemplated excessive force and seizure of persons | Plan lawful and reasonable given circumstances | Plan liability exists; genuine disputes on reasonableness remain; jurisdictional dismissal for other aspects |
| Whether use of stun grenades was reasonable under Fourth Amendment | Stun grenades were inappropriate for a personal-use drug warrant | No clearly established prohibition; context could justify | Summary judgment improper; questions of material fact remain; stun-grenade use potentially excessive |
| Whether Sweeney's and Weir's actions were entitled to qualified immunity | Their firing and pinning of Terebesi violated rights | Reasonableness fact-dependent; credibility disputes | No qualified immunity for Sweeney/Weir at this stage; factual disputes unresolved |
| Whether knock-and-announce violations and duty to intervene are actionable | Front-entry and rear-entry actions breached knock-and-announce; officers failed to intervene | Exigent circumstances or plan context may excuse | Issues survive to be determined; appellate jurisdiction limited on some points, but merits preserved for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness under Fourth Amendment balancing test)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (knock-and-announce requirement as a Fourth Amendment constraint)
- Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (U.S. 2007) ( Fourth Amendment reasonableness applies to executing a search warrant)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clear establishment and fair warning standard for qualified immunity)
- Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (considerations for clearly established law and qualified immunity's specificity)