Tucker v. Decker
683 F. App'x 20
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Martha Tucker, a former Vermont school superintendent, was cited by State Trooper Lyle Decker for allegedly failing to timely report an allegation of child abuse under Vermont’s mandatory reporter statute; the criminal charges were later dismissed.
- Tucker sued Decker under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (malicious prosecution, defamation/stigma-plus, invasion of privacy) and asserted complementary Vermont tort claims (malicious prosecution, defamation, invasion of privacy).
- District Court dismissed Tucker’s federal malicious prosecution and invasion of privacy claims on qualified immunity grounds; after discovery, it granted summary judgment for Decker on remaining federal and state claims.
- Central legal questions involved (1) whether Decker had at least arguable probable cause to cite Tucker under the mandatory reporter statute, (2) whether Tucker had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her booking photograph/fingerprints, (3) whether Tucker satisfied the “plus” element for a stigma-plus due-process claim, and (4) whether state tort claims could proceed against Decker or were barred/exclusive to the State under the Vermont Tort Claims Act.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held Decker entitled to qualified immunity on federal malicious prosecution and invasion-of-privacy claims; affirmed summary judgment on federal stigma-plus claim for failure to show a state-imposed “plus”; and concluded Vermont tort claims lie against the State (not the employee) absent willful misconduct or gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for federal malicious prosecution — was there arguable probable cause under Vermont’s mandatory reporter statute? | Tucker: facts alleged show no arguable probable cause; statute required prompt reporting only when reasonable cause existed and she judged the allegation not credible. | Decker: reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed given ambiguous statutory language and the facts known to him. | Held: Qualified immunity; arguable probable cause existed because reasonable officers could differ on the statute’s scope. |
| Qualified immunity for federal invasion of privacy — did Tucker have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her photograph/fingerprints? | Tucker: she had a privacy interest in the booking photo and fingerprints and Decker’s use violated it. | Decker: no reasonable expectation of privacy; even if close, law was not clearly established. | Held: Court assumed District Court may have erred on expectation-of-privacy, but affirmed because law was not clearly established — Decker entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Stigma-plus (federal defamation/due process) — did Tucker show a “plus” (state-imposed burden or alteration of status)? | Tucker: adverse publicity and reputational harm following the citation and news reports satisfy stigma and the plus. | Decker: Tucker voluntarily resigned and was not subject to a state-imposed burden or constructive discharge. | Held: No genuine dispute of a material “plus”; summary judgment for Decker. |
| State tort claims (defamation, invasion of privacy) — may they proceed against Decker or are they exclusive to the State under Vermont Tort Claims Act? | Tucker: claims can proceed against Decker individually. | Decker: VT Tort Claims Act makes the state the exclusive defendant for acts within scope of employment unless employee committed willful misconduct or gross negligence. | Held: Claims lie exclusively against the State absent willful misconduct/gross negligence; no reasonable jury could find such conduct here, so summary judgment for Decker. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) complaints)
- Segarra v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 802 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2015) (definition and test for arguable probable cause in malicious prosecution suits)
- Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Vega v. Lantz, 596 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of stigma-plus due process claim)
- Murray v. White, 155 Vt. 621 (1991) (Vermont qualified immunity standard and when claims lie exclusively against the state)