Turner v. Mele
1:15-cv-00074
E.D.N.YOct 6, 2017Background
- George Turner was arrested twice based on complaints by Megan Mele: Nov. 21, 2013 (assault, choking, aggravated harassment) and May 28, 2014 (violation of an order of protection); both prosecutions were later dismissed.
- Mele filed the first complaint after Turner had filed a complaint alleging she threw a brick through his car window; Donawa (NYPD) investigated Mele’s November complaints and arrested Turner.
- An order of protection issued Nov. 22, 2013; Mele later alleged on May 14, 2014 that Turner harassed her that day; Detective Handley investigated and arrested Turner on May 28.
- Turner claims he provided both officers with exculpatory materials before each arrest (phone records, texts, photographs, a short video, witness names, employer letter) that, he says, undermined Mele’s credibility.
- Defendants contend (and the court found) that even taking Turner’s proffered evidence as true, the officers had probable cause—or at minimum arguable probable cause—to arrest him; the City and NYPD moved for summary judgment.
- Court dismissed Turner’s § 1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution against Detectives Donawa and Handley, the City, and the NYPD; retained only claims (if any) against Mele pending status update.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of probable cause for Nov. 21, 2013 arrest | Turner says he gave Donawa evidence (texts, photos, phone records, admissions) that showed Mele's complaints were false | Donawa had a victim's detailed complaint of assault, choking, and threats; Turner’s materials did not dispel that account | Probable cause existed, or at least arguable probable cause; false arrest claim dismissed |
| Existence of probable cause for May 28, 2014 arrest | Turner says he gave Handley video, phone records, employer letter, witness name and flyers showing Mele’s motive to lie | Handley had Mele’s report that Turner violated an order of protection (harassed, honked, called); Turner’s short video and records did not negate that report | Probable cause existed; false arrest claim dismissed |
| Malicious prosecution (absence of probable cause / actual malice) | Turner argues lack of probable cause and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to prosecutors | Defendants argue there was probable cause at arrest and at all times thereafter; any nondisclosure would not change probable cause | Malicious prosecution claim fails because probable cause existed throughout; claim dismissed |
| Monell and claims vs. NYPD (municipal liability / suability) | Turner alleges City/NYPD policies/customs caused constitutional violations | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation; NYPD is not suable; no evidence of municipal policy/custom | Dismissed: no Monell liability without underlying violation; NYPD non‑suable entity; summary judgment for City and NYPD |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (arresting officer's subjective intent irrelevant to probable cause)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (objective standard for probable cause)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation and policy/custom)
- Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (probable cause from victim statements unless veracity is called into question)
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (history of animosity can support probable cause)
- Lee v. Sandberg, 136 F.3d 94 (domestic violence complaints pose difficult, fact‑intensive judgments for officers)
- Rohman v. New York City Transit Auth., 215 F.3d 208 (elements of malicious prosecution)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (probable cause and qualified immunity are legal questions for the court)
- Figueroa v. Mazza, 825 F.3d 89 (qualified immunity: arguable probable cause protects officers)