Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F. Supp. 3d 198

Sean N. Youngs (owner of Who’s Next Barbershop and a hot‑dog vendor) was investigated for narcotics; detectives obtained a warrant listing the premises as 261 Central Ave. after controlled buys identified Youngs/barbershop as the target.
Officers executed the warrant on July 2, 2010, found marijuana and drug‑sale paraphernalia in the barbershop, seized mail bearing 261A and 263 addresses, and arrested Youngs.
Youngs asserted his business address was 263 or 263A Central Ave.; the city assessor and officers treated the property as 261 Central Ave., and there was only one barbershop at that location.
On July 7, 2010, the Chief of Police (through Lt. Molis) revoked Youngs’s vendor’s permit under a municipal ordinance stating the Chief “may in his discretion revoke any such license,” with no pre‑revocation hearing.
Youngs sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 claiming Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure and Fourteenth Amendment procedural‑due‑process violations; defendants moved for summary judgment (merits and qualified immunity).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/particularity of search warrant (Fourth Amendment)	Youngs: warrant listed wrong street address (261 vs. 263/263A); search was effectively warrantless and unreasonable	Officers: warrant description (barbershop, storefront details, name “Who’s Next”, target identified) permitted execution despite address error	No Fourth Amendment violation; warrant sufficiently particularized and officers did not exceed scope; summary judgment for defendants
Seizure/arrest lawfulness	Youngs: arrest and related searches were invalid due to incorrect address	Defendants: probable cause and particularized warrant supported search and arrest	Arrest/search lawful under the warrant; no genuine issue of material fact for jury
Procedural due process for vendor’s permit	Youngs: summary revocation without hearing deprived him of property interest	Defendants: ordinance vests discretionary revocation in Chief; no protected property interest exists	No constitutionally protected property interest in the permit; no process due; summary judgment for defendants
Conspiracy under § 1983	Youngs: defendants conspired to violate his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights	Defendants: no underlying constitutional violations, so no conspiracy	Dismissed—because no underlying constitutional violations, conspiracy claims fail

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use of § 1983 to vindicate Fourth Amendment claims)
Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 (warrant must enable officer to ascertain place with reasonable effort)
Velardi v. Walsh, 40 F.3d 569 (warrants with address errors upheld where executing officers could identify premises)
United States v. Voustianiouk, 685 F.3d 206 (particularity analysis for warrants with errors)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests defined by state law; entitlement required for due process)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (sequence for qualified immunity inquiry)