Zalaski v. City of Hartford
723 F.3d 382
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- ARF and two members Zalaski and Oatis sued Hartford police Sgt. Albert and the City under 42 U.S.C. §1983 after arrests at a public Red Nose Run event in Riverfront Plaza, Hartford, April 23, 2006.
- Protest centered on Ringling Brothers’ treatment of animals; plaintiffs refused to relocate from the steps when asked by event organizers and police.
- Albert directed protesters to move from the steps to a grassy knoll to mitigate crowding and preserve access to the registration area.
- Zalaski and Oatis were arrested for criminal trespass and misdemeanor obstruction; the obstruction charge was later dismissed and no further prosecution occurred.
- District court ruled in Albert’s favor on First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, found no constitutional violation or insufficient grounds to deny qualified immunity, and held there was probable/arguable probable cause for arrest; on appeal, Second Circuit affirmed immunity ruling and remanded for costs-discovery sanction clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Albert entitled to qualified immunity for the arrests? | Zalaski argues no probable cause and violates speech rights. | Albert argues there was arguable probable cause and reasonable interpretation of disturbance. | Qualified immunity affirmed; probable cause need not be proven. |
| Was there error in the discovery sanction regarding costs and attorney’s fees? | Pro se plaintiff could recover costs/costs-related sanctions. | District court properly sanctioned for Rule 26(g) violations; fee shift contested. | Attorney’s fees denied; remanded to decide whether costs may be awarded. |
| Did the court properly assess obstruction and predominant intent under Connecticut disorderly conduct statutes? | Obstruction requires complete blockage; predominant intent not to silence speech. | Partial obstruction and predominant intent to hinder were reasonably interpretable as disorderly conduct. | Arguable probable cause supported by obstruction and predominant intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clarified qualified immunity sequencing remains flexible)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011) (discusses qualified immunity in public-issue contexts)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause as a practical, non-technical standard)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013) (probable cause is a flexible, context-driven standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step analysis for qualified immunity; later refined by Pearson)