*1 Hosein, Individually, Derek Al Michael falla, Stewart, Individually, Kenneth Individually, Heagle, Donald Individu Maddine, ally, Individually, Kevin Piscatelli, Individually, Mi Jonathan Sachar, Individually, Mark De chael lia, Individually, Killebrew, Herman Individually, Barnett, Robert Individ ually, McCormack, Thomas Individu ally, Joseph Horesky, Individually, Cristiano, Individually, Bri Kathleen GRICE, III, Gregory A. Plaintiff- Scott, Individually, Lu and James Defendant-Appellee, Cross ciano, Individually, Defendants, York, Castle, Town North New Anthony MCVEIGH, Farina, Frank Individually, Defendant-Cross Claimant- Defendants- Defendant,
Appellants, Cross *2 County, Hosein, John John Westchester 1-15, Jane Doe and Town
Greenburgh, York, New Defendants- Defendants,
Cross Authority,
Metropolitan Transit
Defendant-Cross Claimant. No.
Docket 15-4124-cv Term,
August States Court of Appeals,
United
Second Circuit.
Argued: April September
Decided: *3 Troetti, Plains, J.
Thomas White New York, Appellants Anthony McVeigh Frank Farina. (Lissa Green-Stark, Klein, on Brett H. brief) York, Appel- York for New New Gregory A. lee III. WALKER, JACOBS, and
Before: PARKER, Judges. Circuit JACOBS, Judge: DENNIS Circuit Grice, III, Plaintiff-Appellee Gregory A. enthusiast, year stopped a 16 old train Greenburgh Po- and handcuffed after report a 911 Department lice received holding an someone electronic device bending by down the tracks at a rail actually cross- “was the train tracks” and was ing. After a holding search the tracks “a controller.” Joint App’x little (“MTA”), Metropolitan Authority Transit 521-22. She said his behavior seemed “sus- Greenburgh picious” turned Grice over and “bizarre.” Id. at 521. The officers, to the MTA who him dispatcher detained directed units investi- charged trespass. him with gate white, “a male wearing a red shirt bending down the tracks with a remote trespass When the charge was dis- object control in his “Virginia hands” at missed, all Grice sued concerned. The Road, by the train tracks crossing.” Id. remaining Sergeant defendants are Antho- ny McVeigh and Lieutenant Frank Farina Greenburgh police.. alleges Sergeant Anthony McVeigh of *4 arrest, intervene, false failure and fail- Greenburgh police arrived at the scene supervise. ure to States Dis- United first, 1995, alone. A officer since trict Court for the Southern District of was commander for years some of Green- J.) (Román, York New their denied motion burgh’s Special Operations Unit, in- which qualified for immunity. On this interlocu- cludes the SWAT team. Over the course of tory appeal, we reverse. It cannot be said year, he had briefings received several that every reasonable officer in cir- their and bulletins about the possibility that ter- cumstances would know that the conduct attempt rorists would sabotage railroad complained of clearly violated established tracks; about a month before encoun- law. ter received a circular on attempted rail sabotage nearby I town. undisputed The facts for purpose are When crossing, arrived at the (set appeal. this cellphone wearing shirt, Grice was red holding was trains) taped record the of his audio en- camera, was standing approximately police, counter with the and the two offi- tracks, 12-15 feet from the next to a barri- cers (necessarily) agreed to accept A backpack cade. ground, was version the facts. “Once a defen- two electronic devices—one with an anten- dant asserting qualified immunity has na—were next to him on top of the barri- agreed to be plaintiffs bound ver- cade. One device phone; cell facts, sion of the purely the issues become other, a radio scanner. The only deviation legal jurisdiction and we have over an from description radioed Grice was interlocutory appeal from a denial of im- white, his dispatcher race: the said he was Gorman, munity.” Loria v. while Grice is African-American. 2002). may try Defendants agreement by “evade their spinning the McVeigh asked Grice what’he was do- favor”; facts their simply ignore but we ing, puzzled and seemed when Grice said any factual contentions that contradict the taking pictures he was of the trains and plaintiffs version of the facts. Id. listening to Metro North Grice broadcasts. evening In the on June told that he had a letter from the lawfully watching Virgi- trains at explaining doing he was what nia crossing Road in Greenburgh, “okay.” railroad Id. at suggest- 558. Grice then New York. He was a passing seen ed that he or could retrieve that driver, Mary Andrachik, who told a 911 from backpack. letter But dispatcher that someone with a might red shirt was concerned that there be a sabo-
tH coco false Remaining $24,000. activated remote- that could'be tage device are.claims intercede, arrest, superviso into failure a few minutes ly; he told so against (variously) conversation, going liability I’m “Right ry now their safety your court denied safety Farina. The district my you to cuff summary judgment, on here.” motion for going officers’ I find out what’s ... Until arguing that they appeal, Id. and' immunity. qualified entitled Farina and several Frank Lieutenant Greenburgh police arrived other II to them that explained
shortly after. Grice watched “rail fan” who had he was a immunity of protects “Qualified several times. Virginia Road trains at damages liability from' civil ficials McVeigh responded: not violate as their long does conduct doing out you’re know what We don’t statutory or constitu clearly established you’re to what very here. It’s do unusual person rights of reasonable tional which get complaints like this doing. We don’t v. Town known.” Taravella would have my guy first career You’re the ... Wolcott, 2010) sitting next to a train that’s ever been omitted). (internal Rights quotation marks taking at trains and looking with a radio “particu in a clearly must be established *5 pictures!.] sense, high at a level larized” rather than at 566-67. rights generality; Id. and such of “identify if can clearly court 15 established a approximately arrived officers acting officer under simi case where an They a McVeigh Grice. minutes after cuffed anew, to have held acted lar circumstances” was and the began questioning Grice — Pauly, v. unconstitutionally. offi- White a for bomb tracks were searched 548, 552, U.S. -, L.Ed.2d 196 137 up S.Ct. dbg. the search turned cers a When and (2017). immunity stan 463 The qualified officers nothing, McVeigh the MTA asked “protects all but “forgiving” and dard is he out his handcuffs if could "switch who incompetent or those plainly the MTA’s, agreed. officer an MTA the and Amorev. No knowingly the law.” for violate McVeigh’s handcuffs Grice was varro, (2d 2010) Cir. 624 530 F.3d the involvement minutes.1 about 33 When omitted). (internal point, at this citations of and Farina ended to MTA facili- MTA officers took Grice an Against A. Claim The Unlawful Arrest him, cell, interrogated placed him in' a ty, trespass. for gave and him summons ultimately dropped. charge was
trespass arrest claim fails unlawful “investiga an his was because police several Grice sued (otherwise MTA, as a entities, tory known including detention” government the “Terry ripened into an stop”) that never handcuffing, ar seeking for his damages by reasonable supported rest, claims arrest and prosecution. He his settled stops catego- fall into two Police suspicion. total for a against most the defendants they that believed interaction with Grice argues their advanced 1. The dissent that on the MTA contradictory for handcuffs. had been railroad explanations the First, being explanations he not contra- he told Grice was handcuffed So two do tracks. found, then, safely, found, no bomb was trespass after if a bomb had been dict: kept But trespassing. him cuffed for mentioning. worth been would have onset of both clear from the Farina made Terry heard trainspotting Arrests re never stops. ries: arrests and cause, police officer until at the railroad probable the encounter cross quire while Terry long as- may stop required “as to credit ing. make He an has suspicion implausi reasonable explanation officer innocent seemed is,committing or to be has person knowledge at given his the time. “Sus ble detained offense.” a criminal may committed innocent picious have United circumstances Compton, (2d 55, 61 Cir. v. 830 F.3d States availability of an in explanations; but 2016). suspi The standard for reasonable explanation not create an is does nocent high,” cion is “not is less what than reasonableness of fact as sue to.the requires. City probable cause United States v. suspicion.” v. of New Lon Holeman Bailey, 2014) (2d Cir. don, 743 F.3d (2d 2005). 425 F.3d Cir. omitted). (internal of citation Whether may McVeigh’s suspicion an ob ficer’s “reasonable” suspicion reasonable, and committed crime totality on the of the jective inquiry based stop investigate. him was entitled appear circumstances would Terry stop A is limited to the through eyes a reasonable cau degree necessary to confirm or intrusion officer, guided by experi tious dispel suspicion justi reasonable Single training. ence and United States Compton, stop place. fies the in the 'first tary, 2015). 55, 60 Perea, 64; 830 F.3d United States suspicion had reasonable 1993). gener stop either unlawful interfer Terry al, stop is so to determine whether trespass. a train or for N.Y. R.R. ence with arrest, as to become an we look intrusive 53-e; § § Penal Law 140.05. Law N.Y. to: to look McVeigh had ordered out been police, the amount force used sabotage on the railroad. than Less force, for such *6 need and-the extent earlier, training month had received a he freedom of move which individual’s advising that at circular someone had restrained, in particular and ment sabotage a railroad in tempted nearby to agents- factors such as the number of Patterson, York, using “a homemade New involved,1 stop of the target whether the device, tape with a radio- wrapped black armed, suspected of dura being Joint App’x control antenna affixed.” stop, physical tion and treat tip in a from an dispatcher 101. The called including ment of the whether suspect,. “bending that someone was down observer or not handcuffs were used. object remote control tracks with a 524, (internal hands,” punctuation and saw 645 in his id. at Id. at cita- and omitted). matching descrip observer’s someone tions devices, various some tion with electronic Handcuffing ordinarily not inci others; than familiar more Terry to to show stop, dent a tends ripened into an plau stop a has arrest. But was unaware officer, possibility with the explain police a sible innocent reason could “faced right taking photos danger, of of has a to reasonable why would be take someone obligation steps protect to to himself and an listening trains the railroad’s radio bystand innocent safety he was a to ensure Grice told broadcasts. ers, probable permis regardless of whether cause received train buff and to exists.” Alexan photographs from the to take arrest United States v. sion 1990). (2d der, 269, Cir. not F.2d 272 long property, as he was on MTA but 907 168 circumstances, going App’x Joint at 559. we on.” have
certain unusual his handcuffs after the released from suspect held therefore investigation of the finished its investigate suspicion a reasonable does MTA Terry tracks; was not thirty-three minutes stop into an arrest. transform See, e.g., Newton, keep interval to the hand- 369 an unreasonable United States (2d 2004) dog searched 659, (handcuffing a cuffs on while officers and Cir. F.3d 675 potential bomb. United for a suspect to search him tracks potentially armed Tehrani, 54, arrest); 49 F.3d 61 States firearm was not an United (“We Vargas, 1995) thirty that a 102 decline hold States v. sus- 2004) minute based reasonable (“[Although ordinary circum- detention under per se, is, picion long.”); too see also Unit stances, using drawing weapons and hand- Vega, (7th Terry stop, of a intrusive ed States v. part are not cuffs Terry 1995) (concluding stop that a is not an Cir. police conduct aggressive 62 minutes not a de facto response lasting it is a reasonable arrest when “part of that 62 minutes safety part concerns on the arrest because legitimate (internal waiting sniff- punc- the narcotics investigating officers.” consisted arrive.”); omitted)). ing dog to United States v. “police if tuation We ask Sharpe, (S.Ct. n.5, 105 person to think 470 U.S. basis that the reasonable 60)5 (finding it 84 L.Ed.2d rea- present physical threat poses a detained patrolman plain- for state to detain sonable handcuffing is the least intrusive pending agent’s tiff federal arrival because protect against that threat.” Bai means highway patrolman, “as a he lacked [the F.3d at 340. ley, experience in agent’s] training dealing easily circumstances can be These investigations.”). Because narcotics unusual, McVeigh was on the classified as objectively reasonable sabotage, for railroad received lookout suspicion to and because detain of an report by police radio individual ripen McVeigh’s Grice did detention bending matching description arrest, down quali- into an is entitled device, a remote control the tracks with immunity on the false arrest claim. fied of a that could pastime and was unaware dissent, According to the it was obvious explain the behavior was observed. engaged in an to the that Grice was believe, sus He had reason therefore *7 explanation that pastime: innocent an might use pect, and fear Grice was “a fact “just taking pictures” he was off an on explosive electronic device to set fact that easily corroborated Grice It not for the tracks. was unreasonable had camera rather than ‘remote con- to handcuff Grice in order to lone officer trol’ ... or a bomb.” Dissent device press that Grice could not a detona ensure But also had an electronic device Grice any electronic until tor button device sitting with an on the barricade antenna be the tracks could searched. (which scanner) police out to be a turned True, McVeigh’s intent to handcuff for phone. Grice of a as well as a cell use protection pursuant rather than to arrest control is phone as a remote detonator cell manufacturers; promoted by never a Miranda is clear: he administered not a feature time, explained to remote of a warning, and he Grice at the same detonation my safety explosive or device improvised him “for bomb technique a standard ter- your safety phone ... I find out cell [u]ntil what’s rorists, law, in margin.2 ly as demonstrated established Farina is entitled to
qualified immunity as well.
B. The to Failure Intercede Claim
Against McVeigh Farina CONCLUSION reasons, For foregoing order argues that the defendants the district court is reversed. are liable their failure intervene with prevent police the MTA officers to PARKER, D. BARRINGTON Circuit handcuffing. McVeigh continued and Fari Judge, dissenting: na, as Greenburgh, officers of the Town of authority over had evident officers of majority, by The granting qualified im- MTA, separate who in a serve hierar munity Sergeant Anthony McVeigh and chy in a separate jurisdiction particu Officer Frank Farina of Greenburgh, lar responsibility security of the rail York department, New absolves event, road. MTA officers did them of of Gregory the arrest Grice. Grice mistreating seem be and could indisputably was an 16-year innocent old reasonably decide to interview Grice at the young man who was arrested stand- while facility. McVeigh If Farina ing at a location every where he had right circumstances, duty intervene those doing to be and right what he every clearly established, duty was not do. The mischaracterizes Grice’s enjoy qualified the defendants therefore detention as a Terry stop. It nowas such Pauly, immunity on that claim. See 137 thing: it was an arrest and the facts that (holding at 552 clearly S.Ct. law is obligated accept we are for purposes of a court can “identify established when this appeal establish that there was no acting case where officer under simi probable cause for the arrest. Because lar circumstances” was held to have acted McVeigh and Farina are not entitled to unconstitutionally). qualified immunity, I respectfully dissent. Supervisory Liability C. Claim I Against Farina facts following. Those establish the qualified just are entitled to im- train many Defendants buff As an like others. munity supervisory liability aspiring on a claim un- engineer, he has an extensive trains, supervisor less the actions of the knowledge public attends hear- clearly ings subordinate both violate estab- Metropolitan New York’s Trans- Leonard, (“MTA”), portation Authority lished law. Poe v. volunteers 2002). Since, Saturdays as we have al- on at a railway museum Dan- ruled, CT, ready bury, enjoys did violate clear- taking photographs detonator). phone phone relatively 2. A cell has been used as a cell detonator as the Other every virtually attempted recent or recent examples actual the Boston include Mara- *8 York; bombing Bombing attempts Washington, in the In New thon Ahmad in U.S. D.C., Dallas, Florida, multiple Chicago. Rahimi bombs in Manhat- detonated and outside Jersey using ago, tan and on the Shore cell About a FBI month the arrested a man 4, Rahimi, phones. Compl. City attempted up See at U.S. No. in Oklahoma who to blow 20, (S.D.N.Y. 2016), Sep. containing 1,000-pound 16-cr-760 ECF No. a vehicle a ammoni- 1; 20, Nafis, Compl. using phone see also at um nitrate U.S. v. No. bomb a cell as the (E.D.N.Y. 17, 2012), detonating Compl. Oct. 12-cr-720 ECF No. device. See at U.S. Varnell, (convicted (W.D. attempted 17-mj-368 Aug. terrorist bomb the No. Okla. 2017), using in Federal Reserve Bank Manhattan ECF No. 1. -r-( t-? Q. hobby McVeigh was diately informed that he passing
of trains. This led MTA “just taking pictures,” a corrob- easily his arrest. fact by fact that orated the Grice had a camera 6, 2011, left school and On June Grice the a “remote control” rather than device tracks, for a of train headed section MTA reported or dispatch a bomb. JA 555. p.m. a train arriving 4:30 cross- around at McVeigh in further cor- ing Greenburgh. He was familiar with Grice’s statements to habit, and, as the MTA’s was- roborated innocent rules nature the day. diligently them on that He followed fan presence near the tracks: a rail “I’m precise done this times activity had many else,” keep always and “I everybody like him an rule before. He had with myself at a More- distance.” 558. ,JA safe as well from the MTA book letter over, view, Op. contrary majority’s the permitting take the him photographs 175, McVeigh not taken at need have Grice personnel that led to his were arrest. MTA word; McVeigh evi- at, his Grice offered quite him were well familiar with establishing that inno- his acts were dence penchant photographing of his aware “I promptly McVeigh: cent. Grice told trains. they I letter e-mailed MTA and However, Grice, motorist saw a passing doing] okay. amI is can [what said I show and, Greenburgh p.m., at 5:54 called the you bag.” It’s in JA 558. my letter. (“GPD”) to report Police Department even told “take Grice could “suspicious” race” male “mix near my bag.” For [the letter] out JA (“JA”) 521-24. At App’x 5:57 tracks. Joint reason, whatever chose not dispatcher an p.m., the radioed out GPD e-mail, though or retrieve even review (incorrect) description individual stopped past had who white, by the motorist: “a male wear- seen any suspicions may have had ing the tracks bending shirt down red by reviewing that letter. JA alleviated with, object remote control in his hands.” 578-79. and, dispatch JA heard that later, p.m., at later, 6:03 arrived any minutes About minutes two without What he witnessed dif- Grice’s location. meaningful having seen noth- inquiry and dispatcher’s report. Grice is from fered or ing illegal suspicious,1 McVeigh hand- white, control,” black, “remote Grice, ostensibly “my safety cuffed trespassing back but was well and was your safety.” JA 559. It clear is that hand- from the tracks. cuffing in these constituted circumstances The law our Circuit is that arrest.
McVeigh, order determine what generally occurring, recognized as a engaged who imme- “handcuffs taking summarily photos fairly majority states com- 1. The trains mon and that therefore did in fact plausible “McVeigh any unaware of inno- have reason to Grice was understand what explain why that could someone cent reason Moreover, doing. any pre-handcuffing lack of listening taking photos of trains and would be of Grice’s awareness the innocence behav- Op. to the radio broadcasts.” railroad's McVeigh’s making. ior is of own He for some to me how the can 167. It is unclear (he MTA’s reason chose not to review letter we are to assume make this when statement giving permission express to do what he story, which is that there truth of doing. reviewed let- Had just JA of rail fans like him. are “thousands” ter—which, view, my reasonable offi- 566; (Grice telling see JA 558 also would have done—he have been cer would else”). everybody is “a rail fan quite “plausible that he like aware of a innocent reason” tracks, from record evidence Grice was necessary inference *9 subsequently justified v. Bai McVeigh of a formal arrest.” U.S. the hallmark deten- 2014). exclusively tion ley, 743 on basis that-he sus- required that sit McVeigh then Grice on pected had on the that trespassed Grice proceeded question and to him ground tracks, joined JA Farina and pos- extensively aggressively.2 It is not McVeigh’s new responded version. Farina rationally to conclude that sible these cir- inquiry wrong about what he did , anything constituted other cumstances safety, but by mentioning anything all, than an After Grice was under arrest. by saying, “[y]ou’re JA 5. trespassing.” complete method of the most measure and However, McVeigh and Farina no had McVeigh had restraint available to first-hand to conclude that Grice basis one him no could believe Grice trespassed. McVeigh suspi- and Farina’s opinion No of our free to leave. Court was cion of on the trespass was based has ever held report unverified of-an and unsworn ab- experienced by of time Grice period (which clearly 911 caller sent was insuffi- way was not behaving in the he behaved probable cient establish cause tres- an arrest. pass). shortly came Other GPD on ignores ra majority changing The this scene, including Officer Frank Farina. (cid:127) Specifically, tionale for detention.
They officers of the were followed re “McVeigh asserts that MTA, shortly-thereafter who arrived leased from his handcuffs as soon Grice recognized hob- immediately Grice as the investigation its the MTA .of the finished byist they were See with whom familiar. 168; Op. see at 166 Op. tracks.” also (MTA Hosein, example, JA 597 Officer (McVeigh Grice “[w]hen released that he “seen around a [Grice] stated nothing”). up search turned bomb] [for before”). Nevertheless, million times However, McVeigh’s testimony Fari investigated MTA officers the scene that asser na’s statement Grice belie posed no determined that Grice threat. JA 470, 573. tion. See JA McVeigh acknowledge and Farina 334-35. detained, it became while Grice view, it majority’s contrast to the posed no threat of them that Grice clear nQt McVeigh and Farina until -well after 470, 477, or JA violence train interference. posed Grice no threat aware that were 502. his tracks that removed Yet, from rather than re- McVeigh initially Grice. Although Grice handcuffs fold custody over being protection, for his after lease handed detained threat, on to MTA officers based posed clear Grice no Grice it became trespass theory. changed McVeigh’s newly minted story. and Farina their on device” which a "homemade was found contends that treatment of 2. he believed was warranted because "impact opera- rail the tracks that might have been terrorist. causing circuit other than an electrical tions” big terrorism is a "[s]ince contends that 9/11 report JA 101. does not indicate to break. JA concern mass transit.” put or it was device was whether what the (total- and Farina six documents introduced Nothing intentionally. record the tracks ing supporting pages) received GPD activity. connects terrorist the device to Three the existence of threats. de- terrorist police depart- Finally, two are the last general highly scribe threats nation-wide because ment alerts which irrelevant al-Qaida. posed by JA is a 96-100. Another the incident Grice. are dated well description of brief an incident that after occurred crossing nearly away JA 50-miles 102-04. . a railroad *10 172 this, ordinarily preclude review. See 28 the our McVeigh told justify doing
To
However,
§
certain
1291.
under
U.S.C.
personally
when he arrived he
MTA that
may
of a
conditions we
review the denial
standing on
tracks. JA 471.
saw
that mo
summary judgment motion when
This
that of
sharply
version
contrasts
qualified
on
claim of
tion was based
on the
that he
never
asserts
Grice who
—
Rickard,
immunity.
v.
See
than 12 to 15 feet
tracks
never closer
Plumhoff
2012, 2019,
-,
134
U.S.
S.Ct.
188
those facts as true
Accepting
from them.
(2014).
determining
In
1056
L.Ed.2d
every
in
fa-
drawing
inference Grice’s
jurisdiction
may
we
in such
whether
assert
vor,
must,
us to assume for
requires
as we
case,
“critical issue is whether
that
immunity
purposes
qualified
interlocutory
purely legal
appeal raises
to the MTA
McVeigh’s statement
Gorman,
306 F.3d
questions.” Loria
tracks was
location on the
about Grice’s
2002).
(2d
And,
1271,
generally,
1280
Cir.
McVeigh’s
signifi-
is
fabrication
true.
summary
denying
judgment
“an order
makes clear that
cant
record
because
of
suf
on a determination
‘evidence
based
for the MTA’s decision
the sole basis
ficiency’
legal question.”
present
does not
custody
charge him with
keep
in
(citing
Plumhoff,
facts, namely, that the MTA “issued the sum-
that he would
made
testified
provided
mons based on
...
information
“McVeigh originally
arrest had
saw
[Grice]
McVeigh.”
Appellee
Br.
11. Counsel's
non-trespassing
area.” JA 520.
point
especially
contradiction of this
strik-
675, 686,
quickly.”
Sharpe,
cases on
470 U.S.
which
U.S.
.The
relies
(1985);
a 105 S.Ct.
establish that Grice’s
L.Ed.2d 605
detention
arrest,
Glover,
simple Terry stop,
than
accord U.S. v.
F.2d
rather
far off
despite
Cir. 1992);
McCargo,
see also
lengthy
U.S.
2006).
Newton,
Thus,
point. In
a Fifth- Amendment
198-99
case,
specific
responded
“delay
to a
unnecessary
where there has been
*12
a
“import
illegally possessed
legitimate
that Newton
to
investigation
the
of the law
to
recently
and had
threatened
firearm
then
enforcement
the detention
officers”
kill
369
his
and her husband.”
mother
cannot
justified
Terry
be
and be-
under
F.3d at
a
675. Given “such
volatile situa-
Sharpe,
de
comés a
arrest.
U.S.
470
facto
tion,”
brief’
“certainly
687,
we
that
held
a
at
More account obligated accept demonstrate that there tion of Grice. I would do so two rea objectively (i) never an reasonable basis officer liable false sons: here, where, reasonably to view sort of threat. This is Grice as arrest it was (i.e., especially given quickly so the credible and that his misconduct foreseeable MTA) easily explanation pro- McVeigh’s verifiable false to the report would presence for his ‘independent’ vided and his conduct. “contribute to an decision words, McVeigh highly other and Farina’s deprivation liberty,” that results generalized is a completely Templeton, terrorism fear Higazy v. *14 (2d N.Y., dispensing 2007); City
insufficient basis for with a Cir. Kerman v. (ii) showing probable 2004); cause. 126-27 and a failure to intervene claim lies where a IV duty has affirmative “police officer intercede on the behalf of a citizen whose opinion entirely rests its rights being constitutional violated on its conclusion that was the sub- officers,” presence by other Ricciuti ject Terry supported stop by a valid Auth., 123, 129 Trans. N.Y.C. suspicion. it reasonable Because concluded 1997) (internal quotation marks omit necessary not arrested—a Grice was ele- ted). I Finally, would conclude that a tri arrest, claims for ment false question able of fact remains to whether intervene, as supervisory failure liabili- supervisory Farina should be liable ty—it no need to felt assess whether liability cause, claim. probable and Farina had question other core underlying trial, McVeigh At a Farina could prolonged I no engage claims. need discus- jury well be exonerated has been question my sion on this because views jury with A presented the relevant facts. I easily make clear that would conclude that, given could the circum- conclude probable Farina lacked faced, they ap- stances acted I to arrest Grice. therefore cause would propriately. very frequently Juries reach jury. send each of Grice’s claims to a here, where, But just this result. as contradictions, claim is pock-marked Grice’s false arrest should survive record with probable because there was cause whether the officers are entitled exoner- jury ation should se- supposed arrest relation train be determined And, were, community if lected from the officers are interference. even there by judges claim lie serve still because committed to would dealing Farina a record such as this one. continued their detention of Grice reasons, I For affirm the these would
district court. SAIL, INC.,
MANHATTAN BY as Own
ers, Agents Operators, and of the Ex vessel, sailing
cursion Shearwater
Classic for Exoneration Schooner Liability,
from or Limitation Ltd., Owners, Holdings,
Shearwater
Operators, Agents of Excur vessel, sailing
sion Shearwater Classic from or
Schooner Exoneration Liability,
Limitation Petitioners-
Appellees, TAGLE, Respondent-Appellant.
Charis No.
Docket 16-607 Term,
August *15 Appeals, Court of
United States Circuit.
Second
Argued: October October
Decided: