Mercado v. The City of New York

Background

Nathan Mercado and Jael Meade brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against the City of New York and P.O. “John” Bletcher, whose first name was identified as fictitious because it was unknown. They alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent treatment, invasion of privacy, and a civil-rights violation connected to a March 26, 2021 search and arrest.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were sitting in Mercado’s vehicle in a parking lot when several officers approached, ordered them out, requested identification, and searched them. They were taken to the 40th Precinct, held for four hours, given desk appearances, and released. The criminal case against them was dismissed. The court considered body-worn-camera footage because the amended complaint specifically referred to it and relied on the events shown in the footage.

While the motion was pending, the parties reported that they had agreed to settle Meade’s claims. They later submitted a stipulation and order of dismissal as to Meade, which the court approved on May 30, 2024. The motion to dismiss therefore remained pending as to Mercado’s claims.

False-Arrest and False-Imprisonment Claims

The court treated Mercado’s claims as including false arrest and false imprisonment under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law. The court explained that probable cause—knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense was committed—is a complete defense to false-arrest claims.

The defendants argued that probable cause existed because Lieutenant Bletcher smelled marihuana coming from the vehicle, officers saw a white marihuana cigarette, and Mercado and Meade made statements that they were smoking. The court agreed. It relied on the body-camera footage, including Bletcher’s statements, “I see the weed already” and “I can smell it,” as well as the visible cigarette and the plaintiffs’ statements.

The court rejected Mercado’s argument that the officers lacked a reason to approach the vehicle because it was parked in a public lot. Mercado identified no law prohibiting officers from approaching a vehicle in that setting. The court also rejected his argument based on the fact that the arrest occurred five days before marihuana was legalized, explaining that possession remained illegal on March 26, 2021. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had probable cause to arrest Mercado. Because probable cause resolved the claim, the court did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument.

Search and Privacy Claim

To the extent Mercado intended to assert a claim under § 1983 for an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court rejected it. The court found that officers saw a marihuana cigarette in the vehicle and that the lawful arrest provided an additional basis for a search incident to arrest. It concluded that the search was permissible and that there was no improper search or seizure.

Municipal-Liability Claim

The court also addressed any intended claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services. A municipal-liability claim requires an official policy or custom that caused the plaintiff to suffer a constitutional violation. The court concluded that Mercado had not alleged an underlying constitutional violation. It further held that, even assuming the arrest or search had been unconstitutional, a single arrest was not enough to establish a municipal policy or custom, and Mercado had not identified a specific policy or custom.

State-Law Claims

The defendants argued that Mercado’s state-law claims—including false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent treatment, and invasion of privacy—were time-barred. New York law generally requires a tort action against a city or its employees acting within the scope of employment to be filed within one year and 90 days after the event. The events occurred on March 26, 2021, while the complaint was filed on November 4, 2022, more than one year and seven months later.

The court also noted that Mercado did not argue that the state claims were timely or otherwise oppose their dismissal. It concluded that the state-law tort claims were barred and treated them as abandoned as well.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 27 and close the case. The opinion states that the motion was “granted” and does not specify that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.