Days v. Police Department

Background

Selwyn Days brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning a confession he said was falsely obtained in connection with the 1996 killings of Archie Harris and Betty Ramcharan. The remaining defendants were Westchester County and Officer Christopher Calabrese. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial because the moving party claims there is no genuine dispute about facts that matter to the case.

The parties disputed what happened during Days’s interrogation. Days said Detective Kiernan slapped him, threatened to make his family “disappear,” and forced him to repeat a police-provided account of the murders. The defendants said the interview was voluntary and that they did not use threats, force, or promises. Calabrese watched part of Days’s interview but did not record all of the time he observed it. The court found that these conflicting accounts created factual disputes that could not be resolved on summary judgment.

Failure to Intervene

Days claimed that Calabrese failed to stop the alleged coercion. The court explained that an officer may be liable for failing to intervene if the officer observed another officer violating a person’s constitutional rights, had a realistic opportunity to stop the violation, and failed to take reasonable steps to do so.

Viewing the evidence in Days’s favor, the court found that a jury could determine that the confession was coerced. Days had allegedly been detained for fourteen hours and questioned for seven hours, and he alleged that he was slapped and that threats were made against his family. Because it remained unclear what Calabrese saw during the unrecorded portion of the interview, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Fabrication of Evidence

Days claimed that Calabrese fabricated evidence by preparing police reports that omitted the alleged coercion and portrayed the confession as voluntary, then providing that information to prosecutors. The court held that the claim could proceed because a jury could find that Calabrese witnessed the alleged coercion, that the reports were false or materially incomplete, and that the information influenced the prosecution.

The court limited the claim, however. Days’s allegation that officers coached Mayhew into implicating him was based on statements Days said he heard during Mayhew’s interview. The court ruled that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay and could not create a genuine factual dispute at summary judgment. The fabrication claim therefore could proceed based on the allegedly false police reports, but not based on Mayhew’s allegedly coerced statement.

Brady Claim

Days also claimed that Calabrese violated the constitutional rule requiring disclosure of favorable evidence by failing to disclose details about the alleged coercion. The court found this claim duplicative of the fabrication-of-evidence claim. It therefore granted summary judgment on the Brady claim.

Malicious Prosecution

Days alleged that Calabrese maliciously prosecuted him by sending allegedly false reports to prosecutors. The court found that Days presented evidence supporting factual disputes about whether Calabrese helped initiate the prosecution, whether the criminal case ended in Days’s favor, whether probable cause existed, and whether Calabrese acted with malice.

The court noted that Days was acquitted at his fifth trial in September 2017 and that the indictment was dismissed. Although a grand-jury indictment generally creates a presumption of probable cause, the court concluded that Days presented enough additional evidence to allow a jury to consider whether the indictment was obtained through false information or other misconduct. The court cited Days’s alleged alibi placing him in North Carolina when the murders occurred and evidence that he was excluded from more than fifty DNA samples recovered from the scene. The court denied summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim.

Pretrial Detention

Days brought a claim under Manuel v. Joliet concerning detention before trial without probable cause. Because the court found that a jury could determine that probable cause was lacking, it denied summary judgment on this claim.

New York Constitution and County Liability

Days sought to hold Westchester County responsible under a theory of respondeat superior, meaning responsibility for an employee’s conduct, for violations of the New York Constitution. The defendants argued that the county could not be liable because there was no underlying violation by Calabrese and that the state claims merely duplicated the federal claims.

The court rejected those arguments at this stage. Because Days had presented a viable underlying claim against Calabrese, the court allowed the state constitutional claims to proceed insofar as they relied on respondeat superior. The court concluded that the state claims involved a distinct theory of liability even though they arose from similar conduct.

Qualified Immunity

The defendants also asserted qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right. The court denied summary judgment on this defense. Viewing the evidence in Days’s favor, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the alleged conduct— including failing to intervene, forwarding a false confession, and providing false information to prosecutors—was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established rights.

Disposition

The court denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It denied the motion on Days’s claims for failure to intervene in the alleged coerced confession, fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecution, pretrial detention without probable cause under Manuel, and violations of the New York Constitution. It granted the motion on the Brady violation claim. The court directed the parties to appear for a pretrial teleconference.