Alexander v. City of New York

Background

Hans George Alexander, representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and New York law against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Sergeant Ferrara, and Officers McCloud, Henriquez, and Nesto. He alleged unlawful stopping, detention, and search; false arrest; false imprisonment; malicious prosecution; and municipal liability. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Alexander did not oppose the motion.

The claims arose from events on September 2, 2016. Officers saw Alexander drop something over a gate and questioned him. Officers searched for the item, which turned out to be two dollars. While Alexander was still being questioned, Officer McCloud searched his clothing and pocket despite Alexander’s refusal to consent. McCloud found three crack cocaine rocks and powder, handcuffed Alexander, and arrested him. Alexander was later charged under New York’s controlled-substance law.

Rulings on the Detention and Searches

The court divided the encounter into three periods:

1. Initial stop and pat-down: The court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants. It found that the officers reasonably suspected Alexander had dropped contraband and reasonably believed he might be armed and dangerous because of suspected drug activity. The initial investigative stop and outer-clothing pat-down were therefore lawful.

2. Detention after the money was found: The court granted summary judgment to Alexander against the individual defendants. Once the officers recovered the two dollars and Alexander asked for it back, the officers no longer had reasonable suspicion that he had discarded drugs. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that they had a reasonable basis to detain or arrest Alexander for littering. It found that accidentally dropping money and asking to retrieve it did not establish a littering violation, and that money was not the kind of discarded material covered by the cited ordinance. The officers therefore were not protected by qualified immunity for this period.

3. Search of Alexander’s pocket: The court granted summary judgment to Alexander against Officer McCloud on the federal and New York unlawful-search claims. Because the search occurred during the unlawful continued detention and was not connected to a valid arrest, the search was unlawful. The court also found that qualified immunity did not protect McCloud because no reasonable officer could have believed the search was incident to a lawful arrest.

Arrest, False-Imprisonment, and Malicious-Prosecution Claims

The court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on Alexander’s false-arrest and false-imprisonment claims. The discovery of crack cocaine in Alexander’s pocket supplied probable cause for the arrest, even though the search that found it was unlawful. The court stated that the rule generally excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from criminal proceedings does not apply to these civil-rights claims.

The court also granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on the federal and New York malicious-prosecution claims. It found that the discovery of the crack cocaine supplied probable cause for the criminal prosecution.

Municipal Claims

The court granted summary judgment to the New York City Police Department because it is not a separately suable entity under the New York City Charter. A claim against the Police Department is properly brought against the City.

The court also granted summary judgment to the City on the municipal-liability claim. The record contained no evidence that the City had an official policy or widespread practice of detaining and searching people after the reasonable suspicion supporting an investigative stop had ended.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims except that it granted summary judgment to Alexander against the individual defendants on the specified unlawful-detention period and against Officer McCloud on the unlawful-pocket-search claim. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and mail the opinion to Alexander’s daughter.