Maradiaga v. City of New York

Background

Jeronimo Maradiaga, Cosme Del Rosario-Bell, Randolph Carr, and Kevin Park sued the City of New York, Sergeant Ray Thorney, Officer Kevin Cox, and other New York City police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged constitutional violations arising from their arrests on February 22, 2014, while they were conducting a “Cop Watch” patrol near a vehicle safety checkpoint on the 145th Street Bridge. The remaining claims were false arrest and unlawful seizure, denial of the right to a fair trial, and First Amendment retaliation. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims for malicious abuse of process, equal-protection violations, failure to intervene, and municipal liability, and withdrew claims against defendants other than the City, Sergeant Thorney, and Officer Cox.

The checkpoint stopped every third vehicle and required officers to inspect items such as seat belts, vehicle equipment, and driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs stood close to stopped vehicles while filming and, in Maradiaga’s case, handing flyers to occupants. Officers repeatedly directed them to move farther away for safety reasons while telling them they could continue filming from a safer location. The plaintiffs did not move to the locations specified by the officers and were arrested. Maradiaga and Del Rosario-Bell were charged with obstructing governmental administration and received adjournments in contemplation of dismissal. Carr and Park received disorderly-conduct summonses that were never submitted for prosecution.

Additional Claim Raised During Summary Judgment

The plaintiffs attempted to add an excessive-force claim in their opposition to defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court denied that request because the claim had not been pleaded earlier, the complaint had already been amended twice, the plaintiffs had had ample opportunity to seek amendment, and discovery had concluded without the claim.

False Arrest and Unlawful Seizure

The court held that probable cause defeats claims for false arrest and unlawful seizure. It found sufficient probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for both obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. The officers’ orders were not arbitrary: they were intended to address a potentially dangerous situation at an active nighttime traffic checkpoint. The plaintiffs had disregarded at least 15 directions to move a reasonable distance away, and the court found that their proximity interfered with the officers’ work and created a safety risk.

The plaintiffs argued that the checkpoint was unlawful because motorists lacked adequate notice and no opportunity to avoid it. The court rejected that argument, citing the checkpoint’s flares, flashing lights on marked police vehicles, traffic cones, and officers wearing high-visibility vests. The court stated that the plaintiffs offered no evidence showing motorists could not see those warning measures.

Denial of the Right to a Fair Trial

Maradiaga and Del Rosario-Bell alleged that Officer Cox used false statements in arrest reports and a sworn criminal complaint, including statements that they disrupted the checkpoint, handed out flyers, and continued doing so after an order to stop. The court treated the claims as fabricated-evidence claims under § 1983.

The court relied on the rule that a fabricated-evidence claim cannot be brought before the related criminal prosecution ends favorably for the plaintiff. It held that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not a favorable termination for this type of claim. Because Maradiaga and Del Rosario-Bell resolved their charges through that procedure, the court held that their fair-trial claims failed.

First Amendment Retaliation

The plaintiffs alleged that they were arrested in retaliation for informing civilians of their rights and documenting police activity. The court held that probable cause existed and that the plaintiffs had not presented objective evidence showing that similarly situated people who were not engaged in the same conduct were not arrested. The court also found no evidence that the arrests were motivated or substantially caused by the plaintiffs’ First Amendment activity. Officers allowed the plaintiffs to film from a safe distance, and members of the plaintiffs’ “back” team filmed without being arrested because they maintained a safer distance.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. It granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims. The court also denied plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint to add an excessive-force claim and directed the clerk to close the motions.