Hawthorne v. County of the Putnam

Background

Keith Hawthorne, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Putnam County, the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Robert Langley, Deputy Edward Kennedy, and Deputy Christopher Tompkins. The claims arose from a November 1, 2018 traffic stop. Hawthorne alleged that Deputy Kennedy stopped his vehicle for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign, asked questions about where he was going and whether he had illegal items or other legal issues, and became agitated when Hawthorne declined to answer further questions.

Hawthorne alleged that Kennedy ordered him and his child out of the vehicle, said the vehicle would be towed because its inspection had expired the previous day, and conducted an inventory search over Hawthorne’s objection while Tompkins stood nearby. Hawthorne alleged that the search was a pretext to investigate criminal activity, that no inventory form was used, and that the vehicle was ultimately towed directly to his residence. He also alleged that he was held at the scene for about 34 minutes and received two traffic summonses that were later dismissed.

Claims asserted on behalf of Nolan Hawthorne, an infant, had previously been dismissed without prejudice because Keith Hawthorne could not represent the child without a lawyer. The claims against the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office had also previously been dismissed because the office lacked capacity to be sued. Those earlier rulings were not the subject of the motion addressed in this opinion.

Claims and legal standards

The court treated Hawthorne’s federal allegations as claims for false arrest or unlawful detention, unreasonable search, violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Because Hawthorne was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally but did not rewrite the complaint for him.

For a claim against a municipality under § 1983, Hawthorne had to plausibly allege that a county policy, custom, or failure to train caused the constitutional violation. For claims against individual officials, he had to allege each official’s personal involvement in the alleged violation.

Federal claims

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Putnam County because Hawthorne did not allege facts showing that a county policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. His assertion that the county had a policy of interfering with people who exercised constitutional rights, and a statement that deputies conducted similar activities frequently, were not enough to make the municipal-liability claim plausible.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Sheriff Langley because Hawthorne did not adequately allege that Langley personally participated in the conduct, created or continued an unconstitutional policy, negligently supervised the deputies, or deliberately ignored information showing that unconstitutional acts were occurring. Hawthorne’s letters to Langley after the incident did not, by themselves, establish Langley’s personal involvement.

The court dismissed the unlawful-detention claim to the extent it challenged the initial traffic stop. Hawthorne described the stop as based on a routine traffic violation and did not expressly allege facts showing that the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion. The court also concluded that the alleged extension of the stop and the vehicle impoundment were reasonable on the facts pleaded. The expired inspection sticker gave Kennedy an objectively reasonable basis to impound the vehicle, and the approximately 34-minute wait for a tow truck did not by itself turn the stop into an arrest. The court additionally ruled that the defendants would have qualified immunity, which can protect officials from damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law or was objectively reasonable.

The court separately analyzed the inventory search. It held that Hawthorne plausibly alleged that Kennedy conducted the search solely to investigate possible criminal activity rather than to protect property, guard against claims about missing property, or protect officers from danger. The allegations that Kennedy became agitated when Hawthorne refused to answer questions, said Hawthorne should have answered, did not complete an inventory form, and sent the vehicle directly to Hawthorne’s residence supported that inference. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court could not conclude that the deputies were protected by qualified immunity on this claim. The Fourth Amendment unreasonable-search claim therefore survived against Deputies Kennedy and Tompkins.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim based solely on the traffic summonses because issuing a non-felony summons requiring a later court appearance, without additional restrictions, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.

The Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed because Hawthorne did not allege that he made an incriminating statement or that any statement was used, sought to be used, or could have been used against him in a criminal case. The First Amendment retaliation claim was also dismissed. The court assumed without deciding that refusing to answer an officer’s questions during a traffic stop could be protected conduct, but found that Hawthorne had not plausibly alleged a compensable injury or that the defendants’ actions were unlawfully motivated. The court also ruled that qualified immunity would protect the defendants because the asserted right to refuse to answer questions during this type of stop was not clearly established.

The court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The substantive due process theories duplicated the more specific Fourth Amendment claims, and Hawthorne did not allege that he lacked an adequate post-deprivation process concerning the vehicle. The court also stated that qualified immunity would apply to any due process concern arising from the impoundment.

New York constitutional claims

The court dismissed the New York constitutional claims that duplicated the federal First and Fourth Amendment claims because § 1983 generally provided an available remedy. It also found no sufficient facts supporting separate claims based on the state constitutional rights to assemble or equal protection. Because § 1983 does not impose municipal liability based solely on respondeat superior, however, the court found that § 1983 was not an adequate alternative remedy for the state constitutional claim against Putnam County based on the alleged unreasonable inventory search.

As a result, the only state constitutional claim that survived was the respondeat superior claim against Putnam County based on the deputies’ alleged unreasonable inventory search. The court dismissed the other state constitutional claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Claims against Sheriff Langley and the federal claims against Putnam County were dismissed in their entirety. The claims against Deputies Kennedy and Tompkins under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were dismissed in their entirety. The Fourth Amendment claim against those deputies survived only as to the alleged unreasonable search and was otherwise dismissed. The state constitutional claims were dismissed except for the unreasonable-search claim against Putnam County.

All dismissals in this opinion were without prejudice. Hawthorne was granted leave to file an amended complaint by November 10, 2020. The court warned that claims dismissed without prejudice would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not file an amended complaint.