Wheeler v. Doe

Background

Damon Wheeler, an inmate who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Joseph C. Kolek concerning Wheeler’s September 6, 2014 arrest. The remaining claims against Kolek alleged Fourth Amendment violations involving false arrest or false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, warrantless entry into Wheeler’s residence, a warrantless search of the residence, and a suspicionless strip search and visual body-cavity inspection.

The arrest followed a burglary at the El Tequilero Bar and Restaurant. Police learned that Wheeler had sold items to a pawnshop shortly after the burglary, and the victims identified some of the recovered items as property taken in the burglary. Kolek concluded that there was probable cause to arrest Wheeler for criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Wheeler was arrested at his residence, later arraigned, and held for nineteen days before being released on bail. His criminal case was eventually dismissed after an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.

Wheeler alleged that Kolek entered his residence without permission, followed him while he dressed, and participated in or directed a strip search and visual body-cavity inspection at the police barracks. Kolek denied that any strip search or body-cavity search occurred. Kolek moved for summary judgment on every claim except the warrantless-entry claim.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must resolve reasonable uncertainties in favor of the party opposing the motion, but unsupported statements or speculation are not enough to create a genuine factual dispute.

False arrest and false imprisonment

The court held that probable cause defeated Wheeler’s false-arrest claim. Probable cause means facts known to the officer that would lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the person arrested committed an offense. The court relied on the pawnshop records, the victims’ identification of recovered property, Wheeler’s sales of the property soon after the burglary, and the reported value of the equipment. It found no genuine dispute about whether Kolek had probable cause to believe that Wheeler knowingly possessed stolen property worth more than $3,000.

The court also held that, even if probable cause were lacking, Kolek would have qualified immunity because reasonable officers could have disagreed about whether probable cause existed. The court treated any separate false-imprisonment claim the same way as the false-arrest claim and granted Kolek summary judgment on it.

Malicious prosecution

The court held that Wheeler could not establish that his criminal case ended in his favor. Under New York law, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not a favorable termination for a malicious-prosecution claim. The court also stated that the information available to Kolek established probable cause to begin the criminal proceeding. It therefore granted summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim.

Search of the residence

The court granted summary judgment on the claim alleging an unconstitutional search of Wheeler’s residence. It found that Wheeler’s pleadings described an entry into the residence and Kolek’s movement between the living room and bedroom, but did not allege that the residence was searched. The court also noted that Wheeler did not testify during his deposition that a search occurred. The warrantless-entry claim was not resolved by this motion.

Strip search and visual body-cavity inspection

The court found a genuine dispute about whether a strip search and visual body-cavity inspection occurred. Wheeler testified that he was ordered to remove his clothes and spread his buttocks. Kolek denied participating in, ordering, or knowing about such a search, although his motion assumed Wheeler’s account for purposes of some arguments. The court declined to resolve that disputed fact on summary judgment.

The court also rejected Kolek’s statute-of-limitations defense. Section 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period. The court concluded that Wheeler gave notice of the strip-search claim by submitting a proposed amended complaint before the limitations period expired, even though the amended complaint was entered as a separate docket filing after the deadline. The court further held that the claim was not barred by Kolek’s qualified-immunity argument at this stage because the parties disputed whether the search occurred.

Disposition

The court granted Kolek’s motion for summary judgment in part. It granted summary judgment on Wheeler’s false-arrest, false-imprisonment, malicious-prosecution, and residence-search claims. It denied the motion concerning the strip-search and visual body-cavity-inspection claim. Wheeler’s warrantless-entry claim and strip-search claim remained for trial.