Johnson v. City Of New York

Background

Christopher Johnson brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by state or local officials. He sued the City of New York, NYPD officers Steven Poupos and Joseph Davin, and two unidentified officers. Johnson alleged that Poupos and Davin arrested and detained him rather than giving him a desk appearance ticket, performed a strip search and visual body-cavity search, and violated his constitutional rights. He also claimed that the officers failed to intervene and that the City was liable for the alleged violations.

According to the amended complaint, officers stopped Johnson and a friend in Harlem for excessively tinted windows. The officers allegedly found marijuana and a knife in the vehicle, arrested Johnson and his friend, and took Johnson to the 32nd precinct. During a pat-down, officers felt something and Johnson admitted that he had three ecstasy pills in his underwear and Viagra pills in a pants pocket. The officers then asked whether he was hiding anything in his body cavities. After Johnson denied doing so, they cut off his underwear and performed a visual search of his anus, which found no contraband. Johnson was later detained at Central Booking and arraigned about 24 hours after his arrest. He was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and released on his own recognizance.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On that motion, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences for Johnson, but it did not accept bare legal conclusions. The court also considered an arrest report because it was a public record and considered body-worn-camera footage, urged by the defendants, inappropriate for consideration on the motion.

Visual Body-Cavity Search Claim

The court dismissed Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim concerning the visual body-cavity search. A visual body-cavity search must be supported by reasonable suspicion based on specific facts and rational inferences that the person is concealing contraband in a body cavity. Courts also consider circumstances such as the offense, whether drugs were involved, the location of the search, and whether the search was based on individualized suspicion rather than a blanket policy.

The court held that Johnson had not plausibly alleged that the search was unreasonable. It relied on the alleged lawful arrest; the marijuana and knife allegedly found in the vehicle; the ecstasy pills allegedly found concealed in Johnson’s underwear; the Viagra pills in his pocket; and the fact that the visual search took place in a holding cell rather than in public. The court concluded that finding drugs concealed in Johnson’s underwear made it reasonable to suspect that he might also be concealing contraband in his anus. The motion to dismiss this claim was granted.

Desk Appearance Ticket and Due Process Claim

Johnson alleged that detaining him until arraignment, instead of issuing a desk appearance ticket under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 150.20, violated procedural due process. Procedural due process generally requires a protected liberty or property interest and appropriate procedures before the government takes that interest away.

The court noted that Johnson cited no case holding that § 150.20 created a federally protected liberty interest in receiving a desk appearance ticket. The court nevertheless assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that such an interest existed. It concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Johnson for a class D felony, including criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, based on the alleged marijuana, knife, Viagra pills, and ecstasy pills. Under § 150.20, the desk-ticket requirement applies to arrests for offenses other than class A, B, C, or D felonies. The court therefore concluded that Johnson had not plausibly alleged a federal due-process violation, and the motion to dismiss this claim was granted.

The court stated that Johnson’s later misdemeanor charge did not change the officers’ probable-cause determination at the time of arrest. It also noted that Johnson did not assert a false-arrest or unlawful-seizure claim and did not allege that the officers lacked probable cause.

Failure to Intervene and Municipal Liability

The court dismissed Johnson’s claim that the individual defendants failed to intervene. A failure-to-intervene claim cannot proceed without an underlying constitutional violation, and the court had dismissed Johnson’s search and due-process claims.

The court treated Johnson’s claim against the City as a municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Such a claim requires an underlying constitutional violation attributable to the municipality. Because the court found no viable underlying constitutional violation, it granted the motion to dismiss the municipal-liability claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants. The John Doe defendants were dismissed without prejudice because Johnson did not identify them in the amended complaint and the 90-day period for serving them had expired.