Boykin v. City of New York

Background

Keith Boykin, described in the opinion as an author, journalist, and freelance reporter, covered a May 30, 2020 protest in New York City. He followed the protest on his bicycle onto the West Side Highway. While sitting on his bicycle near West 101st Street, he told approaching New York Police Department officers that he was with the press. An officer told him that he could not be on the road and arrested him at about 3:30 p.m. Boykin was detained for approximately six hours and charged with disorderly conduct for blocking vehicular traffic and walking on a highway. The State of New York dismissed those charges in September 2020.

Boykin sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing damages claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. His amended complaint asserted claims based on the Fourth Amendment, alleging false arrest, and the First Amendment, alleging that the arrest violated his rights connected to protected speech. The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court dismissed Boykin’s false-arrest claim. It explained that probable cause defeats a false-arrest claim. Probable cause exists when the known circumstances would give a reasonably cautious person sufficient grounds to believe that an offense was committed.

The court found probable cause based on a New York City rule providing that pedestrians and bicycles may not use highways unless signs permit that use. The court stated that it was undisputed that Boykin was on his bicycle on the highway when arrested. It rejected his arguments that he was documenting the protest as a reporter, was sitting rather than riding, and had not blocked traffic, because those facts did not affect the rule’s prohibition on the use of bicycles on highways. The court also rejected his argument that the arrest was pretextual, explaining that an arrest’s objective legal basis—not an officer’s subjective motive—controls.

The court further ruled that the mayor’s press secretary’s apology did not undermine probable cause. It also concluded that Boykin had not shown that defenses based on government authorization or government-induced reliance applied to this civil case. Because Boykin had not pleaded an underlying constitutional violation, the City could not be liable under the municipal-liability principles associated with Monell v. Department of Social Services.

First Amendment claim

The court also dismissed Boykin’s First Amendment claim. A person claiming retaliation for protected speech must generally plead and prove that the arrest lacked probable cause. The court had already found probable cause. It also stated that Boykin had not alleged facts supporting the narrow exception for an arrest where similarly situated people who were not engaging in the same protected speech were not arrested.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Boykin’s request to file another amended complaint. It noted that he had already received one opportunity to amend and had been warned that another opportunity was unlikely. The court found that Boykin did not explain how another amendment would cure the deficiencies or why he had not addressed them in the first amendment, making further amendment futile.

The court granted the City’s June 3, 2022 motion to dismiss the amended complaint, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the City, and ordered the case closed.