Thomas v. City of New York

Background

Tyana Miller and Kenya Thomas brought constitutional and state-law claims against the City of New York and several New York Police Department officers concerning a February 2, 2017 search of a Brooklyn residence. After summary-judgment proceedings narrowed the case, the claims tried to the jury concerned Officers Kamna and Penner. The plaintiffs alleged that the officers detained and searched them unreasonably, including by requiring them to wait while nude and by conducting searches that were more invasive than a limited pat-down. The plaintiffs also alleged that Penner conducted a body-cavity search, which they said would constitute assault and battery under New York law.

A jury trial took place from September 6 through September 8, 2022. The evidence consisted almost entirely of testimony from Miller, Thomas, Penner, and Kamna. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on all claims.

Post-Trial Motions

The plaintiffs moved under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively under Rule 59 for a new trial. A judgment as a matter of law may be entered only when the evidence could not reasonably support the jury’s verdict. A new trial may be ordered when the verdict is seriously wrong or amounts to a miscarriage of justice, although courts generally should not replace a jury’s credibility assessments with their own.

Brief Exposure While Miller Dressed

The plaintiffs argued that Miller was entitled to judgment against Penner because Penner briefly exposed Miller to men in the room while helping Miller get dressed. The court found that the trial record did not establish the facts as definitively as the plaintiffs claimed. Penner testified that she did not know whether a male officer or Miller’s boyfriend remained in the room and that, at most, it was possible they saw Miller for a few seconds.

The court concluded that the jury had heard the plaintiffs’ arguments and had found Penner’s search of Miller reasonable. The evidence did not meet the demanding standard for overturning the verdict. The court also held that Penner was entitled to qualified immunity—a protection from liability when an official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law. Although existing cases recognized a privacy interest in an unclothed body and restricted officers from refusing a request for clothing without a legitimate law-enforcement reason, the court found no clearly established rule that one or two seconds of possible exposure to a person of another sex was automatically unconstitutional.

The court therefore rejected the plaintiffs’ request for judgment as a matter of law and found no basis for a new trial on this theory.

Searches of Miller and Thomas

The plaintiffs also argued that Penner’s searches were unconstitutional because she lacked reasonable suspicion and because the searches were more invasive than a limited pat-down. The court held that the search of the apartment occurred under a lawfully issued search warrant. Under the circumstances, the warrant allowed a limited pat-down of people found at the residence.

The plaintiffs disputed Penner’s account of their clothing and the searches. Penner testified that Miller was wearing a T-shirt when she arrived, that both women later wore T-shirts and shorts or similar clothing, and that she searched only Miller’s upper body after helping her put on leggings. Penner also explained why a pat-down could be necessary even over a thin T-shirt. Because the parties gave conflicting accounts and offered no documentary evidence or testimony from other witnesses, the court held that the verdict depended on the jury’s credibility determinations. The court could not overturn those determinations under Rule 50.

The court likewise denied a new trial under Rule 59. Although a judge may weigh evidence more freely when considering a new-trial motion, the court found no egregious error, seriously erroneous result, or miscarriage of justice warranting disturbance of the jury’s verdict.

Disposition

The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at docket numbers 152 and 153.