Johnson v. City of Newburgh

Background

Rajohine Johnson sued the City of Newburgh, Police Chief Anthony Geraci, Police Officer Kevin Jodice, and The Mid Hudson News (MHN). The claims arose from a September 7, 2021, incident in which Jodice allegedly crashed a police car into Johnson while Johnson was riding a motorcycle. Johnson alleged that, after the crash, Jodice searched his backpack while he was injured or unconscious, seized his DNA, used excessive force, and maliciously prosecuted him. Johnson also alleged that Geraci and Jodice fabricated evidence and denied him a fair trial, and that Newburgh had policies or customs involving excessive force and inadequate training, supervision, and discipline. He further alleged that Geraci, Jodice, and MHN defamed him through a police press release and a news article.

The Newburgh Defendants moved to dismiss part of the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. MHN separately moved to dismiss the amended complaint under the same rule. The court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of these motions and drew reasonable inferences in Johnson’s favor.

Rulings

Municipal-liability claim against Newburgh. The court dismissed Johnson’s claim against Newburgh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that Johnson’s allegations of inadequate training, supervision, and discipline were general statements that did not identify a specific training deficiency. The court also held that citing older lawsuits involving Newburgh police did not plausibly show a widespread and persistent policy or custom, particularly because the complaint did not allege how those lawsuits ended.

Backpack search and DNA claim. The court allowed Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim based on Jodice’s alleged search of his backpack to proceed. The court held that a closed, opaque backpack can carry a reasonable expectation of privacy and that Johnson plausibly alleged Jodice searched it without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. The court could not decide at the dismissal stage that the search was legally justified by an emergency involving Johnson’s injuries. The court dismissed the separate DNA-seizure claim because Johnson did not provide details about when, how, or why his DNA was taken, and because he did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning that claim.

Excessive-force claim. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against Jodice remained in the case. The Newburgh Defendants did not move to dismiss that claim.

Malicious-prosecution claim. The court dismissed Johnson’s malicious-prosecution claim against Jodice. Although Johnson alleged that Jodice issued a desk appearance ticket charging him with weapon possession and that the charges were withdrawn or dismissed, Johnson did not allege that he actually appeared in court, was arraigned, had to post bail, or faced court-ordered travel restrictions. The court therefore held that he had not plausibly alleged the required restraint on his liberty.

Fabricated-evidence claim. The court allowed Johnson’s claim against Geraci and Jodice to proceed. Johnson alleged that the officers stated he had a gun and sent that information to prosecutors even though they knew he was not the robbery suspect and had not possessed a weapon. The court held that issuing the desk appearance ticket based on the allegedly fabricated information sufficiently alleged a deprivation of liberty for this claim. It also held that the complaint plausibly alleged Geraci’s personal involvement because it referred to both police officer defendants as participating in the alleged fabrication.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress and state constitutional claims. The court dismissed Johnson’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Geraci and Jodice. It held that the alleged conduct fit traditional tort claims, including malicious prosecution and assault and battery, and that this emotional-distress claim could not substitute for those other remedies. The court also dismissed Johnson’s claims under Article 1, Section 12, of the New York Constitution for respondeat superior, assault, and battery because his federal civil-rights and common-law claims provided alternative remedies.

Defamation claims. The court dismissed the defamation claims against Geraci, Jodice, and MHN. As to Geraci and Jodice, the court held that the press release did not state that Johnson robbed the gas station, had been charged, or possessed a weapon. It also held that they could not be liable for statements in the MHN article merely because Johnson alleged, without supporting facts, that they provided the press release to MHN. As to MHN, the court held that the article was protected by New York’s fair-reporting privilege because it fairly and accurately reported the police press release and made clear that the investigation was ongoing and that charges had not yet been brought. The court did not reach Geraci and Jodice’s qualified-immunity argument.

Disposition

Judge Briccetti held that the Newburgh Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and that MHN’s motion to dismiss was granted. All claims were dismissed except Johnson’s unreasonable-search claim concerning his backpack against Jodice, excessive-force claim against Jodice, and fabricated-evidence claim against Geraci and Jodice. The court directed Geraci and Jodice to answer the amended complaint by September 12, 2023, and directed the clerk to terminate Newburgh and MHN from the docket.