892 F.3d 525 (2nd Cir. 2018), 17-2065, Edrei v. Maguire

Docket Nº:17-2065
Citation:892 F.3d 525
Opinion Judge:Katzmann, Chief Judge:
Party Name:Anika EDREI, Shay Horse, James Craven, Keegan Stephan, Michael Nusbaum, and Alexander Appel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Lieutenant John MAGUIRE, individually and in his official capacity, Officer Mike Poletto, individually and in his official capacity, Shield No. 3762. Defendants-Appellants, William Joseph Bratton, New York Police Department (NYP...
Attorney:Gideon O. Oliver (Michael Decker and Elena L. Cohen, on the brief ), Law Offices of Gideon Orion Oliver, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Ingrid R. Gustafson (Richard Dearing and Devin Slack, on the brief ), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, ...
Judge Panel:Before: Katzmann, Chief Judge, Walker, and Pooler, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:June 13, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 525

892 F.3d 525 (2nd Cir. 2018)

Anika EDREI, Shay Horse, James Craven, Keegan Stephan, Michael Nusbaum, and Alexander Appel, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Lieutenant John MAGUIRE, individually and in his official capacity, Officer Mike Poletto, individually and in his official capacity, Shield No. 3762. Defendants-Appellants,

William Joseph Bratton, New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner, City of New York. Defendants.[*]

No. 17-2065

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

June 13, 2018

Argued: March 27, 2018

Page 526

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 527

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 528

Plaintiffs, six individuals who participated in and observed protests in Manhattan on the night of December 4-5, 2014, sued Lieutenant John Maguire and Officer Mike Poletto ("defendants") of the New York Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment right against excessive force when they used a long-range acoustic device ("LRAD"), also known as a "sound gun, " to disperse non-violent protesters, resulting in significant injuries, including hearing loss. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing, in part, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint neither stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim nor alleged a violation of clearly established law. The district court rejected both arguments, reasoning that LRADs, which can cause injuries comparable to those caused by other tools that are capable of excessive force, fit within the scope of existing precedents. We AFFIRM.

Gideon O. Oliver (Michael Decker and Elena L. Cohen, on the brief ), Law Offices of Gideon Orion Oliver, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Ingrid R. Gustafson (Richard Dearing and Devin Slack, on the brief ), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: Katzmann, Chief Judge, Walker, and Pooler, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Katzmann, Chief Judge:

Page 529

This appeal arises out of the New York Police Department’s ("NYPD" or "Department") response to a December 2014 protest in Manhattan. The six individual plaintiffs allege that Lieutenant John Maguire and Officer Mike Poletto ("defendants") violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by using a long-range acoustic device ("LRAD"), also known as a "sound gun," to compel them and other non-violent protesters to exit the street. The district court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged an excessive force violation and, accepting the allegations as true, that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. This case comes to us on an interlocutory appeal from that order.

We, like the district court, consider only the factual allegations in the complaint and the videos it incorporates. With this limitation, we are compelled to affirm the denial of qualified immunity. In a narrow ruling, we hold that purposefully using a LRAD in a manner capable of causing serious injury to move non-violent protesters to the sidewalks violates the Fourteenth Amendment under clearly established law. At the same time, recognizing that the complaint before us provides only the vantage point of the plaintiffs, we caution that once both sides present evidence— especially about what the officers observed and knew— the defendants may yet be entitled to qualified immunity.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual History

On an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, our jurisdiction is limited to deciding whether, based on facts alleged by the plaintiffs or stipulated to by the parties, "the immunity defense is established as a matter of law." Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1996). For purposes of this appeal, the defendants accept as true the allegations set forth in this factual history.

A. LRAD Technology and the NYPD

LRADs are acoustic weapons developed for the U.S. military in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000. "If mounted aboard a Navy ship, the device’s loudspeaker could be used to ‘warn off’ boats that came too close. If those warnings are ignored, the device could be used to send out sound at a dangerously high level ... to cause pain/hearing damage to try to repel the attack." First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 11. This technique, known as "area denial," has been used in both military and crowd control settings. Id.

An LRAD can produce louder sound than a traditional amplification device, such as a megaphone, and can project over much greater distances. To achieve this effect, LRADs concentrate sound into a 30- to 45-degree cone-shaped beam. They also reshape acoustic energy to produce flatter sound waves that (1) reduce dampening as the wave travels and (2) interact with the air to create additional frequencies within the wave. Alex Pasternack, The New Sound of Crowd Control, Motherboard (Dec. 17, 2014), https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkve7q/the-new-sound-of-crowd-control (last accessed Mar. 11, 2018). This can produce volumes of up to 146 decibels. For context, the threshold for human discomfort begins between 120 and 140 decibels and the National Institute of Health cautions that hearing loss can result from short exposure to sounds at or above 110 to 120 decibels.

The New York Police Department purchased two Model 3300 LRADs before the

Page 530

2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Like other LRADs, the Model 3300 has two functions. One, it can serve as a "loudspeaker" to broadcast police commands over vast distances. And, two, the "area denial" function can "propel piercing sound at higher levels ... than are considered safe to human ears." App. at 85. According to a Department representative speaking at the time of the Convention, the LRADs were purchased to direct crowds to safety in the event of a calamity.

Following the convention, the NYPD used its LRADs sporadically and, then, mainly as loudspeakers. In 2010, the NYPD’s Disorder Control Unit tested the Model 3300 at an empty parking lot in the Bronx. Measured from 320 feet away, the spoken voice commands registered at 102 decibels and the area denial mode at 110 decibels. The Department did not take readings within the 320-foot range, which it described as a "potential danger area." A report analyzing the test results observed that, in the "dangerous range (above 120 decibels), this device can cause damage to someone’s hearing and may be painful." FAC ¶ 11.

Shortly thereafter, the NYPD purchased the more portable Model 100X, which also has loudspeaker and area denial functions. The 100X’s product sheet boasts that it has a maximum volume of 136 decibels at one meter and the manufacturer guidelines caution not to use it within 10 to 20 meters of people. A diagram on the 100X’s control panel shows a red beam emanating from the front of the device and instructs: "DO NOT ENTER WITHIN 10 METERS DURING CONTINUOUS OPERATION." Id. ¶ 25.

B. The Protest

On December 3, 2014, a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the NYPD officer who placed Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, in a fatal chokehold. The next day, protests arose across the nation. In Manhattan, hundreds took to the streets to denounce police brutality. The plaintiffs, many of whom are activists and journalists, participated in and documented the protest. Over the course of the evening and into the pre-dawn hours, the demonstrators marched across the city, escorted by NYPD officers.

Sometime after 1:00 a.m., as the protest crossed through the intersection of 57th Street and Madison Avenue, officers made several arrests. Videos of the scene (which are incorporated into the complaint) show a crowd— cordoned off from the arrests by a chain of officers— gathered in a semicircle to observe. Unable to proceed through the intersection, cars idled in the street as protesters streamed past. Meanwhile, many onlookers inched closer to take photographs only to be waved off by officers or told to "get back." Although some demonstrators demanded that the officers "let [the arrestees] go," none interfered with the arrests. Several plaintiffs reported hearing what sounded like a glass bottle breaking, but it did not appear to strike or injure anyone.

Then, with no warning, NYPD officers discharged pepper spray. Several plaintiffs who had been watching the arrests began to flee. Seconds later the wail of a high-pitched alarm began pulsing though the streets. The defendants had activated the LRAD’s area denial function. According to plaintiffs, they had not been ordered to disperse and no such order is audible on the video.

After several bursts from the alarm tone, Lieutenant Maguire and Officer Poletto, both members of the Disorder Control Unit, began...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP