Carroll v. Krumpter
| Decision Date | 12 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2:15-cv-1550 (ADS)(ARL) |
| Parties | Andrew CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. Thomas C. KRUMPTER, Acting Police Commissioner, Nassau County, New York, Steven E. Skrynecki, Chief of Department, Nassau County Police Department, Daniel P. Flanagan, Commanding Officer, First Precinct, Nassau County Police Department, Officer Budlinic, Police Officer, First Precinct, Nassau County Police Department, Officer John Doe, Police Officer, First Precinct, Nassau County Police Department, Paul Cappy, and County of Nassau, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
The Law Office of Robert T. Bean, Counsel for the Plaintiff, 3033 Brighton Third Street, Brooklyn, NY 11235, By: Robert T. Bean, Esq., Of Counsel
Nassau County Attorney, Counsel for the Defendants, One West Street, Mineola, NY 11501, By: Ralph J. Reissman, Esq., Deputy County Attorney, Diane C. Petillo, Esq., Deputy County Attorney
In this case, Andrew Carroll ("Carroll" or the "Plaintiff") challenges the constitutionality of the Nassau County Police Department's (the "Department" or "NCPD") policy of confiscating firearms in the course of responding to domestic incidents. On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff commenced this action against the Department, Acting NCPD Commissioner Thomas Krumpter ("Krumpter"), NCPD Chief Steven E. Skrynecki ("Skrynecki"), NCPD First Precinct Commanding Officer Daniel P. Flanagan ("Flanagan"), NCPD Officer Budlinic ("Budlinic"), and the County of Nassau (the "County") (together, the "Defendants"). Carroll originally asserted deprivations of his Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as various state law causes of action. Since then, the Plaintiff has withdrawn his Second Amendment claim. See Docket Entry ("Dkt.") 45 at 1.
On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" FED. R. CIV. P. " or "Rule") 65 seeking a preliminary injunction. This Court denied the Plaintiff's motion seeking a preliminary injunction on November 30, 2015, because Carroll failed to identify any actual and imminent harm that he would suffer if an injunction did not issue. On February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed one of the instant motions, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56, seeking summary judgment in his favor. The other instant motion, filed on November 14, 2018 by the Defendants, seeks summary judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56 in their favor.
On December 4, 2018, the instant motions were fully briefed.
Four days ago, the Court decided a summary judgment motion in a similar case, Weinstein v. Krumpter , 386 F.Supp.3d 220 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (Spatt, J.), which also challenged the constitutionality of the same NCPD policy at issue in this case. There, this Court ruled that OPS 10023 as applied to longarms violated the Fourteenth Amendment's right to procedural due process and found a triable issue of fact as to whether the warrantless seizure of Weinstein's firearms complied with the Fourth Amendment. While the facts are not identical in the instant case, much of this Court's analysis in Weinstein applies with equal force to the instant facts. As such, the Court used many parts of the Weinstein decision to decide the motions in this case.
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed and are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements.
A. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2014, Carroll resided at 7 Belt Street, North Bellmore, New York (the "Residence"). The Plaintiff's mother, Margaret Carroll ("Margaret") and grandmother, Evelyn Carroll ("Evelyn"), also resided at the home. Evelyn, who suffers from dementia
, is the owner of the Residence. She lives on the ground floor of the Residence; Margaret lives in the basement and the Plaintiff lives on the second floor of the Residence. Margaret was previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff owned three firearms: (1) a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun; (2) a 22 caliber rifle manufactured by the Henry Repeating Arms Company; and (3) an AR-15 rifle manufactured by Dark Storm Industries. He also possessed a 5.56 millimeter ammunition magazine. All three firearms were kept under Carroll's bed at the Residence.
At some point that day, Margaret contacted the Plaintiff while he was at work to request that Carroll repay money previously lent to him by Margaret. The Plaintiff disputes the contention that he owed Margaret any money at that time. Later in the day, Carroll arrived at the Residence and discovered that his AR-15 rifle was missing from his bedroom. He confronted Margaret, who told him "I gave it to somebody.
You owed me the money and I owed him. So, I gave it to him as collateral."
At approximately 6:03 p.m., the Plaintiff called 911 to report the stolen firearm. NCPD Sergeant Arnold Rothenberg ("Rothenberg"), a Patrol Supervisor at the First Precinct, was dispatched to the Residence. When Rothenberg arrived at the Residence, he was met by Budlinic as well as fellow Police Officers Brett Roslow and Ralph Swanson who had already arrived on scene. Budlinic informed Rothenberg that Margaret had let him know that she was involved in a lengthy dispute with Carroll over his purchase of one of the rifles. Margaret claimed that she lent Carroll money for an undisclosed purpose and that against her wishes, he used the money to purchase a firearm. This argument allegedly culminated in September 2014 when Margaret took possession of the firearm from Carroll's bedroom. Although the Plaintiff disputes that such a disagreement existed, the two were engaged in an argument at the time of the incident. The details of Carroll's quarrel with Margaret is largely irrelevant to the disposition of the instant motion.
When Budlinic requested that Margaret turn over the firearm, she promptly retrieved it from her living area and handed Budlinic a fully loaded rifle. After consulting with the officers on scene, Rothenberg decided to remove all three firearms from the Residence. "This decision was based on the fact [that] the mother and son had argued over a loaded rifle. That an unsecured weapon was in the hands of a woman who admitted to officers she suffered from schizophrenia
was another factor I considered. The mother's claim her son had mental issues also weighed heavily in my decision.... Although there was no indication the son had threatened the mother, it was my opinion that leaving unsecured firearms in this residence could lead to catastrophic violence." Dkt. 43, Ex. D at 1. Budlinic filled out a New York State Domestic Incident Report, which the Plaintiff signed.
Rothenberg reports that the Plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the firearms. Carroll disputes this fact. The NCPD did not obtain a search warrant at any time during its investigation of the incident.
A "firearm" includes (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(3). A rifle is a "weapon designated or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(11). A shotgun is a "weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger." N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(12). Rifles and shotguns are commonly referred to as longarms. The policy at issue is Police Department Procedure OPS 10023, entitled "Removal and Dispositions of Weapons – Domestic Incidents/Threats to Public Safety ("OPS 10023" or the "Policy"). The Policy establishes a framework for removing firearms, rifles, and shotguns and details the following procedure:
Dkt. 43, Ex. H (emphasis in original). OPS 10023 also explains the framework that governs "returning, retaining or destroying the firearms, rifles, and shotguns after completion of an investigative review." The Precinct Domestic Incident Liaison Officer must do the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warburton v. Cnty. of Ulster
...present specific facts to demonstrate there is a genuine issue that should be left for the fact finder to decide. Carroll v. Krumpter, 397 F. Supp. 3d 234, 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). However, Plaintiff relies on mere speculation, or a lack of explanation, in support of her argument that Defendant......
-
Kaiser v. Fairfield Props.
...burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there are specific facts that demonstrate a genuine issue of fact exists. Id. (citation omitted). It is “axiomatic that pro se be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Brand v. Narco Fre......
-
United States v. Care Worldwide, Inc.
...burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there are specific facts that demonstrate a genuine issue of fact exists. Id. omitted). “To defeat a summary judgment motion properly supported by affidavits, depositions, or other documentation, the non-movant must offer si......
- Oneida Indian Nation v. Phillips