Conklin v. Morris

• Decision Date: 30 September 2022
• Docket Number: 18-CV-3805 (PKC) (CLP)
• Parties: LARRAYSHA CONKLIN, Plaintiff, v. POLICE OFFICER SARA MORRIS and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1-10, all of whom are sued individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

LARRAYSHA CONKLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
POLICE OFFICER SARA MORRIS and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1-10, all of whom are sued individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-3805 (PKC) (CLP)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Sergeant Sarah Morris seeks summary judgment against Plaintiff Larraysha Conklin, who brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, Defendant Morris's motion is granted and this case is dismissed.^[1]

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background^[2]

On July 1, 2015, and for a period of time prior thereto, Plaintiff and her four children resided on the first floor of 117-18 219th Street, Queens, New York (the “Premises”). (Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement (“Pl. 56.1”), Dkt. 57, ¶ 3.) The Premises consists of three floors: a basement, first floor, and second floor. (Certificate of Occupancy, Dkt.

1

24-1.) The front door allows entrance to the first floor. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57 ¶ 5.) There is access to the basement through the first-floor kitchen (id. ¶ 7), and an interior door within one of the first-floor bedrooms provides access to a stairway to the second floor (id. ¶ 8). The second floor is also accessible from an outside doorway on the side of the Premises, which has a separate doorbell. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) In July 2015, the basement was occupied by Plaintiff's brother, Lawrence Conklin, while the second floor was occupied by a separate tenant, whom Plaintiff did not know. (Id. ¶¶ 1315; Defendant's 56.1 Statement (“Def. 56.1”), Dkt. 55, ¶ 19.)

Beginning in the spring of 2014, Defendant Morris, an NYPD police officer, was assigned to investigate potential financial crimes occurring on the Premises. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶¶ 2, 18.) Plaintiff was not the subject of the investigation. (Id. ¶ 19.) During the investigation, the NYPD utilized a confidential informant, who had been employed in obtaining five separate search warrants that resulted in recovered contraband. (Id. ¶ 20; Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 4-5.) On three separate occasions, the confidential informant entered the first floor of the Premises through the front door, proceeded to the basement, and purchased forged credit cards in exchange for cash. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 20; Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 5-6.) On one occasion, the confidential informant told Defendant Morris that the forged credit card was purchased from an individual named “Lawrence.” (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 7.) The investigation revealed that Plaintiff's brother is Lawrence Conklin. (Id. ¶ 19.) Defendant Morris subsequently showed the confidential informant a picture of Lawrence Conklin and the confidential informant identified Lawrence Conklin as the person who had sold the forged credit card to the informant. (Search Warrant Affidavit, Dkt. 542, at ECF^[3] 7.)

2

In preparation for a search warrant application, Defendant Morris performed several public record database inquiries, including searches for domestic incident reports, arrest reports, complaint reports, warrants, and licenses for weapons in connection with the Premises. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 10; Database Query Report, Dkt. 54-4.) Additionally, Defendant Morris searched Consolidated Edison (“ConEd”) power service records, which showed that there were two separate ConEd meters on the Premises-one for the first floor and another for the second floor-although both were in the name of Julene Mercano, Plaintiff's mother. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶¶ 10, 16; see also ConEd Records, Dkt. 60-11, Exhibit K.) Defendant Morris did not search for a Certificate of Occupancy. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 22.) Defendant Morris and another NYPD officer, Sergeant Michael Sykora, also conducted reconnaissance of the Premises. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 9.) The officers observed that the Premises had one mailbox, one driveway, and one street number. (Id. ¶ 12.) While there was a side door with a doorbell, the door neither had a separate mailbox nor an address marker. (Id. ¶ 13.)

On June 30, 2015, Defendant Morris appeared before the Queens County Criminal Court, where she applied for a search warrant. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 26; Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 23.) In the application, Defendant Morris listed the Premises as a “single family detached brick house.” (Search Warrant Affidavit, Dkt. 54-2, at ECF 2.) The search warrant affidavit provided information regarding the investigation of the Premises, including the purchase of forged credit cards by the confidential informant. (Search Warrant Affidavit, Dkt. 54-2, at ECF 4-8.) The magistrate judge issued a search warrant for the Premises to search and seize any computers, computer related equipment, external storage media, portable storage media, credit card applications, and various types of documents and records. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 28.)

3

On July 1, 2015, at 7:20 a.m., an Emergency Service Unit (“ESU”) team, executing the warrant, forcibly entered Plaintiff's home through the front door. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff and her family were asleep when the ESU team entered. (Id. ¶¶ 31-33.) Plaintiff, her children, and her two younger sisters were asleep on the first floor. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32.) Plaintiff's mother, Julene Mercano, who was visiting Plaintiff at the time, was asleep in the basement. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff's brother, Lawrence Conklin, who resided in the basement, was not present. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 19.) Once the Premises were secured, Defendant Morris and other officers entered to conduct a search of the first floor. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff and her family were initially confined in the living room, but were later removed to the backyard. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶¶ 36-37.) Plaintiff and Mercano were handcuffed after being removed to the backyard. (Id. ¶ 38.)

During the search of the first floor, Defendant Morris and other officers found and seized several designer handbags, $397 in cash, credit cards, laptops, phones, and an Apple watch. (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 32.) In the basement, officers found and seized more designer handbags, $10,000 in cash, cell phones, mail, a chemical storage tank that was empty, and bank documents. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 40; Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 33.) The officers also found two electricity meters. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 16.) ConEd representatives who arrived at the Premises during the search determined that there was approximately $64,792.73 in unmetered electrical service diverted from the first floor to the second floor of the Premises. (Id. ¶ 47; Preliminary Estimated Bill for Unmetered Service, Dkt. 60-12.)

After conducting a search of the first floor and basement, officers attempted to reach the second floor. The interior door that led from a first-floor bedroom to the second floor was barricaded by heavy furniture and was inaccessible. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶¶ 8-9.) The ESU team and Defendant Morris exited the Premises and went to the side door. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) Because

4

Plaintiff did not have a key for this door, the ESU team forced entry into the second floor. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 43.) Upon entry, officers found and seized 41 marijuana plants, with an aggregate weight of approximately 10 pounds, and equipment and chemicals used to grow marijuana. (Id. ¶ 45.)

Defendant Morris arrested Plaintiff for grand larceny in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 155.40), criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 221.30), theft of services (N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15), endangering the welfare of a child (N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 220.50). (Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 38; Arrest Report, Dkt. 54-28.) Plaintiff was subsequently charged with grand larceny in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 155.40-1), criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 221.30), and two counts of theft of services (N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15-4A and N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15-7). (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 48; Criminal Complaint, Dkt. 60-16, at ECF 2-3.)

Following the arrest, Defendant Morris filed a Report of Suspected Child Abuse or Maltreatment form, notifying Susan Tucker from the Administration for Children's Services (“ACS”) of the “marijuana growhouse.” (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶ 50; Report to ACS, Dkt. 60-8.) ACS was also notified of Plaintiff's arrest. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶¶ 51-52.) Plaintiff's children were removed from her custody for approximately nine months following the arrest. (Id. ¶ 56.) Defendant Morris gave testimony during Ms. Mercano's family court proceeding regarding visitation rights with her grandchildren, Plaintiff's children. (Id. ¶ 54.)

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 170.55, and was required to participate in a supervised release program to regain custody of her children. (Id. ¶¶ 58-60; Def. 56.1, Dkt. 55, ¶ 43.) Plaintiff

5

successfully completed the program and regained custody of her children on March 29, 2016. (Pl. 56.1, Dkt. 57, ¶¶ 60-61.)

On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against Defendants, alleging an unlawful search and false arrest, in violation of her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. ¶ 1.)

II. Plaintiff's Failure to Provide a Compliant 56.1 Statement

Local Rule 56.1(b) requires that “[t]he papers opposing a motion for summary judgment . . . include a correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried.” E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1(b). Despite being represented by counsel, Plaintiff did not provide a 56.1 Statement that complies with the Local Rule. Defendant Morris...