Conroy v. Caron
| Citation | 275 F.Supp.3d 328 |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:14–cv–01180 (JAM),3:14–cv–01180 (JAM) |
| Parties | Christine CONROY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David A. CARON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
James S. Brewer, Attorney at Law, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs.
Katherine E. Rule, Thomas R. Gerarde, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
RULING RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On a summer day in August 2012, two Glastonbury police officers were investigating an anonymous tip that a high school student was engaged in drug dealing. In the course of their investigation, the officers entered the empty attached garage of the Conroy family residence. The police did not have permission or a warrant. They claim to have entered the garage in order to knock on a door inside the garage that led to the interior of the house. The officers' entry into the garage set in motion a chain of events that included the forcible arrest of the student, the issuance of a search warrant, a subsequent search of the house, and the later arrests of several members of the family, mostly on charges that were later dropped.
Following these events, Christine Conroy and three of her children filed this federal lawsuit against the Town of Glastonbury and a number of individual officers. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all counts. I conclude that triable issues of fact remain for the core claims in this case. Genuine fact issues remain about whether several officers violated the Fourth Amendment and whether they are entitled at this time to qualified immunity. Genuine fact issues also remain as to plaintiffs' state law tort claims and state constitutional claims. On the other hand, I will grant summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs' Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment claims, their Monell claim against the Town of Glastonbury, their official-capacity claims, and their claims against various peripheral defendants in this case.
In light of the standards governing defendants' motion for summary judgment, the following facts are set forth on the basis of the parties' submissions and as viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Plaintiff Christine Conroy lives in Glastonbury, Connecticut, with her three children, Lauren, Martin, and minor P.C.—all plaintiffs in this case. In August 2012, when Martin was 17 years old, defendant David Goncalves (a Glastonbury police officer who was acting in his role as part of the Eastern Central Narcotics Task Force) was investigating Martin, because Martin was suspected of dealing drugs to other high school students. The investigation led to two encounters with the Conroy family at their residence, the first occurring on August 22, 2012. The August 22 encounter prompted the issuance of a search warrant, which police executed on September 5, 2012. That search, in turn, prompted criminal charges against several members of the family. Because plaintiffs allege multiple violations of their state and federal constitutional rights based on the events of August and September 2012, it is necessary to describe these events in some detail.
Around noon on August 22, 2012, Goncalves was surveilling plaintiffs' home. He contends that he was acting on two anonymous tips that he had received regarding possible drug sales occurring at the house. From his vantage point somewhere off plaintiffs' property, he could see that there was a three-bay garage attached to the Conroy home. He allegedly observed three young people hanging out inside the garage; he claims he could see inside the garage through the open middle garage door.
Goncalves then called defendant Michael Furlong, a fellow Glastonbury police officer, to assist him in his investigation. Goncalves left plaintiffs' neighborhood and met Furlong at the Manchester fire station. The two officers then returned and parked their cars in front of the Conroy home. They decided to approach the house for further investigation. Although the Conroy house has a front door, they bypassed the front door, walking "up and around" to the garage area instead. Doc. # 66–8 at 12.
The officers entered the garage through the middle garage door. Although the parties agree that the middle garage door was open in part and that the other two garage doors on either side of the middle door were fully closed, they dispute how much the middle garage door was open. Defendants claim that it was open at least halfway, and Goncalves testified that he was able to walk under the open door "without doing anything more than lowering [his] head." Doc. # 66–7 at 6. In contrast, Christine Conroy testified that when she stopped by the house to drop off 11–year-old P.C. about an hour before the officers arrived, she observed the middle garage door much closer to the ground. See Doc. # 75–5 at 9–10 (); Doc. # 75–23 at 10 ().
When Goncalves and Furlong entered the garage, there was no one inside. They saw a table, chairs, and several beer cans. They walked towards a door that was at the top of several steps inside the garage and that connected the garage to the inside of the Conroy home. As Goncalves stood on the steps leading up to the internal door, he looked on a shelf near the door and spotted a multi-colored pipe. Upon closer inspection, he noticed burnt marijuana residue on the inside of the bowl. Goncalves showed the pipe to Furlong.
Furlong then knocked on the door leading to the interior of the house and announced the presence of police. After a few minutes, a young man, who was not a resident of the house, opened the door. Goncalves and Furlong asked him to call a resident of the house to the door.
Lauren Conroy, who was 20 years old at the time, appeared at the door and then entered the garage. The officers asked to speak to "the blonde kid," apparently referring to Lauren's brother Martin. Lauren asked if the officers had a warrant and demanded that the officers leave the garage. The officers refused to leave, stating that they did not need a warrant, and they insisted that Lauren produce Martin.
Lauren went upstairs, where Martin was sleeping. Martin did not want to come down, but Lauren pleaded with him until he came downstairs and appeared at the door to the garage, having just been woken up and wearing only his boxer shorts.
The officers ordered Martin, Lauren, and their several friends into the garage. One friend, J.L., remained inside the door to the residence and began recording the encounter on his cell phone.1 The officers ordered the group to sit down on the chairs in the garage. Martin remained standing and did not sit down with his friends and sister, though he disputes that he was ever asked to sit. Doc. # 75–8 at 14. Both Martin and Lauren asked to see a warrant for the police entering the garage.
Goncalves threatened Martin and Lauren to turn over their marijuana or the police would enter the home. Martin politely responded that the police could not enter the home without a search warrant, and he asked the officers to leave. He reminded the officers that he was under 18 years old and that his mother was not home. At this, Goncalves "got into [Martin's] face." Id. at 7. Goncalves and Martin yelled at each other, and at one point, Martin told the officers to "[g]et the fuck out of my house." Id. at 8. Defendant Matthew Geddes, a third officer, arrived on scene around this time, while Goncalves and Martin were arguing.
Suddenly and without warning, Goncalves kicked Martin's legs out from under him as Martin was standing on the steps to the interior door. Martin was swept up and fell backwards, slamming the back of his head on the concrete garage floor. While he lay on the floor of the garage, Goncalves and Furlong hit, kicked, and kneed Martin. Id. at 15–17; Doc. # 66–19 at 8–9, 11, 19. Geddes threatened to use his taser on Martin. Lauren ran over to intervene but was told she would be tased if she did not back up and sit down.
Martin was handcuffed and brought to his feet. He was "crying" and "screaming," yelling to the officers that he needed medical attention. Doc. # 75–8 at 21–22. The officers placed Martin in the back of a police car and returned to the garage to address the rest of the group. Martin was eventually taken to the Glastonbury Police Department headquarters. He claims to have suffered a concussion as well as scrapes and cuts from the encounter.
Martin was issued an infraction for possession of alcohol by a minor, and a juvenile summons for possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, disorderly conduct, and interfering. Lauren and her friends were issued infractions for possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of alcohol by a minor.
On August 28, 2012, Goncalves (along with a fellow member of the Eastern Central Narcotics Task Force who is not a defendant in this case) applied for a warrant to search plaintiffs' residence for drugs and paraphernalia. The search warrant was supported by an affidavit from Goncalves relating the events of August 22. The affidavit stated that the door to the garage had been open when the officers entered and that there were beer cans in the garage where the kids had been observed sitting, and also that Goncalves had located "in plain view" the multi-colored pipe containing marijuana residue. Doc. # 75–13 at 2. The warrant was signed by a Connecticut state court judge on August 28, 2012. Id. at 7.
On September 5, 2012, Christine Conroy filed an in-person complaint against Goncalves with the Glastonbury Police Department...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. Decker
...police otherwise trespass upon one's person, house, papers, or effects for the purpose of acquiring information." Conroy v. Caron, 275 F.Supp.3d 328, 340 (D. Conn. 2017) (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ). Defendants contend that "[t]he Court s......
-
Ramos v. Town of E. Hartford
...until he fell and could be handcuffed on the grounds that this conduct did not rise to the level of egregious); Conroy v. Caron, 275 F. Supp. 3d 328, 352 (D. Conn. 2017) (denying summary judgment where officers unlawfully entered and searched a family's home, used excessive force on a teena......
-
Galgano v. Cnty. of Putnam
...claim fails. "An officer's reliance on a judge's probable-cause determination [must] be 'objectively reasonable.'" Conroy v. Caron, 275 F. Supp. 3d 328, 351 (D. Conn. 2017) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23 (1984).) This is one such circumstance where Gil, Gonzalez, and L......
-
Falls v. Pitt
...v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-1082, 2015 WL 2079405, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2015) (gathering cases); see also Conroy v. Caron, 275 F. Supp. 3d 328, 346-47 (D. Conn. 2017) (stating same principle). Accordingly, if the Court finds that Police Defendants reasonably relied on the search warran......