Falls v. Pitt
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-8863 (KMK) |
| Parties | RAIQUAN K. FALLS, Plaintiff, v. (POLICE OFFICER) DETECTIVE MICHAEL PITT; (POLICE OFFICER) CARLOS CANARIO; (POLICE OFFICER) ANDRES ARESTIN; (POLICE OFFICER) JONATHAN SAINTICHE; (POLICE OFFICER) SERGEANT WILLIAM ANDERSON; (POLICE OFFICER) JOHN PEREZ; (POLICE OFFICER) CARLOS MENDEZ; (NURSE) BLANCA LEMOS; (NURSE PRACTITIONER) HILLARY DURBIN-FRENCH; (PHYSICIAN) ALAN MADELL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Appearances:
Raiquan K. Falls
Brocton, NY
David L. Posner, Esq.
Kimberly H. Lee, Esq.
McCabe & Mack LLP
Counsel for Defendants Michael Pitt, Carlos Canario, Andres Arestin, Jonathan Saintiche, John Perez, Carlos Mendez, and William Anderson
Milan P. Spisek, Esq.
Sean B. Maraynes, Esq.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Counsel for Defendants Alan Madell, M.D., Hillary Durbin-French, N.P., and Blanca Lemos, R.N. KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:
Plaintiff Raiquan K. Falls ("Plaintiff") brought this Action against seven members of the Newburgh Police Department ("Police Defendants") and three members of the hospital staff at Saint Luke's Cornwall Hospital ("St. Luke's") in Newburgh, New York ("Medical Defendants").1 Plaintiff alleges various civil rights violations stemming from his arrest and subsequent treatment while in police custody. Before the Court are Police Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 159), Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 173), and Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 183). For the following reasons, Police Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part, Medical Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The Court has described the allegations and procedural history of this case in two prior Opinions. See Falls v. Pitt, No. 16-CV-8863, 2020 WL 2097626 ; Falls v. Pitt, No. 16-CV-8863, 2018 WL 3768036 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2018). The Court therefore assumes familiarity with the dispute and will provide factual and procedural background only as relevant to the instant Motions.
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, (see generally SAC), Defendants' statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (see Defs.' Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. ( ) (Dkt. No. 168)), Plaintiff's Counter 56.1 Statement in Opposition to Defendants' 56.1, , and Plaintiff's own statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (see Pl.'s Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. ("Pl.'s 56.1") (Dkt. No. 183)).2, 3 Defendants have sent the required Local Civil Rule56.2 Notice to Plaintiff. (See Police Defs.' Local Civil Rule 56.2 Not. (Dkt. No. 169); Med. Defs.' Local Civil Rule 56.2 Not. (Dkt. No. 176).)
This case stems from a series of events that unfolded on the evening of May 8, 2015. For conceptual clarity in resolving the instant Motions, the Court will group these events into roughly four distinct episodes: (1) Plaintiff's apprehension and arrest; (2) Plaintiff's body cavity search at the Newburgh police station; (3) Plaintiff's attempt to swallow recovered narcotics; and (4) Plaintiff's subsequent treatment and examination at St. Luke's.
On May 8, 2015 at approximately 5:00 P.M., Plaintiff was arrested following a pursuit on foot near 15 Lutheran Street in the City of Newburgh, New York. (SAC ¶¶ 20, 28; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 1, 6, 9.)4 City of Newburgh Police Department Officers Canario, Perez, and Mendez were dispatched to the area in response to a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported ongoing drug sales. (SAC ¶ 20; Pl.'s Counter 56.1 ¶ 11.)5 By Plaintiff's own admission, the 911 caller "fully describ[ed] [him] as the suspect selling narcotics[,]" (SAC ¶ 20; see also Pl.'s Counter56.1 ¶ 11), and accurately described what he was wearing, (Pl.'s Counter 56.1 ¶ 13).6 Plaintiff testified that he was holding marijuana, which he was "just about to smoke," when officers arrived on the scene.
At some point after exiting the patrol car, Officer Canario began walking toward Plaintiff. (See SAC ¶ 25; Pl.'s Counter 56.1 ¶ 15.)7 According to Plaintiff's account, Canario approached him with his hand on his service weapon, yelling, "Falls, I'll shoot you right in your back if you make me run!" (SAC ¶¶ 25-26.) Both sides agree that Plaintiff began to flee as soon as Canario approached him. (Id. ¶ 27; Pl.'s Counter 56.1 ¶ 15.) Plaintiff avers that the chase "lasted for about 20 seconds" before he was apprehended. (SAC ¶ 28.)
What happened next is in dispute. According to Police Defendants, Plaintiff "was captured by Officer Mendez a few blocks away and arrested without incident." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 16.) They maintain that "[n]o force was used by the arresting officers beyond restraining him in handcuffs." (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff, by contrast, alleges that he was "slammed . . . to the ground" and handcuffed by Perez and Mendez, who held him there for several seconds until Canario, Pitt, Saintiche, Arestin, and Anderson arrived. (SAC ¶¶ 28-30.)8 Plaintiff alleges that the officersthen "dragged [him] into a nearby backyard" behind 12 Dubois Street. (Id. ¶ 31.) There, he alleges, the officers "overtightened [his] handcuffs to the point where the metal was press[ing] against and squeezing [his] wrist bones[,] causing substantial pain and bruising." (Id. ¶ 32.) He claims the officers then took turns pummeling him with their "closed fists," striking Plaintiff in his stomach, ribs, chest, and thighs. (Id. ¶ 33.) He also claims that the officers "reach[ed] down inside of [his] pants from the front . . . all the way from [his] underwear to [his] socks." (Id.)
Plaintiff was eventually placed in a patrol car and driven to the Newburgh police station. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 29-30; SAC ¶ 35.) Although Plaintiff claims he was seated in the back seat between two detectives who interrogated him on the ride to the police station, (see SAC ¶¶ 35-36), video evidence shows there was no one else in the car besides Perez, the driver, and Plaintiff, (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 30-31; Posner Aff. Ex. C ("Secure Bay Video"), at 5:26:35-5:27:39).9
Video footage shows that after arriving at the police station, Plaintiff spent approximately half an hour waiting in the booking room. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 34; Booking 1 Video at 5:28:02-6:00:40.) During this time, Plaintiff can be seen sitting, lying down, and occasionally interacting with Canario and other officers. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 34; Booking 1 Video at 5:28:02-6:00:40.) Eventually, Sergeant Anderson authorized a "visual body cavity search" of Plaintiff. (Defs.' 56.1¶ 36.)10 He allegedly did so for two reasons: first, Plaintiff had been arrested in a part of Newburgh "known to be rife with drug activity"; and second, "[s]treet dealers such as [Plaintiff] are known to 'cheek' drugs," placing them "between the cheeks of their buttocks to avoid detection." (Id. ¶¶ 38-39; Anderson Aff. ¶¶ 3-4.) Police Defendants maintain that "drugs are often recovered at the police station during visual body cavity searches." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 40.) The search authorized by Anderson was not without limit, however. According to Police Defendants, "there is no touching or digital penetration of a body orifice[]" during a "visual body cavity search." (Id. ¶ 41; Pl.'s Counter 56.1 ¶ 41.) The Newburgh Police Department's internal strip-search policy "requires a search warrant for digital penetration of a body orifice," and such an examination must be performed by medical staff. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 42; Pl.'s Counter 56.1 ¶ 42.)
At approximately 6:00 P.M., Officers Canario and Saintiche escorted Plaintiff into a separate room—without video cameras—to perform the search. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 43; see also SAC ¶¶ 44-45.) In affidavits submitted in support of Police Defendants' Motion, Canario andSaintiche state that Plaintiff initially went along with the strip search protocol, removing one article of clothing at a time until he was completely naked. (Canario Aff. ¶ 13; see also Aff. of Jonathan Saintiche in Supp. of Mot. ("Saintiche Aff.") ¶ 6 (Dkt. No. 167) ().) But although Plaintiff agreed to "lift his genitals for visual inspection[,]" he "refused to turn around, bend over[,] and spread his buttocks." (Canario Aff. ¶ 13; see also Saintiche Aff. ¶ 6 ().) In response, Canario and Saintiche gave Plaintiff "several loud verbal commands to comply[.]" (Canario Aff. ¶ 13; see also Saintiche Aff. ¶ 6 ().) Around this time, Pitt and Arestin entered the room "because they heard indications that [Plaintiff] was being uncooperative." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 45-46.)
Each of the four officers in the room provides essentially the same account of what happened next. In their telling, Pitt and Saintiche each took one of Plaintiff's arms and "held him facing the wall." (Canario Aff. ¶ 15; Saintiche Aff. ¶ 7; see also Aff. of Michael Pitt in Supp. of Mot. ("Pitt Aff.") ¶ 7 (Dkt. No. 164); Aff. of Andres Arestin in Supp. of Mot. ("Arestin Aff.") ¶ 4 (Dkt. No. 166).) At that point, according to the officers, Plaintiff voluntarily squatted, and "a small plastic bag drop[ped] from his rectal area." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial