Jennings v. Decker

Decision Date17 January 2019
Docket Number5:17-CV-0054 (LEK/DEP)
Citation359 F.Supp.3d 196
Parties Tony JENNINGS, Plaintiff, v. Jeremy DECKER, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

Tony Jennings, Elmira, NY, pro se.

Khalid Bashjawish, H.J. Hubert, Ramona L. Rabeler, City of Syracuse Corporation Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 19, 2017, Tony Jennings commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Syracuse1 and three officers employed by the Syracuse Police Department: Officer Jeremy Decker, Officer Darren Ettinger, and Sergeant Robert Ocker. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint"); see also Dkt. No. 1-1 ("Preliminary Statement of Facts"). Plaintiff's claims all arise out of the circumstances surrounding his January 5, 2016 arrest in Syracuse, New York. Prelim. Statement Facts at 1. Now before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on June 29, 2018 along with a memorandum and statement of material facts ("SMF"). Dkt. Nos. 53 ("Motion"), 53-2 ("Defendants' SMF"), 53-3 ("Memorandum"). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Dkt. Nos. 59-1 ("Opposition"), 59 ("Response to Defendants' SMF"). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

The supporting materials submitted in connection with the Motion make clear that Plaintiff and Defendants endorse substantially different versions of the events that occurred on January 5, 2016. Their differing narratives are set out below.

1. Defendants' Version of Events

On January 5, 2016, Officers Decker and Ettinger were on patrol together in Syracuse, New York, near the Pioneer Homes housing complex. Defs.' SMF ¶ 4. Both Decker and Ettinger were members of the Syracuse Police Department's Crime Reduction Team, Dkt. Nos. 53-10 ("Decker Affidavit") ¶ 1,2 53-11 ("Ettinger Affidavit") ¶ 1,3 a "proactive unit" focused on policing related to "guns, drugs[,] and gangs in the City of Syracuse," Dkt. No. 53-6 at 9.4 Acting on reports of gang activity at Pioneer Homes, the Syracuse Housing Authority had, prior to Plaintiff's arrest, "granted the Syracuse Police Department authorization to arrest persons who were trespassing or had no lawful business at [ ] Pioneer Homes." Defs.' SMF ¶ 3.

At approximately 6:45 PM during Decker's and Ettinger's patrol, they encountered an occupied vehicle parked in a lot near "the 100 block of Radisson Court." Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 10, 25. Using the patrol car's spotlight, Decker "illuminated" the vehicle, and the officers "noticed the occupants," two black men, "making furtive movements[,] as if the[y] were trying to conceal items." Defs.' SMF ¶ 4. According to Ettinger, those "furtive movements" consisted of "look[ing] at [the officers] and then immediately turn[ing] away," before making "dramatic movements towards their lap[s and] towards the center of the vehicle as if they were attempting to secrete or hide something." Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 11, 29.

Finding the occupants' behavior suspicious, Decker and Ettinger parked their patrol car behind the vehicle "at an angle," but without fully blocking its path. Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 9, 22. The officers then got out and approached the vehicle—Decker on the driver's side and Ettinger on the passenger's side, Defs.' SMF ¶ 5–6—and, looking through the open driver's side window, Decker noticed a digital scale near the center console covered in a "white residue" that he believed to be cocaine, Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 10–11. Decker asked the vehicle's driver, later identified as Plaintiff, and its passenger, later identified as Willy Jones, whether there were any drugs in the vehicle. Id. at 12; Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 13. Plaintiff denied having any drugs, but Jones admitted to having just used cocaine. Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 12.

Ettinger asked Jones to step out of the vehicle, then put him in handcuffs and "searched him for contraband." Defs.' SMF ¶ 6; Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 13. Simultaneously, Decker asked Plaintiff to get out of the vehicle and began to search him as well. Defs.' SMF ¶ 7. Before Decker's search could get underway, however, Plaintiff "violently pulled away and fled on foot ... eastbound [away] from Officer Decker." Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 14. Decker ran after Plaintiff, tackled him from behind, and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 13. But Plaintiff continued to struggle with Decker, "and ‘kept his hands under his body rather than putting them behind his back’ " while trying to "push up off the ground and keep going." Defs.' SMF ¶ 9–10 (quoting Dkt. No. 53-5 ("Omnibus Order") at 4);5 Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 13. Ettinger ran over to help Decker, then "struck Plaintiff once with a closed fist" near Plaintiff's right eye, allowing Decker "to pull Plaintiff's hands out from underneath him ... [and] to secure him in handcuffs." Defs.' SMF ¶ 16; Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 13.

Once Plaintiff had been handcuffed, Decker resumed his search and Ettinger returned to Jones. Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 15. In Plaintiff's front left pants pocket, Decker found "a clear knotted section of plastic containing a beige chunky substance" that he identified as crack cocaine. Decker Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 13–14. A field test later confirmed that identification. Id. at 14–15. Decker also found two cell phones and a few hundred dollars in cash. Id. at 13–15. Neither Decker nor Ettinger interrogated Plaintiff during the search. Ettinger Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 18; Defs.' SMF ¶ 17. However, Plaintiff voluntarily told the officers that "he was uninjured" and both officers reported that Plaintiff did not "experience any lacerations or bleeding to his right eye." Id. After Plaintiff's arrest, Sergeant Ocker arrived on the scene. Defs.' SMF ¶ 13.

Decker and Ettinger took Plaintiff to the Onondaga Justice Center, where he was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degree. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. While there, Plaintiff "refused medical treatment." Id. ¶ 21. To the extent that Plaintiff felt any pain as a result of his arrest, that pain lasted "for no more than one week." Id. ¶ 18.

2. Plaintiff's Version of Events

At approximately 5:00 PM on January 5, 2017, Plaintiff was at home when he received a phone call from Jones. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 33–34; Dkt. No. 53-4 ("50-h Hearing Testimony") at 21.6 Jones was staying at his girlfriend's house in Pioneer Homes near Radisson Court and asked Plaintiff for a ride "to the gas station [and] to get his car in shape." Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 34; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 18–19. Jones's car had broken down and needed, among other things, to be refilled with gas. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 34.

Plaintiff left his home and picked up Jones, who had with him a gas can, tire inflator, and some other tools. Id. at 35–36. The pair drove to a gas station, where Jones filled up the gas can, then on to Jones's car. Id. at 35; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 19. However, Jones eventually realized that he did not have the proper tools to repair his car, so he packed up and Plaintiff drove him back to his girlfriend's house. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 35–36; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 20.

When they arrived back at Pioneer Homes, the Radisson Court parking lot was nearly full. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 36. Plaintiff parked in one of the few remaining open parking spots—sandwiched between a truck and another car—then he and Jones remained in Plaintiff's car for another "five to seven minutes" "making small talk." Id. at 36–37; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 22, 25–26. Finally, bothered by the smell of the full gas can, Plaintiff told Jones to "get [i]t out of [his] car." Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 37. Jones got out, removed the gas can, placed it on the ground, and continued talking with Plaintiff through the open passenger's side door. Id. at 38. After another "few seconds," Jones noticed that a police cruiser had parked behind Plaintiff's car, "completely block[ing it] off." Id. at 37–38; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 24. The pair had not noticed the cruiser before, both because the truck parked next to Plaintiff's car blocked their view and because the officers "had the[ ] lights out on ... their police cruiser" and did not use their spotlight. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 38; Resp. Defs.' SMF ¶ 4; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 24.

After Jones and Plaintiff noticed the patrol car, Officers Decker and Ettinger got out and "rushed" Jones, instructing him to place his hands on the hood of Plaintiff's car. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 39; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 26–27. The officers then searched Jones, looking through his pockets and asking whether he had any drugs or guns. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 39; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 26–27. One of the officers also got out his flashlight, using it to look through the windows of Plaintiff's car. Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 39; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 32. However, Plaintiff claims that such a search would not have revealed any contraband, and specifically denies that there was a digital scale in his car when the officers arrived. Resp. Defs.' SMF ¶ 5; (noting that "[l]aboratory reports confirmed that a digital scale with cocain[e] residue on it[ ]s surface was never received at the lab ... [and the officers] never charged [ ] Plaintiff ... for the crime of criminal possession of drug paraphernalia in the second degree"); see also 50-h Hr'g Test. at 54.

Plaintiff watched Jones and the officers for about a minute, then "opened [his] car door to ... step out of [his] car." Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 39–40, 50–51; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 32. But before he could do so, Decker "ran around," "jumped inside of [Plaintiff's] doorjamb [to] prevent[ him] from getting out of [his] car[,] ... [and] started asking [him] questions." Jennings Supp'n Hr'g Test. at 40; Resp. Defs.' SMF ¶ 5; 50-h Hr'g Test. at 32–33. Among other things,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Smith v. Sawyer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • January 27, 2020
    ...anxiety, depression, but also had physical injuries including a broken rib and chronic headaches ); see also Jennings v. Decker , 359 F. Supp. 3d 196, 207 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) ("If the force used was unreasonable and excessive, the plaintiff may recover even if the injuries inflicted were not pe......
  • Elmore v. Onondaga Cnty. Sheriffs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • June 29, 2023
    ... ... upon one's person, house, papers, or effects for the ... purpose of acquiring information.” Jennings v ... Decker , 359 F.Supp.3d 196, 207-08 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) ... (citations omitted) ...          The ... automobile ... ...
  • Dixon v. City of Syracuse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • September 30, 2020
    ...racial profiling claims under § 1983 have construed them as a subspecies of equal protection claim. See, e.g., Jennings v. Decker , 359 F. Supp. 3d 196, 205 n.12 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (collecting cases for proposition that courts treat racial profiling claims as equal protection claims). As defen......
  • Goonewardena v. Spinelli
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 5, 2020
    ...opining that "the fact that [the p]laintiff may not have sustained serious long lasting harm is not dispositive"); Jennings v. Decker, 359 F. Supp. 3d 196, 207 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (noting that "multiple courts in this Circuit have held at the summary judgment stage that even minor injuries, inc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT