Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York, CV-98-4894.
| Decision Date | 20 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-98-4894.,CV-98-4894. |
| Citation | 124 F.Supp.2d 807 |
| Parties | Renee MASON, Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF BABYLON, New York, Elizabeth A. Meyer, individually and as the Court Clerk of the Babylon Village Court, Laurie Ann McManus, Shield No. 2973, individually and as a Police Officer of Suffolk County New York Police Department, "Jane Doe," Shield No. BP 108, Individually and as a Matron of Suffolk County, New York and "John Doe 1" individually and as a Corrections Officer of Suffolk County, New York and the County of Suffolk, New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Leslie Tenzer, Babylon, NY, for Plaintiff.
Nicolini & Paradise by Henry J. Cernitz, Mineola, NY, for Defendants Village of Babylon and Elizabeth Meyer.
Robert J. Cimino, Suffolk County Attorney by Arlene S. Zwilling, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants Laurie Ann McManus and County of Suffolk.
This is a civil rights lawsuit commenced by Plaintiff Renee Mason ("Plaintiff" or "Mason") alleging claims sounding in denial of due process, false arrest and unconstitutional search. Named as defendants are the Village of Babylon ("Babylon" or the "Village"), Elizabeth Meyer, Court Clerk of the Babylon Village Court, Suffolk County Police Officer Laurie Ann McManus ("McManus") and the County of Suffolk (collectively "Defendants").1
Plaintiff's claim arises out of her arrest pursuant to a warrant that had been recalled but remained on the active warrant list. Presently before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow the defense motion to dismiss the claims alleging false arrest and due process violations are granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the illegality of the search is granted. The parties will proceed to trial on the issue of damages attributable to this claim as well as the issues of qualified immunity and municipal liability.
The facts forming the basis of Plaintiff's claims are set forth in Plaintiff's complaint and have been amplified by the deposition testimony taken prior to the making of the motions presently before the court.
On May 8, 1997, Plaintiff was traveling in her car and was pulled over by defendant Police Officer Laurie McManus. Once Plaintiff was pulled over, McManus communicated with a police dispatcher and was informed that there was an outstanding warrant for Plaintiff's arrest. Upon learning of the warrant, McManus took Plaintiff into custody and transported her to the Second Precinct. According to McManus, the arrest was mandatory once the warrant was discovered.
McManus testified that shortly after the arrest she became aware that the warrant upon which the arrest was effected was issued for failure to pay a fine issued in connection with a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, specifically, a broken tail light. Upon the arrest, McManus told Mason that she was being brought to the precinct for traffic violations. McManus testified that at the time of the arrest Mason posed no threat of bodily harm. She further testified that she looked into Mason's car and neither saw nor smelled anything that might be contraband. Finally, she testified that she placed Mason under arrest with no difficulty.
As events unfolded it became clear that the warrant upon which Plaintiff was arrested, which had been issued by the Village Court for the Town of Babylon in October of 1996, had been recalled and was not in effect at the time of the arrest. The recall of the warrant, however, was not known to Officer McManus who relied solely on the information communicated to her when informing the police dispatcher of Mason's identity.
The circumstances and procedures governing the recall of warrants in general, and the warrant in this case in particular, were reviewed at the deposition of Defendant Meyer, the Babylon Village Court Clerk. Meyer testified that if an individual came to court to pay an unpaid fine that had resulted in the issuance of a warrant, it was Meyer's practice to give the person a receipt indicating that payment had been made. Meyer further stated that once payment was received, she would telephone the Warrant Control Department of Suffolk County ("Warrant Control") and ask that they recall the warrant.
Meyer explained at her deposition that it was the procedure of her office to place a "warrant recalled" stamp on the copy of the warrant retained at the Babylon Village Court after the telephone call recalling the warrant was made to Warrant Control. The stamp on the warrant at issue here indicated that it had been recalled on October 9, 1996 — seven months prior to Plaintiff's arrest. That stamp also indicated that the Babylon Village employee who made the call regarding Mason's warrant spoke to a woman named "Iris" at Warrant Control.
Despite the fact that the stamping of the warrant indicates that Warrant Control was, indeed, called, with respect to the warrant for Plaintiff's arrest, it is clear that the warrant was not cancelled, but remained active. This must have been so because Officer McManus was informed that the warrant was active when she pulled over Mason in 1997. Obviously, some mistake was made with respect to the recall of the warrant. Meyer testified that in the seven years that she had been with the Babylon Village Court, this case was the first time she became aware that a warrant that was requested to be recalled remained active.
Upon her arrest, Mason was transported to the Second Precinct. Mason testified as to the following events that transpired there. Upon her arrival at the precinct, Mason told McManus that she wanted to use the bathroom. McManus escorted Mason to the bathroom and conducted a search of Mason prior to allowing her to use the facilities. While the search performed is referred to in Plaintiff's complaint as a "strip search," Plaintiff's deposition testimony makes clear that the search conducted by McManus, as described below, was not a search where Plaintiff was required to remove all of her clothes. Plaintiff was, however, subject to a search aimed at uncovering contraband that may have been concealed in her undergarments.
Upon entering the bathroom, in the presence only of McManus, Plaintiff was frisked and patted down. She was asked to raise her shirt and expose her bra. She was asked to pull out, but not remove, her bra, so as to dislodge anything that might be hidden therein. Plaintiff was also asked to lower her pants to her thighs. She was not asked to remover her underwear, but to reposition it; again to dislodge anything that might have been concealed. Plaintiff was subject to a visual inspection only of the areas she was asked to expose; she was not touched and was patted down only on areas of her body that were covered with clothes.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that on the night of her arrest she was transferred from the Second Precinct to the Fourth Precinct and held there in a detention area. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she was subject to "strip searches" upon her arrival at the Fourth Precinct and later, upon her arrival at the Central Islip court-house. These searches, however, were not conducted by Defendant McManus and Plaintiff has never identified the individuals who allegedly conducted these searches. Plaintiff's testimony indicates however, that the search conducted at the Fourth Precinct was similar to the search conducted at the Second Precinct. It appears that the search conducted at the Central Islip courthouse was limited to a "pat down" search.
Plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While not clearly articulated, Plaintiff's civil rights claims sound in: (1) a violation of due process (asserted against Babylon and Meyers and stemming from alleged deficiencies in the warrant recall procedure); (2) false arrest (asserted against McManus and Suffolk County stemming from her arrest on the recalled warrant) and (3) unreasonable search (asserted against McManus and Suffolk County based upon the search performed before Plaintiff was permitted to use the bathroom at the Second Precinct).
Plaintiff's claims against Babylon and Meyer assert that actions taken with respect to the recall of the warrant were "careless, negligent, reckless" and that Meyer failed to carry out her duties "to such a degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances." Although not specifically set forth in the complaint, Plaintiff appears to argue that the procedures in place at the Babylon Village Court failed to comply with the requirements of due process.
Plaintiff's false arrest claim argues that because the warrant upon which she was arrested had been recalled, there was no probable cause to effect the arrest. Plaintiff's unreasonable search claim alleges that Officer McManus and the County are liable for subjecting Plaintiff to intrusive searches where there was neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiff was concealing contraband. The County of Suffolk is sought to be held liable on the theory that the searches were performed pursuant to official County policy.
All Defendants move for summary judgment. The Village and Meyer allege that Plaintiff can show nothing more than negligence, at best, in the warrant recall procedure and that such conduct cannot form the basis of a due process violation. The County and Officer McManus seek judgment on the false arrest claim on the ground that no such claim is stated where, as here, the arrest is effected pursuant to a warrant that appeared to be valid to the arresting officer. Finally, the County and Officer McManus seek judgment on the unreasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anilao v. Spota
...“[w]here an arrest is effected pursuant to an arrest warrant, a presumption of probable cause is created.” Mason v. Vill. of Babylon, N.Y., 124 F.Supp.2d 807, 815 (E.D.N.Y.2000). A plaintiff who seeks to overcome this burden “faces a heavy burden” and “must make a ‘substantial preliminary s......
-
Anilao v. spota, 10-CV-00032 (JFB) (WDW)
...an arrest is effected pursuant to an arrest warrant, a presumption of probable cause is created." Mason v. Vill. of Babylon, N.Y., 124 F. Supp. 2d 807, 815 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). A plaintiff who seeks to overcome this burden "faces a heavy burden" and "must make a 'substantial preliminary showing......
-
Vasquez v. Maloney, 15-cv-8848 (NSR)
...warrant later turned out to be invalid") (quoting United States v. Santa, 180 F.3d 20, 27 (2d Cir. 1999); Mason v. Vill. of Babylon, New York, 124 F. Supp. 2d 807, 815 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (concluding that "the only information available to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest was com......
-
Sorrell v. Cnty. of Nassau
...bodies and was “aimed at uncovering contraband that may have been concealed in [their] undergarments.” Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York , 124 F.Supp.2d 807, 811 (E.D.N.Y.2000).The County defendants insist that since plaintiffs were not required to remove all of their clothing, the sear......
-
U.S. District Court: STRIP SEARCH.
...v. Village of Babylon, New York, 124 F.Supp.2d 807 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). An arrestee who was taken into custody based on a traffic warrant that was later determined to have been recalled, filed an action under [sections] 1983 alleging false arrest and illegal search. The district court found tha......