Reeves v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 24 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | 11-cv-3770 (SAS) |
| Parties | DAVID REEVES AND VIRGINIA REEVES, Plaintiffs, v. DETECTIVE RICHARD ANDERSON, POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, CHIEF CHRISTOPHER SATRIALE, THE VILLAGE OF BRONXVILLE AND THE VILLAGE OF BRONXVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
I. INTRODUCTION
David Reeves and Virginia Reeves bring this suit against Detective Richard Anderson, Chief Christopher Satriale, and the Village of Bronxville and the Village of Bronxville Police Department under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code ("Section 1983"), alleging primarily that Mr. Reeves's constitutional rights were violated when law enforcement officers questioned him, searched his personal property and vehicle, and brought him to a nearby policestation for additional questioning and searches. Based on this police activity and a subsequent publication of a police bulletin concerning Mr. Reeves, plaintiffs assert a litany of federal and state law claims, seeking relief for the alleged resulting impact to Mr. Reeves's reputation and ability to seek employment.1 Defendants now move for summary judgment on all claims asserted against them on the grounds that Mr. Reeves consented to the searches and questioning, and that information published about him was true and did not violate Mr. Reeves's due process rights.2 For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND3
Mr. Reeves was formerly employed as a contract administrator for KG & D Architect, a company performing construction work for the village ofBronxville.4 On the morning of May 4, 2010, Mr. Reeves drove to Bronxville High School, where he had a work-related appointment scheduled for later in the day.5 Having arrived very early for his appointment, Mr. Reeves remained in his car, which he parked approximately two hundred feet away from the school.6
As Mr. Reeves sat in his car, a telephone company worker parked behind Mr. Reeves started to observe over the course of forty-five minutes what he considered to be suspicious behavior. According to the telephone company worker, whenever a group of girls walked by, Mr. Reeves would raise up his cell phone and take a picture.7 Eventually, the telephone company worker called 911 to report Mr. Reeves's conduct.8 In response to the complaint, Officer Nicholas DeYoung arrived on the scene, followed soon after by Detective Anderson, both ofthe Bronxville Police Department.9
Detective Anderson approached Mr. Reeves, informed him of the complaint, and asked him if he had been taking photographs.10 Mr. Reeves responded in the negative.11 Detective Anderson then asked Mr. Reeves if he had any cameras with him; Mr. Reeves voluntarily gave Detective Anderson a camera that he had in his vehicle.12 Detective Anderson inspected that camera and did not find any pictures on it.13
Detective Anderson also observed that Mr. Reeves possessed a camera-equipped smartphone.14 Detective Anderson asked Mr. Reeves for permission to "take a look at [the camera phone]."15 Mr. Reeves obliged andhanded Detective Anderson the phone.16 Upon receiving the phone, Detective Anderson reviewed the photographs stored on it from that morning.17
Although Mr. Reeves claims that he was shooting pictures of a "bay brick building,"18 it is undisputed that included in several of these photographs were girls who appeared to be school-aged.19 These photographs displayed young girls' backsides, primarily focusing on girls wearing short skirts and short shorts.20Specifically, Detective Anderson reviewed five pictures.21 One of those photographs contains no brick building or building of any sort; it is actually a close-up image of the backsides of two girls wearing a short skirt and short pair of shorts, respectively.22 Girls' backsides are also displayed in the remaining four photographs, which are taken from a more distant perspective.23
After reviewing these photographs, Detective Anderson asked Mr. Reeves for permission to search Mr. Reeves's vehicle.24 Mr. Reeves again, in his words, "agreed" to Detective Anderson's request.25 In the vehicle, Detective Anderson discovered a laptop and another camera device.26
At this point, Detective Anderson asked Mr. Reeves if he would come to the police station to discuss the matter further "outside of the public eye."27 Mr.Reeves agreed and handed over his car keys to another officer, who drove Mr. Reeves's car to the station while Mr. Reeves was driven there by Officer DeYoung.28
When they arrived at the police station, Mr. Reeves signed a "Consent to Search Form," which stated that the police could search Mr. Reeves's vehicle and all electronic storage devices Mr. Reeves had on his person or inside his vehicle.29 Detective Anderson conducted a search of Mr. Reeves's belongings, including the additional camera device found in his car, which contained videosand images of children outside of other schools in nearby towns.30 Detective Anderson then questioned Mr. Reeves further concerning his activities that morning.31 After he finished questioning Mr. Reeves, Detective Anderson returned the property to Mr. Reeves and asked him to stand by a wall so that Detective Anderson could take a photograph of him.32 According to Mr. Reeves, upon leaving the station, he extended his hand to Detective Anderson for a handshake, and Detective Anderson squeezed Mr. Reeves's hand, pulled it towards his belt buckle, and admonished Mr. Reeves to "get help for [Mr. Reeves's] problem."33 Mr. Reeves then left the police station on his own.34 He was not charged with any crime; the pictures he took that morning were not illegal.35
At no point during these events did anyone explicitly instruct Mr. Reeves that he could refuse police requests to search Mr. Reeves's property nearthe high school or at the police station, or that he was free to leave, nor did anyone ever instruct Mr. Reeves that his compliance with these requests was mandatory.36 Mr. Reeves now testifies that he believed his cooperation was mandatory, though he admits that he never communicated to any officer a desire to leave or decline to supply requested information, and that no one told him he could not leave.37
Detective Anderson ultimately prepared a police information bulletin regarding Mr. Reeves's activities, intending to disseminate it to the District Attorney's office in Putnam County so that the office could pass it on to the police departments in that county as an investigatory tool.38 The bulletin contained an account of Mr. Reeves's activities outside of Bronxville High School, stating that Mr. Reeves was found in possession of a camera phone containing five pictures of twelve to fourteen year old girls in miniskirts outside of the school, as well as another camera consisting of thirty videos of young girls outside of a Mahopac school and near the Carmel and Kent school areas.39 The bulletin also includespictures of Mr. Reeves and his vehicle.40
After drafting the bulletin, Detective Anderson spoke about it over the telephone with Henry Lopez, an investigator in the Putnam County District Attorney's office.41 Detective Anderson then sent the bulletin to Investigator Lopez so that it could be distributed to area law enforcement agencies.42 Investigator Lopez, upon receiving the bulletin, understood that it was intended only for law enforcement purposes, not for public dissemination.43 To that end, he subsequently distributed the bulletin to an e-mail list of law enforcement personnel within Putnam County.44 At some later point, Investigator Lopez learned that the bulletin was forwarded to personal e-mail (non-governmental) addresses by at least two law enforcement personnel - one Westchester Probation employee and one Assistant District Attorney in Investigator Lopez's office.45 The Assistant District Attorney then apparently forwarded the bulletin to her husband, who subsequentlyforwarded the bulletin to other members of the public.46
As a result of the public dissemination of the police bulletin, Mr. Reeves claims that he lost his job at the construction company and has been unable to regain steady employment, and that he and his wife have suffered severe emotional distress.47
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate "only where, construing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, there is 'no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"48 "A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and an issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."49
"[T]he moving party has the burden of showing that no genuine issueof material fact exists and that the undisputed facts entitle [it] to judgment as a matter of law."50 To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,"51 and "may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation."52
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he role of the court is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried."53 "'Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'"54
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
To continue reading
Request your trial