State Police Litigation, In re

Decision Date03 July 1996
Docket NumberD,No. 886,886
Citation88 F.3d 111
PartiesIn re STATE POLICE LITIGATION. CONNECTICUT CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, Joseph Keefe, Individually and as President of Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, John R. Gulash, William J. Sweeney, Denise Derby, Donald Couture, Timothy B. Young, Roderick Young, Barbara Schuyler, Conrad Seifert, Attorney, William Gerace, Attorney, Martin Minella, Attorney, William Dow, Jay Martin Sulzach, Attorney, Robert A. Skovgaard, Charles E. Skovgaard, James M. Higgins, Attorney, Kevin O'Brien, Attorney, Timothy Moynihan, Attorney, Mark Shapera, Joseph J. Masler, Paul Arvai, Eva Belline, Joseph Belline, Lisa M. Belline, Ismael Santiago, James C. Carbone, Frank Gonzalez, Jr., Jeffrey Irwin, David Garfield, John McBride, William Bruce, Theodore L. Callands, John David Panula, III, Carolyn M. Capozziello, Thomas W. Capozziello, A. Capozziello, Myron J. Stephenson, George Whitehead, Joseph A. Rich, Sr., Robert A. Rosa, Sonja Van Valkenburgh, Michael J. Mezzatesta, Susan Pregler, Richard Reardon, Manuel E. Ferriera, Gregory Hudson, Mathew A. Capozziello, Tom Ciarolo, David White, Rafael A. Cabrera, Michael West, Richard G. Paradis, Jeffrey Membrino, Daniel Membrino, Lorenzo Santropietro, Gene Mancino, Harold D. Nichols, Mark Nichols, Lisa Anderson, Raymond Mikolinski, Lorraine Mikolinski, William C. Rado, Charles W. Kasmer, James Reardon, Daniel Ferriera, Joseph A. Rich, Jr., Barbara Rich, John M. Lebel, Tonya Miller, Bryan S. Golemowski, David R. Capasso, Raymond Povinelli, Luke Warner, Charles F. Kimms, James E. Jones, Paul A. Larosa, James Masler, Adelgard L. Masler, Michael P. Pane, Carmelina L. Pane, Keith W. Rado, Ralph Shores, Joseph W. Miron, Adam J. Soares, Steve Hanford, Wayne M. Christinat, Kent Kelsey, Daniel Elsbree, William Parker, Deborah Arvai, Domenic Santilli, Brian Panetta, Stephanie Weinburg, David Weinberg, Allen D'Antinio, Thomas Gahan, Steven W. Krauss, Betty Little, David Little, Robert Little, James P. Janulet, Jeffrey Fluery, Glenn E. Coe, An
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Aaron S. Bayer, Deputy Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, Henri Alexandre, Carolyn K. Querijero, Jane R. Rosenberg, Assistant Attorneys General, Hartford, Connecticut, John W. Sitarz, Cooney, Scully & Dowling, Hartford, Connecticut, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants.

Christopher D. Bernard, Bridgeport, Connecticut (Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Garrett M. Moore, Judith A. Mauzaka, Moore & O'Brien, Cheshire, Connecticut, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees and Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Before: KEARSE, MAHONEY and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Defendants Lester J. Forst and other present and former officials of the Connecticut State Police ("State Police") appeal from so much of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, T.F. Gilroy Daly, Judge, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing claims brought principally under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (1994) ("Title III"), alleging that between 1978 and 1989 the State Police intercepted, recorded, disclosed, and used, without knowledge or consent of the participants, all telephone calls made to, from, and within State Police barracks, in

                violation of, inter alia, Title III and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.   The defendant officials sought summary judgment principally on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity.   The district court denied that part of their motion on the ground that the rights of individual plaintiffs under the above laws were clearly established and that there are genuine issues to be tried as to pertinent factual issues, including (a) whether plaintiffs consented to the recording, and (b) whether and to what extent the State Police listened to any given recorded conversation.   On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated Title III or the federal Constitution or state law.   Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.   For the reasons below, we agree with plaintiffs that because the district court denied summary judgment on the ground that there existed questions of fact to be tried with respect to the qualified-immunity defense, the denial was not an immediately appealable
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
111 cases
  • Sky Cable, LLC v. Coley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • July 11, 2013
  • Milner v. Duncklee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • November 8, 2006
    ...was within the scope of the established prohibition.'" LaBounty v. Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68, 73 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting In re State Police Litig., 88 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir.1996)). Determining whether or not a right is clearly established at any given time, depends in large part, on how that rig......
  • Ramsey v. Busch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • August 25, 1998
    ... ...         Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General for the State of New York, Joseph F. Reina, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, Buffalo, New York, for ... Brown v. City of Oneonta, N.Y. Police Dep't., 106 F.3d 1125, 1131 (2d Cir.1997). If it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to ... their conduct was within the scope of the established prohibition." In re State Police Litigation, 88 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir.1996). The question thus remains whether Defendants' actions in failing ... ...
  • Baker v. Willett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • March 10, 1999
    ...their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the established prohibition." In re State Police Litig., 88 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir.1996). The Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of excessive force upon a prisoner. At the time of the alleged incident, it was......
  • 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