Veeder v. Nutting

• Decision Date: 02 March 2012
• Docket Number: 1:10-cv-00665 (MAD/DRH)
• Parties: DONNA VEEDER, STACY VEEDER and BRENDAN VEEDER, Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN NUTTING, Individually and in his Official Capacity as an Investigator for the New York State Police; JOHN DOE #1 (The name being fictitious but intended to represent an Employee of New York State Police), Individually and in his/her Official Capacities as an Employee of the New York State Police; DAVID BURNS, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Investigators for the New York State Police; ROBERT J. MARTIN, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Investigators for the New York State Police; KELLY STRACK, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Investigators for the New York State Police; DREW McDONALD, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Investigators for the New York State Police; GEORGE PORT, Individually and in their Capacity as Lieutenants for the New York State Police; BRENT GILLIAM, Individually and in their Capacity as Lieutenants for the New York State Police; BRIAN VALOZE, Individually and in their Capacity as Employees of the New York State Police; TIMOTHY HARD, Individually and in their Capacity as Employees of the New York State Police; STEPHEN HOGAN, Individually and in their Capacity as an Attorney for the New York State Police; JOHN DOE 7, (the name being fictitious but intended to represent one or more employees of the Albany County District Attorney's Office), Individually and in the Official Capacity as an Assistant District Attorney for the County of Albany, New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

DONNA VEEDER, STACY VEEDER and BRENDAN VEEDER, Plaintiffs,

v.STEVEN NUTTING, Individually and in hisOfficial Capacity as an Investigator for theNew York State Police; JOHN DOE #1 (Thename being fictitious but intended to represent anEmployee of New York State Police), Individuallyand in his/her Official Capacities as an Employee ofthe New York State Police; DAVID BURNS, Individuallyand in their Official Capacity as Investigators for theNew York State Police; ROBERT J. MARTIN, Individuallyand in their Official Capacity as Investigators for the NewYork State Police; KELLY STRACK, Individually and intheir Official Capacity as Investigators for the New YorkState Police; DREW McDONALD, Individually and in theirOfficial Capacity as Investigators for the New York StatePolice; GEORGE PORT, Individually and in their Capacityas Lieutenants for the New York State Police; BRENT GILLIAM,Individually and in their Capacity as Lieutenants for the NewYork State Police; BRIAN VALOZE, Individually and in theirCapacity as Employees of the New York State Police; TIMOTHYHARD, Individually and in their Capacity as Employees of theNew York State Police; STEPHEN HOGAN, Individually and intheir Capacity as an Attorney for the New York State Police;JOHN DOE 7, (the name being fictitious but intended to representone or more employees of the Albany County District Attorney's Office),Individually and in the Official Capacity as an Assistant District Attorneyfor the County of Albany, New York, Defendants.

1:10-cv-00665 (MAD/DRH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Dated: March 2, 2012

APPEARANCES:

OFFICE OF KEITH F. SCHOCKMEL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

KEITH F. SCHOCKMEL, ESQ.

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Attorneys for Defendants, Steven Nutting;

John Doe #1; David Burns; Robert J. Martin;

Kelly Strack; Drew McDonald; George Port;

Brent Gilliam; Brian Valoze; Timothy Hard;

and Stephen Hogan

KELLY L. MUNKWITZ, AAG

MICHAEL G. McCARTIN, AAG

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I.INTRODUCTION

On June 8, 2010, Plaintiffs commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants acted in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.SeeDkt.No. 40-1.

II.BACKGROUND

On or about May 23, 2008, Garry Veeder, a civilian employee of the New York State Police, committed suicide in a detached outbuilding of his home.SeeDkt. No. 27 at ¶ 20.Garry Veeder lived with his wife, Donna Veeder, and their two children, Stacy and Brendan Veeder, all Plaintiffs in the present action.Seeid.PlaintiffDonna Veeder discovered Garry Veeder's body, and a call was placed to the Albany County Sherriff's Department.SeeDkt. No. 27 at ¶ 21.The Sherriff's Department responded to the scene, along with Emergency Medical Technicians ("EMTs").Seeid.

At some point while PlaintiffDonna Veeder was in her house, a separate building from where Garry Veeder was discovered, she"noticed a notebook with a sticky-note on the outsideaddressed to [her] and her husband's attorney."Seeid.at ¶ 24.The notebook contained documents for the attorney, as well as "sealed envelopes addressed to each [P]laintiff" and additional family members.Seeid.at ¶ 25.Upon discovery of the notebook, PlaintiffDonna Veeder also became aware of the fact that "all members of the Sheriff's Department . . . had suddenly left the premises."Seeid.at ¶ 26.PlaintiffDonna Veeder, assuming she was alone, then carried the notebook upstairs, "so that the family could read the letters addressed to them when they became able."Seeid.at ¶ 27.At this time, PlaintiffDonna Veeder became startled by the presence of an unknown individual in her home, later identified as DefendantSteven Nutting, Investigator for the New York State Police.Seeid.at ¶ 29.Defendant Nutting was not wearing a uniform at the time.Seeid.PlaintiffDonna Veeder stated to Defendant Nutting, "[w]ho are you and what are you doing in my house?"Seeid.In response, Defendant Nutting handed PlaintiffDonna Veeder an identification card, but he allegedly "refused to explain" why he was there.Seeid.at ¶ 31.Defendant Nutting then "ordered [Plaintiff]Donna Veeder to turn over the notebook containing the letters [to him] . . . stating that it was 'evidence.'"Seeid.at ¶ 32.When PlaintiffDonna Veeder refused, replying that the notebook was "her property" and stating that the letters inside were "addressed to her" and other family members, Defendant Nutting then allegedly stated "I can do anything I want, lady, this is a crime scene until I say otherwise."Seeid.at ¶¶ 33-34.Defendant Nutting did not allow PlaintiffDonna Veeder to open any of the envelopes.Seeid.at ¶¶ 35-36.

At this point, PlaintiffDonna Veeder"became aware that other [D]efendants were conducting a room by room search of her house."Seeid.at ¶ 37.No Plaintiff had invited any Defendant into their home, and no Plaintiff had granted any Defendant permission to conduct a search.Seeid.at ¶ 38.Two Defendants, one of whom was Defendant Martin, then followedPlaintiff Stacy Veeder into PlaintiffBrendan Veeder's bedroom, where she was typing an e-mail to her boyfriend.Seeid.at ¶ 39.Defendant Martin advised PlaintiffStacy Veeder that her computer was "evidence," and asked if her father had left a note on the computer.Seeid.at ¶ 40.PlaintiffStacy Veeder, attempting to get away from Defendant Martin, left her brother's room and went into her own bedroom.Seeid.at ¶ 41.Defendant Martin then followed PlaintiffStacy Veeder into her bedroom.Seeid.at ¶ 42.PlaintiffStacy Veeder continued to try and get away from Defendant Martin and the other unidentified Defendant who were "following her from room to room," but was unsuccessful.Seeid.at ¶ 43.Defendant Martin and the other Defendant then allegedly forced PlaintiffStacy Veeder into an unmarked police automobile, which she attempted to exit but could not because Defendant Martin was holding the door shut.Seeid.at ¶¶ 44-45.

At this time, PlaintiffDonna Veeder telephoned her attorney "for advice with regard to [D]efendant Nutting's demand that the notebook and letters . . . be given to him."Seeid.at ¶ 50.PlaintiffDonna Veeder's attorney advised her not to surrender the material to Defendant Nutting.Seeid.PlaintiffDonna Veeder's attorney then spoke with Defendant Nutting on the phone and told him that "he did not have permission to take the notebook and letters."Seeid.at ¶ 51.Defendant Nutting allegedly stated that "I can do anything I want, this is a crime scene unless I say otherwise."Seeid.at ¶ 52.Defendant Nutting then assisted PlaintiffDonna Veeder in contacting her daughter, who was stationed on an Army base at the time, to inform her of her father's death.Seeid.at ¶¶ 53-54.

After this, Defendant Nutting placed a phone call to Defendant Hogan, attorney for the New York State Police, to consult with him.Seeid.at ¶ 61.Defendant Hogan "authorized [D]efendant Nutting to search the [P]laintiffs' home without a warrant, [despite][P]laintiffs' objection."Seeid.Defendant Hogan also authorized Defendant Nutting to "seize any items hewished from [P]laintiffs' home."Seeid.at ¶ 65.Defendant Nutting then placed a second phone call to Defendant"John Doe7," an Assistant District Attorney, who authorized Defendant Nutting to search the Plaintiff's home without a warrant and "seize any items he wished."Seeid.at ¶¶ 63, 67.At this point, Defendant Nutting told Plaintiffs to get dressed and leave the house.Seeid.at ¶ 69.Over PlaintiffDonna Veeder's objection, Defendant Nutting "took the notebook and letters away from [her]."Seeid.at ¶¶ 75, 76.

Plaintiffs then went to stay at a friend's house until PlaintiffDonna Veeder's afternoon doctor's appointment.Seeid.at ¶ 78.At the appointment, PlaintiffDonna Veeder was diagnosed with "dangerously elevated blood pressure requiring immediate attention."Seeid.at ¶ 79.After the appointment, PlaintiffDonna Veeder received a phone call from her brother stating that he had "just read an article on the internet describing the contents of the notes which [D]efendant Nutting had taken from [P]laintiffs."Seeid.at ¶ 80.Additionally, local television news stations also reported on the "contents of the notes taken from [P]laintiffs."Seeid.at ¶ 81.Plaintiffs then returned to their home and discovered that Defendants had "conducted a thorough search of [their] home and taken a briefcase" that belonged to PlaintiffDonna Veeder.Seeid.at ¶ 82.At no time was any warrant to search or seize Plaintiffs' property issued.Seeid.at ¶¶ 83, 85.

On May 23, 2008, at approximately 3:30 p.m., the Albany County Coroner officially ruled Garry Veeder's death a suicide.Seeid.at ¶ 89.On May 27, 2008, DefendantGeorge Port, Lieutenant for the New York State Police, opened and photocopied the letters that Garry Veeder had left for his family and attorney, and retained the copies.Seeid.at ¶ 90.

III.DISCUSSION

A.Standard of Review

Section 1983 imposes liability for "conduct which 'subjects, or causes to be subjected'the complainant to a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws."Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71(1976)(quoting42 U.S.C. § 1983).Not only must the conduct deprive the plaintiff of rights and privileges secured by the Constitution, but the actions or omissions attributable to each defendant must be the proximate cause of the injuries and consequent damages that the plaintiff sustained.SeeBrown v. Coughlin, 758 F. Supp. 876, 881(S.D.N.Y.1991)(citingMartinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 100 S. Ct. 553, 62 L. Ed. 2d 481, reh. denied, 445 U.S. 920, 100 S. Ct. 1285, 63 L. Ed. 2d 606(1980)).As such, for a plaintiff to recover in a section 1983...