Wagner v. Hyra

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-CV-4
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
• Parties: Cory WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. Alex HYRA, New York State Police Officer, Thomas Judge, New York State Police Officer, and John/Jane Doe, New York State Police Employee, Defendants.

518 F.Supp.3d 613

Cory WAGNER, Plaintiff,

v.Alex HYRA, New York State Police Officer, Thomas Judge, New York State Police Officer, and John/Jane Doe, New York State Police Employee, Defendants.

1:19-CV-4

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed February 10, 2021

OF COUNSEL: BRIAN W. DEVANE, ESQ., OFFICE OF BRIAN W. DEVANE, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 125 Adams Street, Delmar, NY 12054.

OF COUNSEL: LEE D. GREENSTEIN, ESQ., OFFICE OF LEE GREENSTEIN, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 125 Adams Street, Delmar, NY 12054.

HON. LETITIA JAMES, New York State Attorney General, OF COUNSEL: RYAN W. HICKEY, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224.

MEMORANDUM–DECISION & ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...620

II. BACKGROUND...620

III. LEGAL STANDARDS...622

A. Rule 12(b)(1)...622

B. Rule 12(b)(6)...623

IV. DISCUSSION...623

A. False Arrest & Imprisonment...624

B. Abuse of Process...627

C. Malicious Prosecution...633

D. Right to Privacy...639

E. Failure to Intervene...642

V. CONCLUSION...642

I. INTRODUCTION

There's an old saying: "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." It's usually taken to mean that the police can subject you to the criminal process even when they know the charges won't stick. Spending a night or even a weekend in jail while you await an initial court appearance is nobody's idea of a good time. You'll probably need to retain a lawyer. And the case will be hanging over your head for months or sometimes years while the justice system grinds its way to a resolution. Though most cops don't abuse this power, the pages of the federal reporter are full of claims brought by plaintiffs who've alleged otherwise.

But what if there's been no jail time? What if the cop just arrested you and then released you with a faulty appearance ticket, fully aware that the prosecuting authority would be forced to dismiss the charge out of hand but confident in the knowledge that you would suffer grave personal consequences all the same? Does it matter if the goal of this exercise was to exact retribution?

That's what the plaintiff in this civil rights action has alleged. On January 2, 2019, plaintiff Cory Wagner ("Wagner" or "plaintiff"), a former deputy with the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office, filed this civil action against defendants State Police Investigator Alex Hyra ("Investigator Hyra"), State Police Investigator Thomas Judge ("Investigator Judge"), and State Police employee John/Jane Doe (the "Doe Employee").

According to Wagner's nine-count amended complaint, Investigator Hyra, Investigator Judge, and the Doe Employee (collectively "defendants") violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 by falsely arresting him and then releasing non-public information about the incident to local press and law enforcement agencies in violation of confidentiality requirements imposed by state law. Plaintiff alleges defendants conspired to carry out the arrest and coordinate a public smear effort against him because he filed a criminal complaint against one of Hyra's personal friends.

On May 6, 2019, defendants moved under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to dismiss Wagner's amended complaint in its entirety. The motion was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on November 8, 2019 in Utica, New York. Decision was reserved.

II. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Wagner's operative pleading and attached exhibits, Dkt. No. 12, and will be assumed true for the purpose of resolving defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is a Rensselaer County resident. Am. Compl. ¶ 3. He has been employed in various law enforcement roles, including as a police officer with the Cambridge–Greenwich Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. During his time with the Greenwich P.D., plaintiff repeatedly experienced "negative personal interactions and relationship issues" with Kevin Rose ("Rose"), a police dispatcher employed by the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office and the Mechanicsville Police Department, two nearby law enforcement agencies. Id. ¶¶ 25, 27.

On April 16, 2016, Wagner filed a criminal complaint against Rose with the State Police. Am. Compl. ¶ 26. According to the complaint, Rose had damaged plaintiff's wife's car by "keying" the vehicle.¹ Id. Plaintiff sought Rose's arrest on charges of criminal mischief. Id. Plaintiff's operative pleading leaves the reader guessing about the disposition of this criminal complaint against Rose. See generally id. But we know that Rose allegedly complained to his good friend, Investigator Hyra, that plaintiff had tried to get him in legal trouble. See id. ¶¶ 25, 27.

On October 23, 2017, the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office hired Wagner as a full-time sheriff's deputy. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. A few weeks later, on November 6, 2017, Investigator Judge telephoned plaintiff and "summoned, ordered and instructed him to appear at the Brunswick [State] Police Station" for an interview. Id. ¶ 9. According to plaintiff's complaint, Judge led him to believe that "the interview was related to his recent hire with the Rensselaer County Sheriff." Id. ¶ 10. In short, plaintiff "felt compelled to appear at the Brunswick Police Station." Id.

When he got there, Investigator Judge "questioned and interrogated" Wagner about events that took place in the summer of 2002, "including whether he [had] sexually assaulted a 7 year old." Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Notably, plaintiff would have been 11 years old at the time of the alleged assault. Id. Plaintiff denied the allegations and told Judge he wanted to leave the police station. Id. ¶ 12. According to the complaint, the interrogation ended when an attorney telephoned Judge on plaintiff's behalf. Id. ¶ 13.

But that did not end the police encounter. Instead, two deputies from the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office "appeared from behind a closed door" and told Wagner he was being fired from his new job as a sheriff's deputy. Am. Compl. ¶ 14. The deputies handed plaintiff a termination letter. Id. Immediately thereafter, Investigator Judge told plaintiff "he was not free to leave" and that plaintiff "would be charged criminally" with the 2002 allegations of sex assault against the unidentified seven year old. Id. ¶ 15. Judge ordered another officer to handcuff Wagner to a "bull ring" attached to a wall. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. After plaintiff was fingerprinted and photographed, Judge issued plaintiff an appearance ticket that charged him with a violation of New York Penal Law § 130.50, noted on the ticket as the crime of sodomy in the first degree. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19, 21.

This was an unusual appearance ticket to issue to Wagner, who was then a 26-year-old adult. The "issuing" police officer is listed as Investigator Hyra, not Judge. Am. Compl. ¶ 21; see also Ex. A to Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 12-1. The ticket identifies plaintiff as a "child, who is 11 years of age," not an adult. Id. And the ticket is written on a special form document used only for certain state law juvenile crimes, evidenced by the notation "juvenile delinquency" and the reference to "Family Court Act Sect. 307.1." Id.

Wagner alleges this bizarre series of events was orchestrated by Investigators Hyra and Judge to damage plaintiff "in his personal and professional life" and to "gain retribution" against him for the earlier criminal complaint against Investigator Hyra's friend Rose. Am. Compl. ¶ 32. According to plaintiff, defendants intentionally posted information about the sodomy charge on the public State Police blotter in violation of state confidentiality laws that protect the identity of those accused of juvenile charges under the Family Court Act. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. The public posting of this private information led local news sources to pick up the story, damaging plaintiff's public standing and future job prospects. Id. ¶¶ 35-46. The State Police also distributed a notice to other law enforcement agencies advising them of plaintiff's arrest and warning that "those interacting with [plaintiff] should [ ] proceed with caution." Id. ¶ 50.

Wagner wisely lawyered up. Am. Compl. ¶ 47. On December 7, 2017, plaintiff received through his counsel a letter from the Rensselaer County Attorney's Office in which Deputy County Attorney Kelly Cramer indicated that her office would not pursue the sodomy charge. Id. ¶ 51; see also Ex. B to Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 12-2. As the letter explained:

The respondent, Corey [sic ] Wagner, was charged with an act, that if the respondent was an adult at the time of the act, would constitute the crime of Sodomy in the First Degree pursuant to NYS Penal Law § 130.50.

The alleged incident took place in 2002, making Corey [sic ] Wagner ... elven [sic ] (11) years old at the [sic ] making this a juvenile delinquency matter. However, your client is currently twenty-seven (27) years of age. As such, there are no dispositional options that can be ordered with regards to your client. As Family Court is meant to provide services to juveniles and not be punitive in nature, the Rensselaer County Attorney's Office is declining to prosecute this matter.

Ex. B to Am. Compl.

Wagner does not allege that the sodomy charge was fabricated out of whole cloth. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59-60. Instead, plaintiff alleges that the target of a State Police child pornography investigation claimed during an interrogation that he had been sexually assaulted as a seven-year-old child in 2002. Id. ¶ 59. According to plaintiff, this unidentified accuser "could only clam [sic ] to identify the home of the individual he was accusing, and allegedly identified Plaintiff through a high school yearbook photograph." Id. ¶ 60.

In Wagner's view, any reasonable law enforcement officer would have known that this kind of uncorroborated, fifteen-year-old accusation of childhood misconduct by the target of a separate criminal investigation was insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest anyone for anything, let alone to conduct...