Deanda v. Hicks, Case No. 13–CV–1203 (KMK).

137 F.Supp.3d 543

Sherrie DEANDA, Plaintiff,

v.Timothy HICKS, William Thomas, Angela Caporale, and Robert Pavone, Defendants.

Case No. 13–CV–1203 (KMK).

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

Signed Sept. 30, 2015.

William I. Aronwald, Esq., Aronwald & Pykett, White Plains, NY, for Plaintiff.

Taryn Anita Chapman, Esq., Westchester County Attorney's Office, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiff Sherrie Deanda ("Plaintiff" or "Deanda") brings this Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Timothy Hicks ("Hicks"), William Thomas ("Thomas"), Angela Caporale ("Caporale"), and Robert Pavone ("Pavone") (collectively, "Defendants") in their official and individual capacities as police officers of the Westchester County Police, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution, and New York State common law, and claiming that Defendants defamed Plaintiff and engaged in outrageous conduct, which caused Plaintiff emotional distress. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion, (Dkt. No. 37), and Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 45). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is denied, and Defendants' Motion is granted.

I. Background

A. The Facts

On May 28, 2012, Hicks arrested Deanda. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts ("Defs.' 56.1") ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 48); Decl. of Taryn A. Chapman–Langrin in Supp. of Mot. For Summ. J. ("Chapman–Langrin Decl.") Ex. N (Aff. of Timothy Hicks ("Hicks Aff.")) ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 46).)¹ Prior to his employment with the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, Hicks took a drug recognition course while he was employed with the Dutchess County Sheriff's office. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 2; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. E (Dep. Tr. of Timothy Hicks ("Hicks Tr.")) 66–68.) Hicks participated in arrests for controlled substances during his prior employment with the Dutchess County Sheriff's office and his employment with the New York State Park Police. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 3; Hicks Aff. ¶¶ 1, 3.)

On May 28, 2012, Deanda was speeding while she was traveling south on the Bronx River Parkway, near the Vermont Terrace exit. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 4; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. A (Sherrie Deanda's 50–h Tr. ("Deanda 50–h Tr.") 11.) Hicks observed Deanda speeding and signaled for her to pull her car to the side of the road. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 5; Hicks Aff. ¶ 8.) Two children were seated in the rear seats of Deanda's vehicle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 6; Deanda 50–h Tr. 9; Hicks Aff. ¶ 21.) Hicks approached the vehicle and requested to see Plaintiff's license and registration. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 7; Hicks Tr. 85.) Defendants claim that while Deanda was searching in a purse for her license, Hicks observed an unlabeled and transparent pill bottle, in plain view, containing blue pills, which he identified as oxycodone pills. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 8, 10; Hicks Tr. 87–89.)² Plaintiff disputes this fact, stating that "[i]t would not have been possible for ... Hicks to see that the pills were blue simply by looking at the amber colored pill bottle." (Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl's 56.1") ¶ 8–A; see also id. ¶ 10 (Dkt. No. 50).) Hicks requested that Deanda give him the unlabeled pill bottle, and Deanda complied with the request. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 11; Hicks Tr. 89.) Hicks told Deanda that the pills were oxycodone and Deanda told Hicks the same. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 12–13; Hicks Tr. 98; Deanda 50–h Tr. 25); Pl.'s Third Amended Compl. ("TAC") ¶ 15 (Dkt. No 20).) When Hicks asked Deanda if she had a prescription for the pills, she said that she did not. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 14; Hicks Tr. 89; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. K.) Deanda told Hicks that her sister was at her house the night before, that her sister had left the pills there, and that she was on her way to return the pills to her. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 15; Deanda 50–h Tr. 25–26.) Defendants claim that "Hicks does not recall [Deanda] telling him" this information. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Defs.' 56.1 Resp.") ¶ 15 (Dkt. No. 52); Hicks Aff. ¶ 15.)

Defendants claim that "[b]ased upon his observation of the oxycodone pills in an unlabeled pill bottle in plain view, without a prescription in [P]laintiff's possession, ... Hicks had probable cause to arrest ... [P]laintiff," and that Hicks "had the authority to seize the unlabeled pill bottle as per the New York Public Health Law, Article 33, Section[ ] 3387(1) and Section[ ] 3302[33] ... as [Deanda] was not an ultimate user within the meaning of the statute, nor was her sister a member of her household for whom she was bringing the pills to, as they reside in separate residences." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 16–17.) Plaintiff disputes these claims. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 16–17.)

Hicks went back to his police vehicle, checked Deanda's license and registration, and returned to Deanda's vehicle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 18; Hicks Aff. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff told Hicks that the pills belonged to her sister and that her sister had a valid prescription for the pills. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 19; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. D (Dep. Tr. of Sherrie Deanda ("Deanda Tr.")) 29; Hicks Aff. ¶ 14.) Defendants claim that Deanda told Hicks that the purse belonged to her sister, (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 20; Hicks Aff. ¶ 14), a claim that Plaintiff denies, (Pl's. 56.1 ¶ 20; Deanda Tr. 22). Hicks decided to arrest Deanda within five minutes of speaking to her, based upon the fact that she did not have a prescription for the pills and that they were contained in an unlabeled pill bottle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 21; Hicks Aff. ¶ 13.)³ Hicks called for back-up assistance because "he had a female arrestee." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 22; Hicks Aff. ¶ 16.) Hicks asked Deanda to exit her vehicle, and he placed her in the back of his police vehicle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 22; Hicks Aff. ¶ 17.)

Caporale arrived on the scene, patted down Deanda's person for weapons, and placed Hicks's handcuffs on Deanda, who was then again placed in the backseat of Hicks's police vehicle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 23; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. O (Aff. of Angela Caporale ("Caporale Aff.")) ¶ 15.)

Caporale did not have any substantive conversation with Deanda while she was at the scene. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 24; Caporale Aff. ¶ 14.) Deanda gave her cell phone to Hicks, and Hicks had a telephone conversation with Deanda's sister, Paula Fontanette ("Fontanette"), to discuss who would pick up the children that were in the back seat of Deanda's vehicle. (Defs.' ¶¶ 25–26; Deanda 50–h Tr. 37; Hicks Aff. ¶ 22.)⁴ Plaintiff claims that during that conversation Fontanette told Hicks that the pills belonged to her, that she had a prescription for the pills, that she had left them at Plaintiff's home the night before, and that Plaintiff was bringing the pills back to her. (Pl's. 56.1 ¶ 25–a; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. I. (Dep. Tr. of Paula Fontanette ("Fontanette Tr.")) 23, 27.) Defendants deny that Fontanette relayed this information. (Defs.' 56.1 Resp. ¶ 25–A; Hicks Aff. ¶¶ 23–24.) At the end of the conversation, it had not been determined who was picking up the children, and Hicks terminated the telephone call. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 27; Hicks Aff. ¶ 22; Fontanette Tr. 16, 18–19.) The children were placed in the back seat of Caporale's vehicle, and the doors of the vehicle were locked. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 28; Caporale Aff. ¶ 16.)

Hicks and Caporale performed an inventory search of Deanda's vehicle, which yielded nine loose oxycodone pills in the driver's side door panel, one oxycodone pill on the floor in the vicinity of the driver's seat, and 13 ½ Tramadol pills in the center console. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 29; Hicks Aff. ¶ 26; Hicks Tr. 93; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. S.) The total number of pills contained in the unlabeled pill bottle was 40 oxycodone pills, for a total of 50 oxycodone pills in the vehicle. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 29; Hicks Aff. ¶ 26; Hicks Tr. 93; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. S.) The inventory search also revealed a total of $1266 in cash, including $100 in one-dollar bills. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 30; Hicks Tr. 92–93.) A tow truck arrived to tow Plaintiff's vehicle from the scene. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 31.) Plaintiff was taken to the police headquarters in Hicks's vehicle. (Id. ¶ 32.) The children were taken to the police headquarters in Caporale's vehicle, and Caporale manipulated her police vehicle camera to face the rear seat of the vehicle to "show the children were not being harmed or [were not] otherwise unhappy." (Id.; Caporale Aff. ¶¶ 18, 32–33.) Because she had two children in her custody on the way to the police headquarters, Caporale requested that the video from her police vehicle be preserved. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 33; Caporale Aff. ¶ 34.)

At police headquarters, Deanda was processed and fingerprinted for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and speeding. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 34; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. K.) Detective Pavone was assigned to Plaintiff's case and assisted Hicks in preparing the case file regarding Plaintiff's arrest. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 35; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. P (Aff. of Robert Pavone ("Pavone Aff.")) ¶ 7.) Pavone drafted the felony complaint based on information he received from Hicks, and Hicks authored the incident report and "voucher[ed] the items seized as part of the inventory of [Deanda's] vehicle." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 35; Pavone Aff. ¶ 7.) Deanda declined to give Pavone a statement concerning the circumstances of her arrest. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 36; Pavone Aff. ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff states that "Hicks did not disclose to ... Pavone that both Plaintiff and her sister told him that the pills belonged to Fontanette, that [Fontanette] had a prescription for the pills, that she had left them at Plaintiff's home the night before[,] ... that Plaintiff was driving [to] the City to bring them back to her, [and that] Fontanette offered to bring the prescription bottle to ‘wherever’ she needed to in order to prove she had the prescription." (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 35–A; Chapman–Langrin Decl. Ex. G (Dep. Tr. of ...