Ellsworth v. Wachtel, 1:11-CV-0381(LEK/CFH)

KRISTEN A. ELLSWORTH; and JEFFREY R. KIMBLE, Plaintiffs,

v.DONNA WACHTEL, Defendant.

1:11-CV-0381(LEK/CFH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Dated: January 11, 2013

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 6, 2011, Plaintiffs Kristen A. Ellsworth and Jeffrey R. Kimble (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint"). Presently before the Court is a Motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Donna Wachtel ("Defendant") on May 4, 2012. Dkt. No. 15 ("Motion"). Plaintiffs filed a Response in opposition to this Motion on June 3, 2012, and Defendant filed a Reply to the Response on July 3, 2012. Dkt. Nos. 19 ("Response"), 20 ("Reply").¹

II. BACKGROUND

The allegations that form the basis for this case arise from an encounter between Plaintiffsand Defendant just after midnight on August 14, 2010 in Kingston, New York. Compl. ¶ 9. On the night of August 13, 2010, Plaintiffs visited the apartment house of an acquaintance, Wayne Oates ("Oates"),² located at 607 Abeel Street in Kingston. Plaintiff's Statement of material facts (Dkt. No. 19-17) ("Pl.'s S.M.F.") ¶ 39. Plaintiffs and Oates spent between one and two hours at Oates's home, conversing over tea and coffee. See Dkt. No. 19-8 at 20-23. At some point, Oates made a telephone call and then asked if Plaintiffs would give him a ride to his girlfriend's house. Id. at 22; Pl.'s S.M.F. ¶ 39. Plaintiffs agreed, and Plaintiff Kimble drove Oates and Plaintiff Ellsworth to another house, returning to 607 Abeel Street around midnight. Pl.'s S.M.F. ¶¶ 40-42. When they returned, Plaintiff Kimble parked the car in the driveway, all three got out of the car, and they walked toward the rear entrance of the apartment. Id. ¶ 42.

On the same August 2010 night, Defendant, a City of Kingston police officer, was on patrol with New York State Trooper Joshua Taylor ("Taylor"). Defendant's Statement of material facts (Dkt. No. 15-8) ("Def.'s S.M.F.") ¶¶ 5-8. Defendant and Taylor were assigned to a special program called the "Blue and Gray Program" wherein uniformed patrol officers from the City of Kingston worked together with officers from the New York State Police Department in a joint police program known as "IMPACT." Id. ¶¶ 7-8.

When Defendant began her shift on August 13, 2010, she was aware that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for an individual named Jessica Wiand ("Wiand"). Id. ¶ 9. Further, during the course of her shift, Defendant received information from a confidential informant that Wiand was at 607 Abeel Street. Id. ¶ 10. Defendant had prior experiences with this address based on prior drug activity and drug arrests that had occurred there.³ Id. ¶¶ 12-13.

Shortly after midnight on August 14, 2010, Defendant and Taylor arrived in front of 607 Abeel Street in their police vehicle. Id. ¶ 14. The two officers saw a car parked in the driveway and saw three individuals - two men and one woman - exit the vehicle. Id.

At this point in the night, the parties' accounts of what transpired begin to diverge. In order to tease out any potential issues of material fact that might make a grant of summary judgment inappropriate, therefore, the Court recounts both Plaintiffs' and Defendant's versions.

A. Defendant's Account

According to Defendant, Taylor exited the police car as soon as he saw Plaintiffs and Oates emerge from their car and yelled "Stop, police." Id. ¶ 15. "[I]mmediately after State Trooper Taylor yelled 'Stop, police', the three individuals ran towards the rear of the premises followed by" the officers. Id. ¶ 16. The three individuals stopped at the back door of the house, at which point it appeared to Taylor that they were trying to flee through a door that happened to be locked. Id. ¶ 19. After Plaintiffs and Oates saw Taylor, they had "a little deer in the headlight look, like, oh, gosh, cops." Id. ¶ 20.

When they confronted Plaintiffs and Oates, Defendant and Taylor saw heroin scattered onthe ground "in close proximity to each of the individuals." Id. ¶¶ 17-18. At this point, the officers detained Plaintiffs and Oates. Id. ¶ 21. The drugs were field tested and positively identified as heroin, but none of the three individuals acknowledged ownership of the drugs. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiffs and Oates were each placed under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Id. ¶ 24. Defendant conducted a pat-down search of the Plaintiff Ellsworth, placed handcuffs on her, and transported her to the Kingston Police Station. Id. ¶ 25. Taylor, meanwhile, conducted a pat-down search of the two males, placed handcuffs on them, and arranged for their transportation to the Kingston Police Department. Id. ¶ 26.

Once at the station, Defendant obtained permission from her supervisor, Sergeant Scanlon, to conduct a strip search of Plaintiff Ellsworth. Id. ¶ 28. Defendant subsequently strip-searched Plaintiff Ellsworth. Id. ¶ 29. During the course of the search, Defendant never touched Plaintiff Ellsworth, but instead instructed her to remove her clothes. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Taylor handled the arrest and processing of Plaintiff Kimble, in which Defendant took no part. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.

B. Plaintiffs' Account

According to Plaintiffs, when they arrived back at 607 Abeel Street, they parked the car in the driveway, got out of the car, and walked toward the rear entrance of the apartment. Pl.'s S.M.F. ¶ 42. At this point, Plaintiffs observed neither other vehicles in the driveway nor any other person in the driveway or on the street in front of the house. Id. ¶ 43.

As they approached the rear of the apartment, both Plaintiffs heard someone say "stop." Id. ¶ 44. Plaintiff Ellsworth looked over her right shoulder and then over her left shoulder to determine where the noise came from, but she did not see anyone. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiffs continued to walk "only a short distance" before they heard a male voice say, "Stop, police," at which point they bothstopped and turned around to see police officers walking up the driveway. Id. ¶ 46. Plaintiffs and Oates did not run after the command was issued, and at this point they had not reached the rear doorway or opened the door. Id. ¶¶ 47-48.

The two officers approached Plaintiffs and Oates, and Defendant stated that "[w]e have a warrant for Jessica Wiand." Id. ¶ 50. At this point, the officers instructed Plaintiffs and Oates to produce personal identification. Id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff Ellsworth handed her personal identification to Taylor, who took the ID back to the squad car. Id. ¶ 52. No narcotics had been found at the scene yet, and Plaintiff Kimble overheard Defendant tell another officer that Plaintiff Ellsworth did not fit the description of the individual identified in the warrant. Id. ¶ 53. Nevertheless, Defendant conducted a pat-down search of Plaintiff Ellsworth. Id. ¶ 54. Over the course of her pat-down search and her search of Plaintiff Ellsworth's purse, Defendant did not discover any drugs or weapons. Id. ¶¶ 54-55. One of the officers then searched Plaintiffs' car and found no contraband. Id. ¶ 56. After the vehicle search, one of the officers opened the outer door to the rear apartment and said that he had discovered an illegal substance between the outer screen door and inner door. Id. ¶ 57. Oates and Plaintiffs denied ownership of the substance. Id. ¶ 58.

On the ride to the Kingston Police station, Defendant continued to question Plaintiff Ellsworth about the drugs and to inquire whether Plaintiff Ellsworth had any drugs on her person. Id. ¶ 60. Plaintiff Ellsworth continued to deny that she was in possession of any illegal substances, but Defendant stated that Plaintiff Ellsworth would be subjected to a strip search when they arrived at the station. Id. ¶¶ 61-63. Once inside the station, Defendant performed a strip search of Plaintiff Ellsworth. Id. ¶¶ 64-65.

Plaintiffs were arrested for and charged with the misdemeanor offense of "Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree" in violation of Penal Law § 220.02. Id. ¶ 66. The misdemeanor information for both Plaintiffs stated that "defendant did stand near the apartment doorway where three decks of a substance where [sic] located and field tested positive for heroin." Id. ¶¶ 68-69. The criminal charges against both Plaintiffs were eventually dismissed on the merits in January 2011. Id. ¶ 70.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff Ellsworth alleges that she was subjected to: (1) false arrest; (2) malicious prosecution; and (3) an unreasonable search, all in violation of her constitutional rights. See generally Compl. Plaintiff Kimble asserts causes of action for (1) false arrest and (2) malicious prosecution in violation of his constitutional rights. See generally id.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs a court to grant summary judgment if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Although "[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary" will not preclude summary judgment, "summary judgment will not lie if . . . the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Taggart v. Time, Inc., 924 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 1991).

The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those portions of the record that the moving party claims will demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of a material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). However, if the moving party has shown that there is no genuine dispute as to anymaterial fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate "the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. This requires the non-moving ...