Upload
ml07751
View
56
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
2d Circuit Opinion
Citation preview
122634cvGarciav.Jane&JohnDoes
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
AugustTerm,2012
(Argued:April22,2013Decided:August21,2014
RehearingFiled:December18,2014Amended:February23,2015)
DocketNo.122634cv
KARINAGARCIA,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofherselfandotherssimilarlysituated,YARIOSORIO,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofherselfandothers
similarlysituated,BENJAMINBECKER,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofhimselfandotherssimilarlysituated,CASSANDRAREGAN,asClassRepresentativeon
behalfofherselfandotherssimilarlysituated,YAREIDISPEREZ,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofherselfandotherssimilarlysituated,TYLERSOVA,as
ClassRepresentativeonbehalfofhimselfandotherssimilarlysituated,STEPHANIEJEANUMOH,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofherselfandotherssimilarlysituated,MICHAELCRICKMORE,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfof
himselfandotherssimilarlysituated,BROOKEFEINSTEIN,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofherselfandotherssimilarlysituated,
PlaintiffsAppellees,
MARCELCARTIER,asClassRepresentativeonbehalfofhimselfandotherssimilarlysituated,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANEANDJOHNDOES140,individuallyandintheirofficialcapacities,
DefendantsAppellants,
RAYMONDW.KELLY,individuallyandinhisofficialcapacity,CITYOFNEWYORK,MICHAELR.BLOOMBERG,individuallyandinhisofficialcapacity,
Defendants.*
Before:
CALABRESI,LIVINGSTON,andLYNCH,CircuitJudges.
__________________
Defendantsappellants,NewYorkPoliceDepartmentofficers,appealfrom
anorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork
(JedS.Rakoff,Judge)denyingtheirmotionpursuanttoRule12(b)(6)todismiss
plaintiffsappelleescomplaintagainstthemonqualifiedimmunitygrounds.
Defendantsarguethatthedistrictcourterredinconcludingthatplaintiffs
complaint,andothermaterialsthatcouldproperlybeconsideredonamotionto
dismissforfailuretostateaclaim,didnotestablishthatdefendantshadarguable
*TheClerkofCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptioninthiscasetoconformwiththecaptionabove.
2
probablecausetoarrestplaintiffsfordisorderlyconduct.OnAugust21,2014,
weissuedanopinionaffirmingthedistrictcourtsjudgment.OnDecember17,
2014,thisopinionwaswithdrawn.Onappellantspetitionforrehearing,wenow
grantthepetition,reversethejudgmentofthedistrictcourt,andremandwith
instructionstodismissthecomplaint.
REVERSED.
MARA VERHEYDENHILLIARD (Andrea Hope Costello and CarlMessineo,onthebrief),PartnershipforCivilJusticeFund,Washington,D.C.,forPlaintiffsAppellees.
RONALD E. STERNBERG, Assistant Corporation Counsel (LeonardKoernerandArthurG.Larkin,AssistantCorporationCounsel,onthebrief),forMichaelA.Cardozo,CorporationCounseloftheCityofNewYork,NewYork,NewYork,forDefendantsAppellants.
GERARDE.LYNCH,CircuitJudge:
Plaintiffsappellees,participantsinademonstrationwhowerearrested
afteraconfrontationwithpoliceattheManhattanentrancetotheBrooklyn
Bridge,broughtthisactionforfalsearrestinviolationoftheirFirst,Fourth,and
FourteenthAmendmentrights.Defendantappellantpoliceofficersappealfrom
3
arulingoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork
(JedS.Rakoff,Judge)denyingtheirmotiontodismissthecomplaintpursuantto
Rule12(b)(6)ongroundsofqualifiedimmunity.Byadividedvote,weinitially
affirmedthedistrictcourtsjudgment.OnDecember17,2014,theCourtentered
anordergrantingappellantspetitionforrehearingenbancandwithdrawingour
prioropinion.Onappellantspetitionforrehearing,wenowconcludethat
appellantsareentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Accordingly,weGRANTthe
petitionforrehearing,REVERSEthejudgmentbelow,andREMANDthecase
withinstructionstodismissthecomplaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffsbroughtthisactionforfalsearrestunder42U.S.C.1983followingtheirarrestsduringademonstrationinsupportoftheOccupyWallStreetmovement.1PlaintiffsattachedfivevideoexcerptsandninestillphotographsasexhibitstotheSecondAmendedComplaint(theComplaint),whichweconsiderwhendecidingthisappeal.SeeDiFolcov.MSNBCCableL.L.C.,622F.3d104,111(2dCir.2010).Wealsoconsidervideossubmittedbydefendants,whichplaintiffsconcedearesimilarlyincorporatedintothe
1Althoughplaintiffsbringtheirsuitasaputativeclassaction,noclasshasbeencertified.Accordingly,weaddressonlytheclaimsmadebythetennamedplaintiffs.
4
Complaintbyreference.2Forpurposesofthisappeal,wetakeastruethefactssetforthintheComplaint,seeAlmontev.CityofLongBeach,478F.3d100,104(2dCir.2007),totheextentthattheyarenotcontradictedbythevideoevidence.I. TheProtestandPlaintiffsArrests
OnOctober1,2011,thousandsofdemonstratorsmarchedthroughLowerManhattantoshowsupportfortheOccupyWallStreetmovement.ThemarchbeganatZuccottiParkinManhattanandwastoendinarallyatBrooklynBridgeParkinBrooklyn.Althoughnopermitforthemarchhadbeensought,theNewYorkCityPoliceDepartment(NYPD)wasawareoftheplannedeventinadvance,andNYPDofficersescortedmarchersfromZuccottiParktotheManhattanentrancetotheBrooklynBridge(theBridge),attimesflankingthemarcherswithofficersonmotorscootersormotorcycles.Thoseofficersissuedordersanddirectivestoindividualmarchers,attimesdirectingthemtoproceedinwaysordinarilyprohibitedundertrafficregulationsabsentpolicedirectiveorpermission.J.Appxat165.Theofficersblockedvehiculartrafficatsomeintersectionsandonoccasiondirectedmarcherstocrossstreetsagainsttrafficsignals.Asfarasappearsfromthevideoexcerpts,neitherthedemonstrationnortheactionsoftheofficersincontrollingorfacilitatingitcausedanysignificant
2WehaveneveraddressedwhetherFed.R.Civ.P.10(c),whichprovidesthatawritteninstrumentincludedasanexhibittoapleadingisapartofthepleadingforallpurposes,extendstovideosofthesortpresentedinthiscase.BecausenopartyconteststheinclusionofthevideosintheCourtsreviewoftheComplaint,however,wehavenooccasiontoreachthatissuehere.
5
disruptionofordinarytrafficpatternsduringthisstageofthemarch.WhenthemarcharrivedattheManhattanentrancetotheBridge,thefirst
marchersbeganfunnelingontotheBridgespedestrianwalkway.Police,includingcommandofficials,andothercityofficialsstoodintheroadwayentrancetotheBridgeimmediatelysouthofthepedestrianwalkwayand,atleastatfirst,watchedastheprotesterspouredacrossCentreStreettowardstheBridge.Abottlenecksoondeveloped,creatingalargecrowdattheentrancetotheBridgespedestrianwalkway.WhilevideofootagesuggeststhatthecrowdwaitingtoenterthepedestrianwalkwayblockedtrafficonCentreStreet,defendantsdonotcontendthattheyhadprobablecausetoarrestplaintiffsfortheirobstructionoftrafficatthatpoint,asopposedtotheirlaterobstructionoftrafficontheBridgeroadway.Indeed,plaintiffsallegedintheirComplaintthatthepolicethemselvesstoppedvehiculartrafficonCentreStreetneartheentrancetotheBridge3beforethemajorityofthemarchersarrivedattheentrance.
Whileasteadystreamofprotesterscontinuedontothewalkway,agroupofprotestersstoppedandstoodfacingthepoliceontherampconstitutingthevehicularentrancetotheBridgeatadistanceofapproximatelytwentyfeet.Bythistime,alargecrowdofdemonstratorshadpooledbehindthatleadgroup.Giventhesizeanddensityofthecrowd,itwouldclearlyhavebeenimpossibleforvehiclestoenterthebridgeusingtherampatthatlocation.Someofthe
3TherearethreeeastboundentryrampstotheBridgeontheManhattanside.Therampreferredtohereisthenorthernmostramp.
6
protestersbeganchantingTakethebridge!andWhosestreets?Ourstreets!Atthispoint,allthevideoevidenceconfirmsthatthemarchhaddivided;onegroupwasproceedingacrosstheBridgeviathepedestrianwalkway,whileasecondgrouphadmovedontothevehicularroadway,wheretheywereblockedbyalineofpolice.4
Anofficeronthevehicularrampsteppedforwardwithabullhornandmadeanannouncement.InthevideotakenbytheNYPDsTechnicalAssistanceResponseUnit,theofficercanclearlybeheardrepeatingseveraltimesintothebullhorn:Iamaskingyoutostepbackonthesidewalk,youareobstructingtraffic.Plaintiffsallegethatthesestatementweregenerallyinaudible,J.Appxat166,andthevideoexcerptstheyhaveprovidedareconsistentwiththatallegation.Twominuteslaterthesameofficerannouncedintothebullhorn:Youareobstructingvehiculartraffic.Ifyourefusetomove,youaresubjecttoarrest,andIfyourefusetoleave,youwillbeplacedunderarrestandchargedwithdisorderlyconduct.Whileitisclearthatatleastsomemarchersatthefrontofthecrowdheardthisannouncement,plaintiffsallegethattheofficersknewthattheirwarningsororderstodispersewouldnothavebeenaudibleto
4Althoughthisdivisionwasclearatthefrontofthemarch,additionaldemonstratorswerebackedupbehindthedividedleadgroups.Thepedestrianwalkwaywascrowded,andthegrouponthevehicularroadwaywasblockedbypolice,creatingabottlenecksuchthatsomedemonstratorswerenotclearlypartofeithergroup.
7
thevastmajorityofthoseassembled.Therewasconsiderablenoiseandconfusionatthescene.
Aminuteandahalfafterthesecondannouncement,theofficersandcityofficialsintheleadgroupturnedaroundandbeganwalkingunhurriedlyontotheBridgeroadwaywiththeirbackstotheprotesters.Theprotestersbegancheeringandfollowedtheofficersontotheroadwayinanorderlyfashionabouttwentyfeetbehindthelastofficer.Theprotestersontheroadwaythenencouragedthoseonthepedestrianwalkwaytocomeover,andthevideosshowseveralprotestersjumpingdownfromthepedestrianwalkwayontotheroadway,thoughforthemostpartthemarchersonthepedestrianwalkwaycontinuedtheirprogressonthewalkwayanddidnotenterthevehicularlanes.ProtestorsinitiallywalkeduptheBridgeviathefirst(northernmost)entryramp,buttheyeventuallyblockedthesecondandthirdrampsaswellandoccupiedalloftheBridgeseastboundtrafficlanes,preventinganycarsfrommovingontotheBridgeinthatdirection.
MidwayacrosstheBridge,theofficersinfrontofthelineofmarchersturnedandstoppedallforwardmovementofthedemonstration.Anofficerannouncedthroughabullhornthatthoseontheroadwaywouldbearrestedfordisorderlyconduct.Plaintiffsallegethatthisannouncementwasalsoinaudible.OfficersblockedmovementinbothdirectionsalongtheBridgeroadwayandpreventeddispersalthroughtheuseoforangenettingandpolicevehicles.J.Appxat173.Theofficersthenmethodicallyarrestedoversevenhundredpeople
8
whowereontheBridgeroadway.Theseindividualswerehandcuffed,takenintocustody,processedandreleasedthroughoutthenightintotheearlymorninghours.J.Appxat174.
Plaintiffsallegethattheofficersledthemarchacrossthebridge,andthatthemarcherssawtheofficersmovementontotheroadwayasanactualandapparentgrantofpermissiontofollow.J.Appxat168.TheyallegethatthecombinationofthoseofficersinfrontleadingtheprotestersontotheroadwayandtheofficersonthesideescortingthemalongtheroadwayledthemtobelievethattheNYPDwasescortingandpermittingthemarchtoproceedontotheroadway,asithadescortedandpermittedthemarchthroughLowerManhattanearlierintheday.
Officersattheroadwayentrancedidnotinstructtheongoingflowofmarchersnottoproceedontotheroadway.Otherofficerswalkedcalmlyalongsidetheprotestersontheroadwayanddidnotdirectanyprotesterstoleavetheroadway.Thenamedplaintiffsallegethattheydidnothearanywarningsorordersnottoproceedontheroadway,andunderstoodtheirpassageontotheBridgeroadwaytohavebeenpermittedbythepolice.5Nevertheless,plaintiffsdonotallegethatanyofficerexplicitlystatedthatthemarcherswouldbepermittedtoadvancealongthevehicularlanesoftheBridge.Nordoesany
5Whileoneplaintiff,CassandraRegan,acknowledgesthatshewastoldtoleavetheroadway,sheallegesthatthewarningwasgivenonlyafterdefendantshadblockedofftheroadwayandnoexitwaspossible.
9
plaintiffallegethatheorsheobservedanyofficerbeckontothedemonstratorsorstatebywordorgesturethattheywerewelcometoproceed.TheComplaintsallegationthatthepolicehadgivenactualandapparentpermissionofthemarchtoproceed,J.Appxat173,isalegalconclusionbasedentirelyoninferencesdrawnfrom(a)theofficershavingfollowedalongthecourseofthemarchbeforethearrivalattheBridgewithoutinterferingwith,andoccasionallyfacilitating,minorbreachesoftrafficrules;(b)theofficersretreatfromtheirinitiallocationblockingtheprotestersadvanceontotheBridgeroadwayafterthebullhornannouncementtodisperse;and(c)thefailureofofficerswalkinginfrontofthedemonstratorsoralongsidethemastheyprogressedacrosstheBridgetorepeatanywarnings,untiltheultimatecommencementofthearrests.II. DistrictCourtProceedings
PlaintiffssuedtheunidentifiedNYPDofficerswhoparticipatedintheirarrests,6aswellasMayorMichaelR.Bloomberg,PoliceCommissionerRaymondW.Kelly,andtheCityofNewYork,allegingthatthearrestsviolatedplaintiffsrightsundertheFirst,Fourth,andFourteenthAmendments.DefendantsmovedtodismissplaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaintonqualifiedimmunitygroundsandpursuanttoMonellv.DepartmentofSocialServices,436U.S.658
6Elevenofthese40JohnandJaneDoeshavesincebeenidentifiedandtheirnameshavereplacedJohn/JaneDoes##111inthecaptionofthedistrictcourtproceedings.WhentheComplaintwasfiledandtherelevantdistrictcourtopinionwasissued,however,noneoftheNYPDofficerswhoparticipatedinthearrestshadbeenidentified.
10
(1978),arguing,inpart,thattheComplaintandthevideosdemonstratethattheyhadprobablecausetoarrestplaintiffsfordisorderlyconduct.7
ThedistrictcourtdeniedthemotiontodismisstheclaimsagainsttheindividualofficersandgrantedthemotiontodismisstheclaimsagainsttheCity,Bloomberg,andKelly.8Garciav.Bloomberg,865F.Supp.2d478(S.D.N.Y.2012).ThedistrictcourtheldthattheallegationsintheComplaint,iftrue,establishedthatareasonableofficerwouldhaveknownthathedidnothaveprobablecausetoarrestplaintiffs.ThedistrictcourtfurtherheldthatwhileplaintiffshadclearlyviolatedthelawbyenteringtheBridgeroadwayandblockingvehiculartraffic,basedonthefactsalleged,noreasonablepoliceofficercouldbelievethatplaintiffshadreceivedfairwarningthattheirbehaviorwasillegal,asrequiredbylaw.ThedistrictcourtconcludedthatwhileNewYorksdisorderlyconduct
7Whiledefendantsinitiallyarrestedmanyoftheplaintiffsforfailuretoobeyalawfulorder,theoffensethatanofficercitesatthetimeofthearrestneednotbethesameas,orevencloselyrelatedto,theoffensethattheofficerlatercitesasprobablecauseforthearrest.SeeDevenpeckv.Alford,543U.S.146,15455.Defendantsnowarguethatplaintiffsengagedindisorderlyconduct,definedtoincludetheconductof,withintenttocausepublicinconvenience,annoyanceoralarm,orrecklesslycreatingariskthereof[,]...obstruct[ing]vehicularorpedestriantraffic.N.Y.PenalLaw240.20(5).WhiledefendantsarguedbeforethedistrictcourtthattheyalsohadprobablecausetoarrestplaintiffsformarchingwithoutapermitinviolationofNewYorkCityAdministrativeCode10110(a),defendantshaveabandonedthatargumentonappeal.
8PlaintiffsarguedthattheCityofNewYorkmaintainsapolicy,practice,and/orcustomoftrappingandarrestingpeacefulprotesterswithoutprobablecause.Thedistrictcourtheldthatplaintiffshadnotplausiblyallegedanysuchpolicy,practice,orcustom.Thatinterlocutoryrulingisnotbeforeus,andwehavenooccasiontoaddressitsmerits.
11
statutewouldnormallyhavegivenprotestersfairwarningnottomarchontheroadway,itdidnotdosohere,wheredefendants,whohadbeendirectingthemarchalongitsentirecourse,seemedimplicitlytosanctiontheprotestersmovementontotheroadway.9
Defendantsnowappealthedenialoftheirmotiontodismissonqualifiedimmunitygrounds,arguingthatunderthecircumstances,anobjectivelyreasonablepoliceofficerwouldnothaveunderstoodthatthepresenceofpoliceofficersontheBridgeconstitutedimplicitpermissiontothedemonstratorstobeontheBridgeroadwayincontraventionofthelaw.10AppellantsBr.at3.
DISCUSSION
I. AppellateJurisdictionWehavejurisdictionoveranappealfromadistrictcourtsdenialof
qualifiedimmunityatthemotiontodismissstagebecausequalifiedimmunitywhichshieldsGovernmentofficialsfromliabilityforcivildamagesinsofarastheirconductdoesnotviolateclearlyestablishedstatutoryorconstitutional
9Thedistrictcourtstressedthatitsconclusiondidnotdependinanywayonafindingthatthepoliceactuallyintendedtoleaddemonstratorsontothebridge.Garcia,865F.Supp.2dat491n.9.Indeed,thecourtconsidereditfarmorelikelythatdefendantshaddecidedtomovetheprotesterstoapointwheretheybelievedtheycouldbettercontrolthemthanthatdefendantshadorchestratedacharadetocreateapretenseforarrest.Id.
10DefendantsalsomovedtodismissplaintiffsclaimsforfailuretostateaclaimandforfailuretoproperlynotifytheCityoftheclaims.Defendantsdonotappealthedenialofthosemotions.
12
rightsisbothadefensetoliabilityandalimitedentitlementnottostandtrialorfacetheotherburdensoflitigation.Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,672(2009)(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted).Provideditturnsonanissueoflaw,adenialofqualifiedimmunityisafinalreviewableorderbecauseitconclusivelydetermine[s]thatthedefendantmustbeartheburdensofdiscovery;isconceptuallydistinctfromthemeritsoftheplaintiffsclaim;andwouldproveeffectivelyunreviewableonappealfromafinaljudgment.Id.(internalquotationmarksomitted)(alterationinoriginal);seealsoLocurtov.Safir,264F.3d154,164(2dCir.2001)(notingthatdenialsofimmunityareconclusivewithregardtoadefendantsrighttoavoidpretrialdiscovery,solongasthevalidityofthedenialofthequalifiedimmunitydefensecanbedecidedasamatteroflawinlightoftherecordonappeal)(emphasisinoriginal).II. StandardofReview
Wereviewadistrictcourtsdenialofqualifiedimmunityonamotiontodismissdenovo,acceptingastruethematerialfactsallegedinthecomplaintanddrawingallreasonableinferencesinplaintiffsfavor.Johnsonv.NewburghEnlargedSch.Dist.,239F.3d246,250(2dCir.2001).III. QualifiedImmunity
Qualifiedimmunityprotectspublicofficialsfromliabilityforcivildamageswhenoneoftwoconditionsissatisfied:(a)thedefendantsactiondidnotviolateclearlyestablishedlaw,or(b)itwasobjectivelyreasonableforthedefendanttobelievethathisactiondidnotviolatesuchlaw.Russov.Cityof
13
Bridgeport,479F.3d196,211(2dCir.2007)(internalquotationmarksomitted);seealsoHunterv.Bryant,502U.S.224,229(1991)(Thequalifiedimmunitystandardgivesampleroomformistakenjudgmentsbyprotectingallbuttheplainlyincompetentorthosewhoknowinglyviolatethelaw.)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Defendantsbeartheburdenofestablishingqualifiedimmunity.Vincentv.Yelich,718F.3d157,166(2dCir.2013).AlthoughwegenerallylooktoSupremeCourtandSecondCircuitprecedentexistingatthetimeoftheallegedviolationtodeterminewhethertheconductviolatedaclearlyestablishedright,Okinv.Vill.ofCornwallOnHudsonPoliceDept,577F.3d415,433(2dCir.2009),theabsenceofadecisionbythisCourtortheSupremeCourtdirectlyaddressingtherightatissuewillnotprecludeafindingthatthelawwasclearlyestablishedsolongaspreexistinglawclearlyforeshadow[s]aparticularrulingontheissue,Tellierv.Fields,280F.3d69,84(2dCir.2000)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Anofficerisentitledtoqualifiedimmunityagainstasuitforfalsearrestifhecanestablishthathehadarguableprobablecausetoarresttheplaintiff.Zalaskiv.CityofHartford,723F.3d382,390(2dCir.2013)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Arguableprobablecauseexistsifeither(a)itwasobjectivelyreasonablefortheofficertobelievethatprobablecauseexisted,or(b)officersofreasonablecompetencecoulddisagreeonwhethertheprobablecausetestwasmet.Id.,quotingEscalerav.Lunn,361F.3d737,743(2dCir.2004).Indecidingwhetheranofficersconductwasobjectivelyreasonable...,welooktothe
14
informationpossessedbytheofficeratthetimeofthearrest,butwedonotconsiderthesubjectiveintent,motives,orbeliefsoftheofficer.Amorev.Novarro,624F.3d522,536(2dCir.2010)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Therelevant,dispositiveinquiryindeterminingwhetherarightisclearlyestablishediswhetheritwouldbecleartoareasonableofficerthathisconductwasunlawfulinthesituationheconfronted.Saucierv.Katz,533U.S.194,202(2001).
UnderbothfederalandNewYorklaw,anofficerhasprobablecausetoarrestwhenheorshehasknowledgeorreasonablytrustworthyinformationoffactsandcircumstancesthataresufficienttowarrantapersonofreasonablecautioninthebeliefthatthepersontobearrestedhascommittedoriscommittingacrime.Dickersonv.Napolitano,604F.3d732,751(2d.Cir.2010)(internalquotationmarksomitted);seealsoMichiganv.DeFillippo,443U.S.31,37(1979)(holdingthatapoliceofficerhasprobablecausetoarrestwhenthefactsandcircumstanceswithintheofficersknowledge...aresufficienttowarrantaprudentperson,oroneofreasonablecaution,inbelieving,inthecircumstancesshown,thatthesuspecthascommitted,iscommitting,orisabouttocommitanoffense).IV. WhatReasonablePoliceOfficersWouldHaveUnderstood
Itisnotsubjecttoseriousdisputethatthedefendantsinthiscasehad,fromtheirpersonalobservations,sufficientevidencetoestablishprobablecauseoneachoftheelementsofadisorderlyconductviolation.Asnotedabove,that
15
offenseincludestheconductof,withintenttocausepublicinconvenience,...orrecklesslycreatingariskthereof[,]...obstruct[ing]vehicularorpedestriantraffic.N.Y.PenalLaw240.20(5).PlaintiffswerepartofalargegroupthathadgatheredonavehicularrampapproachingtheBridgeandonthestreetbehindit,locationsgenerallyreservedforvehiculartraffic,makingitimpossibleforvehiclestoproceed.TheydonotchallengetheconclusionthatitwouldbereasonableforapoliceofficertoinferthatplaintiffseitherintendedtoblocktrafficontheBridgeaspartoftheirprotest,orataminimumwereawareofasubstantialandunjustifiableriskthattheyweredoingso.SeeN.Y.PenalLaw15.05(3)(definingrecklessly).Rather,theycontendthatreasonableofficersindefendantspositionwouldalsohavebeenaware,orshouldhavebeenaware,thatplaintiffshadareasonablebeliefthattheyhadbeenauthorizedtocrosstheBridgeonthevehicularroadway,basedonthefactthatpoliceofficerswhohadbeenblockingtheirprogresssubsequentlyretreatedandledthemarchacrossthebridge,whichtheyconstruedasanactualandapparentgrantofpermissiontofollow.J.Appxat168.
Wearenotconcernedwithwhetherplaintiffsassertedbeliefthattheofficersbehaviorhadgiventhemimpliedpermissiontoviolatetrafficlawsotherwisebanningpedestriansfromtheroadwaywouldconstituteadefensetothechargeofdisorderlyconduct;thatissuewouldbepresentedtoacourtadjudicatingthecriminalchargesagainstplaintiffs.Instead,wearefacedwiththequiteseparatequestionofwhetheranysuchdefensewassoclearly
16
establishedasamatteroflaw,andwhetherthefactsestablishingthatdefenseweresoclearlyapparenttotheofficersonthesceneasamatteroffact,thatanyreasonableofficerwouldhaveappreciatedthattherewasnolegalbasisforarrestingplaintiffs.SeeMalleyv.Briggs,475U.S.335,341(1986)(anofficerisentitledtoqualifiedimmunityifofficersofreasonablecompetencecoulddisagreeonthelegalityoftheactioninitsparticularfactualcontext).Wecannotanswerthatquestionintheaffirmative.
Itiswellestablishedthatapoliceofficerawareoffactscreatingprobablecausetosuspectaprimafacieviolationofacriminalstatuteisnotrequiredtoexploreandeliminateeverytheoreticallyplausibleclaimofinnocencebeforemakinganarrest.Curleyv.Vill.ofSuffern,268F.3d65,70(2dCir.2001)(internalquotationmarkomitted);seealsoPanettav.Crowley,460F.3d388,398(2dCir.2006)(Onceanofficerhasprobablecause,heorsheisneitherrequirednorallowedtocontinueinvestigating,siftingandweighinginformation.)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Atmost,probablecausemaybedefeatediftheofficerdeliberatelydisregard[s]factsknowntohimwhichestablishjustification.Jocksv.Tavernier,316F.3d128,136(2dCir.2003)(emphasisadded).
Itcannotbesaidthattheofficersheredisregardedknownfactsclearlyestablishingadefense.Intheconfusedandboisteroussituationconfrontingtheofficers,thepolicewereawarethatthedemonstratorswereblockingtheroadwayinviolationof240.20(5).Theywerealsocertainlyawarethatnoofficialhad
17
expresslyauthorizedtheprotesterstocrosstheBridgeviatheroadway.Tothecontrary,theofficerswouldhaveknownthatapoliceofficialhadattemptedtoadvisetheprotestorsthroughabullhornthattheywererequiredtodisperse.Whilereasonableofficersmightperhapshaverecognizedthatmuchormostofthecrowdwouldbeunabletohearthewarningduetothenoisecreatedbythechantingprotesters,itwasalsoapparentthatthefrontrankofdemonstratorswhopresumablywereabletohearexhibitednosignsofdispersing.TheComplaintandvideotapesaredevoidofanyevidencethatanypoliceofficermadeanygestureorspokeanywordthatunambiguouslyauthorizedtheprotesterstocontinuetoblocktraffic,andindeedtheComplaintdoesnotallegethatanyoftheplaintiffsobservedanysuchgesture.
PlaintiffsrelyontheSupremeCourtsdecisioninCoxv.Louisianatoarguethat,inlightoftheirapparentearlierpassivityinthefaceofthemarch,policeofficershadtoprovidetheprotestorswithfairwarningbeforechangingcourseandeffectinganyarrests.11See379U.S.559,574(1965).Butthefactsofthatcase
11PlaintiffsalsorelyonourholdinginPapineauv.Parmley,465F.3d46(2dCir.2006),whichdeniedqualifiedimmunitytoofficerswhoarrestedpeacefulprotesterswithoutfirstgivingthemfairwarningthroughanordertodisperse.Id.at60.Papineauisinapposite,however.InPapineau,plaintiffswereprotestingonprivatepropertyborderingapublichighwaywhenahandfulofprotestersbrieflyenteredthehighwaytodistributepamphlets.Onceallparticipantswerebackontheproperty,policeofficersenteredandbeganarrestingprotestersindiscriminatelyandwithoutadvancewarning.Id.at53.BecausetheprotestinPapineauoccurredonprivatepropertyandposednodangerofimminentharmatthetimeofthearrests,id.at6061,plaintiffs
18
differsignificantlyfromthoseatissuehere.InCox,alargegroupofdemonstratorsprotestingonthestreetoppositeacourthousewerearrestedandchargedwithviolatingastatutethatprohibitedpicket[ing]orparad[ing]inornearabuildinghousingacourtoftheStateofLouisiana.Id.at560(emphasisadded);seealsoid.at564.TheCourtnotedthatthestatute,whilenotunconstitutionallyvague,wassufficientlyunspecific...withrespecttothedeterminationofhownearthecourthouseaparticulardemonstrationcanbe,[asto]foresee[]adegreeofonthespotadministrativeinterpretationbyofficialschargedwithresponsibilityforadministeringandenforcingit.Id.at568.AccordingtotheCourt,therecordclearlyshow[ed]thatsuchonthespotinterpretationhadbeenexercisedinCoxtoauthorizethedemonstration.Id.Cox,theleaderofthedemonstrators,testifiedtoanexplicitconversationwithpoliceofficialsinwhichhehadbeengivenpermissiontoconductthedemonstrationonthefarsideofthestreet,some101feetfromthecourthousesteps.Id.at56971.TheChiefofPoliceeffectivelycorroboratedthataccount,asdidanindependentobserver.Id.at570.AstheSupremeCourtconcluded,
thehighestpoliceofficialsofthecity,inthepresenceoftheSheriffandMayor,ineffecttoldthedemonstratorsthattheycouldmeetwheretheydid,101feetfromthecourthousesteps,butcouldnotmeetclosertothe
neitherneededpermissionfromthepolicetoengageinthatprotestnor,absentclearorderstodisperse,hadanynoticethattheymightbeengaginginunlawfulconduct.Papineaudoesnotstandforthepropositionthatpoliceofficersmustprovidefairwarningbeforeeffectinganyarrestswhenindividualsareclearlyviolatinganapplicablecriminalstatute.
19
courthouse.Ineffect,[Cox]wasadvisedthatademonstrationattheplaceitwasheldwouldnotbeonenearthecourthousewithinthetermsofthestatute.
Id.at571.Onthosefacts,theCourtconcludedthatconvictingthedemonstratorsofdemonstratingnearthecourthouseviolateddueprocess,becausethedemonstratorswereentitledtorelyuponthepolicesinterpretationofthestatute,andthuslackedfairwarningthattheywereviolatingthelaw.
Thecircumstancesinthiscasearequitedifferent.UnliketheunspecificstatutorycommandinCox,240.20(5)sprohibitionagainstobstructingtrafficishardlyvague,anditwouldhavebeencleartoanyperson(andcertainlytoareasonablepoliceofficer)thattheprotesterswereoccupyingalocationwheretheywerenotordinarilypermittedtobe.AlsounlikeCox,therewasnoexplicitconsultationbetweentheleadersofthedemonstrationandthepoliceaboutwhatconductwouldbepermitted.NorwasthereanyexpressstatementfromanypoliceofficialauthorizingtheprotesterstocrosstheBridgeonthevehicularroadway,opiningthatdoingsowouldbelawful,orwaivingtheenforcementofanytrafficregulation.Mostimportantly,noplaintiffallegesintheComplaintthatheorsheheardanystatementfromanypoliceofficerauthorizingtheprotestorstocrosstheBridgeviathevehicularroadway,orobservedanyunambiguousindicationfromanypoliceofficerinvitingtheprotesterstocrosstheBridgeinthatmanner.NorisanysuchstatementorgesturerecordedinthevideotapessubmittedbythepartiesandincorporatedintotheComplaintbyreference.Indeed,mostoftheplaintiffsallegethattheydidnotseeanythingthe
20
policeofficersdid,andsimplyfollowedthemarchasitproceededacrosstheBridge.J.Appxat171(quotingplaintiffGarcia).SeegenerallyJ.Appxat16972.
Plaintiffsneverthelessinsistthat,byceasingtoblockthedemonstratorsadvanceandinsteadturningandwalkingtowardtheBrooklynsideoftheBridge,theofficersimplicitlygavethempermissiontoproceed.Thataction,however,isinherentlyambiguous.Itiscertainlytruethat,byremovingthemselvesfromthedemonstratorspath,policeallowedtheprotesterstoadvance,inthesensethattheystoppedphysicallyblockingthem.Butsuchanactiondoesnotconvey,implicitlyorexplicitly,aninvitationtogoahead.ThefailureofathinlineofpoliceofficerstophysicallyimpedealargegroupthatbasedontheactionsofthoseimmediatelyonthefrontlinewouldreasonablybeunderstoodtobeintentonadvancingacrosstheBridgeevenabsentpermissiondoesnotsuggestthatthoseofficersunderstoodthattheconducttheyhadceasedphysicallyblockingwaslawful,orhadbeenaffirmativelyauthorizedbythepolice.12
12Plaintiffsalsocitetwooutofcircuitcasesdenyingqualifiedimmunitytoofficerswhoarrestedprotestersafterarguablysanctioningtheirtrafficviolationsthroughtheirowndirectives.SeeVodakv.CityofChicago,639F.3d738,74344(7thCir.2011);Buckv.CityofAlbuquerque,549F.3d1269,1283(10thCir.2008).
Wehavenotbeenaltogetherunequivocalastotherelevanceofoutofcircuitcasesinourassessmentofwhetherarightisclearlyestablishedforthepurposesofqualifiedimmunity.Compare,e.g.,Scottv.Fischer,616F.3d100,105(2dCir.2010)(Evenifthisorothercircuitcourtshavenotexplicitlyheldalaw
21
Evenconcedingthatamajorityofpoliceofficerswouldnotreasonablyhaveunderstoodtheretreatasinvitingthedemonstratorstoentertheroadway,plaintiffssuggestthatwecannotdismisstheComplaintsolongasanyofficerwhoparticipatedinthearrestsmayreasonablyhaveanticipatedsomeprotestorstoreasonablyinterpretitassuch.Theessentialflawinplaintiffslogic,andinthatofthepriorpanelopinion,istheextenttowhichitrequirespoliceofficerstoengageinanessentiallyspeculativeinquiryintothepotentialstateofmindof(atleastsomeof)thedemonstrators.Neitherthelawofprobablecausenorthelawofqualifiedimmunityrequiressuchspeculation.Whetherornotasuspectultimatelyturnsouttohaveadefense,orevenwhetherareasonableofficermighthavesomeideathatsuchadefensecouldexist,isnotthequestion.See
orcourseofconducttobeunconstitutional,theunconstitutionalityofthatlaworcourseofconductwillnonethelessbetreatedasclearlyestablishedifdecisionsbythisorothercourtsclearlyforeshadowaparticularrulingontheissue,evenifthosedecisionscomefromcourtsinothercircuits.)(internalquotationmarksomitted),withPabonv.Wright,459F.3d241,255(2dCir.2006)(WhenneithertheSupremeCourtnorthiscourthasrecognizedaright,thelawofoursistercircuitsandtheholdingsofdistrictcourtscannotacttorenderthatrightclearlyestablishedwithintheSecondCircuit.).Butweneednotresolvethattensionhere,becausetheoutofcircuitprecedentcitedbyplaintiffshasnotplacedthequestionatissueinthiscasebeyonddebate.Ashcroftv.alKidd,___U.S.___,131S.Ct.2074,2083(2011)(Wedonotrequireacasedirectlyonpoint,butexistingprecedentmusthaveplacedthestatutoryorconstitutionalquestionbeyonddebate.).ExtendingCoxbeyonditsdueprocessholding,andagreeingonneithertheconstitutionalrightatstakenoritscontours,VodakandBuckevenassumingarguendothattheirholdingsmightotherwiseberelevantinthespecificfactualcontextofthiscasedonotforeshadowthelawofwhichareasonableofficerinthiscircuitshouldbeaware.
22
Curley,268F.3dat70(refusingtorequireofficerstoexploreandeliminateeverytheoreticallyplausibleclaimofinnocencebeforemakinganarrest)(internalquotationmarkomitted).Anofficerstillhasprobablecausetoarrest,andcertainlyisentitledtoqualifiedimmunity,solongasanysuchdefenserestsonfactsthataresounclear,oralegaltheorythatisnotsoclearlyestablished,thatitcannotbesaidthatanyreasonableofficerwouldunderstandthatanarrestunderthecircumstanceswouldbeunlawful.Reichlev.Howards,___U.S.___,132S.Ct.2088,2093(2012);seealsoMesserschmidtv.Millender,___U.S.___,132S.Ct.1235,1244(2012)(qualifiedimmunitygivesgovernmentofficialsbreathingroomtomakereasonablebutmistakenjudgments)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
OnthefaceoftheComplaint,theofficerswereconfrontedwithambiguitiesoffactandlaw.Asamatteroffact,themostthatisplausiblyallegedbytheComplaintandthesupportingmaterialsisthatthepolice,havingalreadypermittedsomeminortrafficviolationsalongthemarchersroute,andafterfirstattemptingtoblocktheprotestersfromobstructingthevehicularroadway,retreatedbeforethedemonstratorsinawaythatsomeofthedemonstratorsmayhaveinterpretedasaffirmativelypermittingtheiradvance.Whetherornotsuchaninterpretationwasreasonableontheirpart,itcannotbesaidthatthepolicesbehaviorwasanythingmorethanatbestforplaintiffsambiguous,orthatareasonableofficerwouldnecessarilyhaveunderstoodthatthedemonstratorswouldreasonablyinterprettheretreataspermissiontousetheroadway.
23
Asamatteroflaw,Coxestablishesthat,undersomecircumstances,demonstratorsorotherswhohavebeenadvisedbythepolicethattheirbehaviorislawfulmaynotbepunishedforthatbehavior.Theextentofthatprincipleislessthanclear,andweneednotdecideherehowfaritmightextend.Itisenoughtosaythatnoclearlyestablishedlawwouldmakeitcleartoareasonableofficer,Saucier,533U.S.at202,thatitwouldbeunlawfultoarrestindividualswhowereinprimafacieviolationofastraightforwardstatutoryprohibitionbecausethoseindividualsmayhavebelieved,basedoninferencesdrawnfromambiguousbehaviorbythepolice,thattheywereauthorizedtoviolatethestatute.
V. TheProceduralPostureoftheCaseFinally,plaintiffsarguethattheComplaintmaynotbedismissedonthe
pleadingsonqualifiedimmunitygrounds.ItiscertainlytruethatmotionstodismissaplaintiffscomplaintunderRule12(b)(6)onthebasisofanaffirmativedefensewillgenerallyfaceadifficultroad.Whenaddressingamotiontodismissacomplaint,weaccept[]astruethematerialfactsallegedinthecomplaintanddraw[]allreasonableinferencesinplaintiffsfavor.Johnson,239F.3dat250.Tosurvivesuchamotion,thecomplaintmustsimplycontainsufficientfactualmatter,acceptedastrue,tostateaclaimtoreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.Iqbal,556U.S.at678,quotingBellAtlanticCorp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,570(2007).
24
Butthatdoesnotmeanthatqualifiedimmunitycanneverbeestablishedatthepleadingstage.Tothecontrary,everycasemustbeassessedonthespecificfactsallegedinthecomplaint.TheSupremeCourthasmadeclearthatqualifiedimmunitycanbeestablishedbythefactsallegedinacomplaint,seeWoodv.Moss,___U.S.___,134S.Ct.2056(2014),andindeed,becausequalifiedimmunityprotectsofficialsnotmerelyfromliabilitybutfromlitigation,thattheissueshouldberesolvedwhenpossibleonamotiontodismiss,beforethecommencementofdiscovery,Mitchellv.Forsyth,472U.S.511,526(1985),toavoidsubjectingpublicofficialstotimeconsumingandexpensivediscoveryprocedures.Inthiscase,thefactsallegedintheComplaint,andthosedepictedinthevideos,donotbearoutplaintiffslegalconclusionthattheofficersactionsconstitutedanactualandapparentgrantofpermissiontothedemonstratorstoutilizetheroadway.J.Appxat168.Stilllessdothosefactsplausiblydescribeasituationinwhichreasonableofficerswouldhaveclearlyunderstoodthattheiractionswereinterpretedbythedemonstratorsasagrantofpermission,suchthatarrestingthedemonstratorswouldviolateclearlyestablishedlaw.Accordingly,dismissaloftheComplaintisrequired.
CONCLUSION
Fortheforegoingreasons,thedefendantspetitionforrehearingisGRANTED,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisREVERSED,andthecaseisREMANDEDwithinstructionstodismisstheComplaint.
25