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