Summary
The Second Circuit held that police officers who detained Occupy Wall Street protesters for approximately two hours during a presidential fundraiser were entitled to qualified immunity, even though factual disputes precluded summary judgment on whether the detention was permissible under the Fourth Amendment's special needs exception. The court ruled that subjective intent is irrelevant to qualified immunity analysis, and that reasonable officers could have objectively believed the temporary detention was lawful to protect the President, given the absence of clearly established law prohibiting such conduct. Qualified immunity also barred the protesters' related First Amendment retaliation, failure to intervene, and Fourteenth Amendment selective enforcement claims. The district court's denial of qualified immunity was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the protesters' Fourth Amendment claim that the detention was an unreasonable seizure.
- Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment selective enforcement claim.
- Whether the district court erred in considering the officers' subjective intent in the qualified immunity analysis.
Holdings
- The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law prohibited the detention of the protesters in the circumstances presented.
- The district court erred in relying on the officers' subjective intent because qualified immunity is an objective inquiry.
- The officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim because they had an objectively reasonable belief that the special needs justified the detention. Under Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, we do not examine motive when the officer has qualified immunity.
- The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officers could believe that the protesters were not similarly situated to the general public, given the unique security concerns raised by the protest.
Key quotations
“it was not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment did not permit officers protecting the President of the United States to detain protesters as occurred in this case.” (at 4)
“the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officers could disagree as to whether the plaintiffs' status as protesters presented unique concerns that non-protesters on the scene did not.” (at 5)
“We thus decide that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the claims asserted against them. The decision of the district court denying the Officers qualified immunity is reversed. The case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.” (at 37)
Factual background
On November 30, 2011, Occupy Wall Street protesters gathered near the Sheraton Hotel in Manhattan where President Obama was attending a fundraiser. The protesters were detained in a press pen for approximately two hours. The police enclosed the pen on all sides with barricades and threatened arrest if protesters tried to leave. Non-protesters were allowed to leave. The protesters were released after the President departed.
Procedural history
The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that there was a dispute of material fact regarding the officers' subjective motivation. The officers appealed.
Remand instructions
dismiss the complaint with prejudice