Summary
In this unpublished Second Circuit summary order, the court affirmed summary judgment for police officers on § 1983 false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims, holding that officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for obstructing governmental administration when they refused to allow entry pursuant to a Family Court order. The court ruled that a Family Court order is equivalent to a search warrant for Fourth Amendment purposes, and that refusing to open the door to officers executing such an order constitutes physical interference, not pure speech, under N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05. The court also affirmed the jury verdict on related claims from a separate incident, rejecting challenges to the facial validity of the Family Court orders.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims arising from the June 29-30 incident based on arguable probable cause for obstructing governmental administration.
- Whether the district court erred in entering judgment for defendants on the false arrest and false imprisonment claims arising from the June 6 incident, including the jury instructions and denial of motion for new trial.
Holdings
- The district court correctly granted summary judgment because the officers had at least arguable probable cause to believe that plaintiffs had obstructed governmental administration.
- The district court did not err; the Family Court orders authorized entry and the plaintiffs' arguments provide no basis for reversal.
Key quotations
“A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act . . . .” (at 4)
“In child-abuse investigations, a Family Court order is equivalent to a search warrant for Fourth Amendment purposes.” (at 4)
“purely verbal interference may not satisfy the 'physical' component under Penal Law § 195.05.” (at 5)
“it is no crime to refuse to open a door to police officers.” (at 5)
“When she refused to leave the car, it was reasonable for [the officers] to construe her actions as 'interference.'” (at 6)
Factual background
The Shaheeds brought §1983 claims arising from two incidents where police officers entered their apartment. The first incident occurred on June 6, 2012, and the second on June 29-30, 2012. The officers had Family Court orders authorizing entry. The Shaheeds refused to open the door, leading to their arrest for obstructing governmental administration. The district court granted summary judgment on some claims and the jury rejected the remaining claims.
Procedural history
The district court whittled down these claims at the motion to dismiss, summary judgment, and trial stages. The Shaheeds’ remaining claims were rejected by the jury, and the district court then denied the Shaheeds’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.