Deanda v. Hicks
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133765, 2015 WL 5730345, 137 F. Supp. 3d 543 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer has at least arguable probable cause to arrest an individual for unlawful possession of a controlled substance when that individual is found with unlabeled prescription pills and admits to not having a prescription. An officer is not constitutionally required to investigate or credit the arrestee's self-serving, exculpatory claims of innocent possession before making an arrest.
Facts:
- On May 28, 2012, Officer Timothy Hicks initiated a traffic stop after observing Sherrie Deanda speeding on the Bronx River Parkway.
- While Deanda was searching her purse for her license, Hicks saw an unlabeled, transparent pill bottle containing blue pills.
- Deanda complied with Hicks's request to hand over the bottle, confirmed the pills were oxycodone, and stated she did not have a prescription for them.
- Deanda explained that her sister, Paula Fontanette, had a valid prescription, had left the pills at Deanda's home the previous night, and that Deanda was on her way to return them.
- Hicks arrested Deanda for criminal possession of a controlled substance.
- Hicks spoke with Fontanette on the phone, who allegedly confirmed Deanda's story, though Hicks claimed he did not recall this part of the conversation.
- An inventory search of Deanda's vehicle revealed additional oxycodone and Tramadol pills, as well as $1,266 in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherrie Deanda filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Timothy Hicks and other officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and other federal and state claims.
- Defendants filed an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.
- Plaintiff filed a Spoliation Motion requesting an adverse inference jury instruction against Defendants.
- Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of all claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer have at least arguable probable cause to arrest an individual for unlawful possession of a controlled substance when the individual is found with unlabeled oxycodone pills, admits she does not have a prescription, but claims the pills belong to her sister and she is in the process of returning them?
Opinions:
Majority - Karas, J.
Yes. An officer has at least arguable probable cause to arrest an individual under these circumstances. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. While an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there was 'arguable probable cause.' Arguable probable cause exists if it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe probable cause existed, or if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the matter. Here, Hicks knew Deanda knowingly possessed oxycodone pills in an unlabeled bottle and admitted she did not have a prescription, which constitutes a violation of New York law. This information was sufficient to establish probable cause. An officer is not required to investigate or credit an arrestee's self-serving, exculpatory claims before making an arrest. Even if Deanda's explanation constituted a valid legal defense, which the court found was far from clear, Hicks was not required to adjudicate that defense on the roadside. Therefore, his belief that probable cause existed was objectively reasonable, entitling him to qualified immunity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant protection that qualified immunity provides to law enforcement officers, particularly regarding on-the-spot probable cause determinations. It clarifies that an officer's duty does not extend to investigating or resolving plausible claims of innocence before making an arrest, so long as the objective facts establish a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been committed. The ruling makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on false arrest claims where the basic elements of a crime are present, even if exculpatory evidence is immediately offered. This precedent solidifies the principle that the roadside is not a forum for adjudicating defenses, thereby limiting the scope of an officer's constitutional obligations during an arrest.
