Genovese v. Town of Southampton
2013 WL 420105, 921 F.Supp.2d 8 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer has probable cause to detain an individual who is photographing a vital military installation in violation of federal law, and an officer may use minimal force and seize a weapon in plain view from the individual's vehicle to ensure officer safety during that lawful detention.
Facts:
- On July 30, 2009, Nancy Genovese stopped her car on a public road to photograph a helicopter outside Gabreski Airport, part of which is a United States Air Force Base.
- Genovese had a semiautomatic assault rifle in a gun case, labeled "Bushmaster," on the floor of the passenger side of her convertible, which had its top down.
- Robert Iberger, an off-duty Southampton Town Police Lieutenant, observed Genovese repeatedly stopping and taking photographs of the airport's fence line and security features.
- Iberger approached Genovese, identified himself as a police officer, and questioned her about the photographs.
- During their interaction, a guard pointed out the gun case in Genovese's car, which was visible from outside the vehicle.
- Genovese confirmed to Iberger that the case contained a gun.
- When Iberger announced he was securing the weapon for officer safety and reached into the car, Genovese physically tried to stop him from removing the gun case.
- As Iberger retrieved the case, his elbow and shoulder came into contact with Genovese's body, causing her to lose balance but not fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Genovese filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Town of Southampton and Lieutenant Robert Iberger, among others.
- The Southampton defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
- Following discovery, the Southampton defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all claims against them.
- The parties submitted briefs and the court held oral argument on the motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a police officer's actions, including detaining an individual for photographing a military base, using minimal physical contact to secure a rifle, and seizing that rifle from a car after seeing it in plain view, violate the individual's Fourth Amendment rights against false arrest, excessive force, and unreasonable seizure?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph F. Bianco
No. The officer's actions did not violate the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights because the detention was supported by probable cause, the force used was not excessive, and the seizure of the rifle was lawful. For the false arrest claim, Iberger had probable cause to believe Genovese was violating 18 U.S.C. § 795, which prohibits photographing vital military installations. The existence of probable cause for any offense is a complete defense to a false arrest claim, regardless of the ultimate charge. Regarding the excessive force claim, the minimal physical contact—an elbow and shoulder brush—was objectively reasonable because it occurred while Genovese was actively resisting Iberger's attempt to secure a firearm for officer safety. Finally, the seizure of the rifle was lawful under the plain view doctrine, as the gun case was visible from outside the car during a lawful stop, and its character as a container for a weapon was immediately apparent. It also fell under the automobile exception, as the presence of the weapon provided probable cause to believe the car contained contraband or evidence of a crime.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the probable cause defense for law enforcement in § 1983 civil rights lawsuits. It affirms that probable cause for any crime, even a federal offense a local officer does not ultimately charge, is sufficient to defeat a false arrest claim. The case also illustrates the high threshold for excessive force claims, categorizing minimal, incidental physical contact during an attempt to secure a weapon as objectively reasonable. This ruling solidifies the broad application of the plain view and automobile exceptions, particularly for firearms, which are considered inherently dangerous and can justify a seizure for officer safety.
