Townes v. City of New York
176 F.3d 138, 1999 WL 279798 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a § 1983 action, damages for conviction and incarceration are not proximately caused by an unconstitutional search and seizure. The chain of causation is broken by the trial court's independent, albeit erroneous, decision not to suppress the evidence, and such damages are not the type of injury the Fourth Amendment is designed to prevent.
Facts:
- In November 1984, Victor Townes was a passenger in a livery taxicab with two companions.
- While the taxicab was temporarily stopped, Townes noticed plainclothes police officers observing him from an unmarked car.
- In response, Townes removed two loaded handguns from his person and hid them inside the passenger compartment of the taxicab.
- After Townes's companions returned and the taxi resumed its trip, the police officers stopped the vehicle without probable cause or any traffic violation.
- The officers ordered Townes and the other passengers out of the cab at gunpoint and frisked them, finding nothing on their persons.
- A subsequent search of the taxicab revealed the two handguns that Townes had hidden.
- Townes was taken into custody, and a further search at the police station revealed that he was in possession of cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor Townes was charged in New York state court with criminal possession of a weapon and a controlled substance.
- His motion to suppress the handguns and cocaine was denied by the state trial court.
- Townes subsequently entered a guilty plea and was incarcerated.
- The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the conviction, ruling that the police lacked probable cause to stop and search the taxicab.
- After further proceedings, the indictment against Townes was dismissed.
- Townes then filed a § 1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the police officers and the City of New York.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity.
- The District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a § 1983 action, does a plaintiff have a valid claim for damages for his conviction and incarceration when that conviction was based on evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs
No, a plaintiff cannot recover damages under § 1983 for conviction and incarceration that result from an unconstitutional search because traditional tort principles of causation and the purpose of the Fourth Amendment preclude such a claim. The court reasoned that the evidentiary 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, which applies in criminal procedure, is inapplicable in civil § 1983 actions, which are governed by common law tort principles. Under those principles, the state trial court's independent decision to admit the illegally seized evidence, though erroneous, acted as a superseding cause that broke the chain of proximate causation between the officers' unconstitutional search and Townes's subsequent conviction and incarceration. Furthermore, the court held that § 1983 damages must be appropriate for the constitutional right violated; the Fourth Amendment protects privacy interests, not an interest in being free from prosecution for a crime one actually committed. Therefore, recoverable damages are limited to those directly related to the invasion of privacy, not the consequential damages of imprisonment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of damages available to plaintiffs in § 1983 lawsuits alleging Fourth Amendment violations. By establishing that the trial court's decision-making process serves as a superseding cause, the ruling insulates police officers from liability for the most substantial harm a plaintiff suffers: incarceration. The case solidifies the application of traditional tort law concepts like proximate and superseding cause to constitutional torts. It creates a clear distinction between damages for the direct privacy invasion (which are recoverable) and damages for the consequences of a conviction (which are not, absent a claim like malicious prosecution), thereby preventing § 1983 from becoming a vehicle for compensating individuals for being convicted of crimes they factually committed.
