The H onor abl e W i l l i am K
. Ses si ons I I I , C hi ef J udge of

t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i ct C our t f or t he D i st r i ct of * V e rm o n t, sittin g b y d e sig n a tion
. 06- 1272- cv G i l l es v. R epi cky
UNI TED S TATES COU RT OF APP EALS F O R T H E SE C O N D C IR C U IT

A ugust Ter m , 2006 (A rgu ed : M arc h 14 , 2 0 0 7 D ec i d ed : D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) D ocket N o. 06- 1272- cv

M A R I E G I LLES, Pl ai nt i f f

- Appel l ant ,

– v . – GUY. J
. RE P I CKY, D ef endant

- Appel l ee .

B e fo re : C A L A B R E S I a n d W E S L E Y , C irc u it J u d g e s, and S E S S IO N S , D i st ri ctJudge

. * A ppeal f r om t he Febr uar y 16, 2006 j udgm ent of t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i ct C our t f or t he Sout her n D i st r i ct of N e w Y o rk (B rie a n t, J. ) gr ant i ng m ot i on f or s um m ar y j udgm ent and di smi ss i ng cl ai m f or damages f

or vi ol at i on of appel l ant ’ s Four t h A m endm ent r i ght t o be f r ee f r om unr eas onabl e s ear ch a nd s ei zur e. T he j ud gm ent i s vacated, and t he ca se i s r em and ed for f urt her pr oce edings.

R U S S E L L A . S C H IN D L E R , K in g sto n , N e w Y o rk , f or Pl ai nt i f f

- Appel l ant . C H A R L E N E M . IN D E L IC A T O , W e stc h e ste r C o u n ty A ttorn e y , f

or S ta c e y D o lg in -K m e tz , C h ie f D e p u ty C o u n ty A ttorn e y (M a ry L y n n N ic o la s, of couns el ) , W hi t e Pl ai ns, N ew Y o rk , f or D ef endant

- Appel l ee.
W IL L IA M K . S E S S IO N S III, D i st ri ctJudge :Gi lle s d en ied that sh e w as t

rav eli ng at 6 5 m .p .h ., or t hat sh e ab rup tlych an ge d lane s, 1 but state d that she di d slow down in order for a poli ce vehicle to pass her. 2 Pl aintif f- ap pe llant M ari e J. Gi lle s b rou gh t su it und er 4 2 U .S .C . § 19 83 ag ain st d ef en dantap pe lle e GuyJ. Re pic kysee kin g d am ag es f or v iol ati on

of he r F ourthAm en dm ent ri gh t to be fr ee from unreasonable search and se izure. She appea ls from a February 16, 2006 judgment of the distri ct court ( Brieant, J. ) gr antin g R ep ick y’s m oti on

fo r summ ary

jud gm ent an d d ism iss inghe r claim. For the reasons s tated bel ow, we vacate the deci sion and remand to the dist rict cour t for further procee dings consist ent with thi s opinion. BACKGROUND On Au gu st 1 1, 20 04 at a

pp rox im ate ly 8 :30 a. m . M ari e G ill es, a f if ty- ye ar o ld Unit ed States ci tizen of Haitia n descent, was tr aveling sout hbound through Westchester County on t he Taconic State Parkway. She was driving a 1994 whit e Dodge cargo van, owned by her br other. She was transport ing approximately ten pa cked fifty-five gallon ca rdboard barr els to a shi pping fa cil ityin M ount V ern on , N ewYo rk. Gi lle s o wn ed the Ad on ai C om

m un itySt ore , a

gro cer y store, in Poughkee psie, New York. As part of her busine ss she provide d a shipping service for her customers to send suppl ies to re latives overseas. Gil les did not ha ve personal knowle dge of the content s of the barrel s, but had the shi pping invoices with her. Accordi ng to the invoi ces, the barrels contained food and clot hing to be shippe d to destina tions in Ja maica and Haiti. On his way to wo rk D ete cti ve Guy R ep ick y n oti ced Gi lle s’ v an , d

riv ing ap pro xim ate ly 65 m.p.h. and apparently heavily l aden. Repicky observe d some barrels, partl y covered by a blank et. He als o n oti ced

that th e v anslo we d and

m ov ed ab rup tlyint o th e ri gh t lane wh enpa sse d bya m ark ed

po lic e car. 1In August of 2003 Gilles had r eported to t he Town of Marlborough Police Depar tment 2 that one of the van’ s license plates had be en lost. A few weeks laterthe plate was found, and she inf orm ed the Mar lbo rou ghpo lic e. Th e Marlb oro Po lic e D ep artm ent, h ow ev er, ha d in co rre ctl y entered t he plate i nto the syst em as stolen, and failed to correct the error. 3 Re pic kyha s b een

em plo ye d w iththe W est ch est er C ounty De partm ent of

Pu bli c S af ety sin ce O cto be r 19 90 , and

ha s b een a d ete cti ve sin ce 1 99 7. In N ov em be r 20 03 he wa s as sig ne d to the depart ment’s Counter-Terror ism Unit. As part of his responsibi litie s he was advised by t he Ne w Y ork

St ate Po lic e Ups tat e N ewYo rk R eg ion al I nte lli ge nc e C enter of all ter ror ism ale rts
an d a cti vit ies rel ev ant to W est ch est er C ounty . In Au gu st 2 00 4, as a

res ult of the Re pu bli can National Conventi on which was scheduled t o start on August30, the Department had been put on alert for “ve hicle-bor ne improvised explosive de vices” (VBIEDs) which coul d possibly be used in the New York metropolitan a rea. Vans were spec ifically i ndicated as capable of carrying
su chde vic es. Re pic kywa s aw are of thi s al ert. Re pic kycal led

his dis patch er and

req ue ste d th at s he run

the van’s lic en se p lat e. Hi s dispatcherinformed him

that the pl ate had been r eported as s tolen. 2 Re pic kyreq

ue ste d s tat e p oli ce a ssi stanc e to sto p th e v an , and wa s p res ent whe n s ev era l New York State Police marked patrol cars stoppe d the van at appr oximately 8:45 a.m. Repicky approached the passenger si de of the van, and a stat e trooper approached the dr iver’s s ide of the van. Both officers approached t he van with thei r guns drawn. Gille s testi fied that Repicky
scr eam ed at h er, po int ed

his gun at he r an d threaten ed to s ho ot h er i f s he m ov ed . T he state trooper or dered Gille s out of the van, and plac ed her in handcuffs. She was placed i n the rearof the marked police car , with her hands cuffed behind herback. Gi lle s an d R ep ick

y d isa gre e ab out what ha

pp en ed ne xt. Gi lle s as ser

ts t hat sh e w as a sk ed4

for her driver ’s lice nse and she res ponded that itwas in her car . She kept asking “whatdid I do?” She t old Repicky thatthe barre ls contai ned food, clothing and school supplies. Repic ky asserts that Gill es initi ally didn’ t answer his que stions and t hat she was very ups et and cryi ng, that af ter ab out f ive to t enm inutes sh e b ecam e “r esp on siv e, ” b ut r ep eat ed ly t old Re pic kythat she did not know what was in t he barrel s. After the van was pulle d over, a bomb-sniffing dog was brought to the sce ne, but did not ale rt. Re pic kythe n re qu est ed a n arc oti cs d og . Whil e th e n arc oti cs d og wa s at the sce ne , Re pic kywa s in fo rm ed

that th e re po rte d s tol enlic en se p lat e w as an e rro r. T he narco tic s d og als o did no t al ert . Gi lle s an d R ep ick

y a ga in d isa gre e ab out what ha pp en ed ne xt. Re pic kyco nte nd s th at af ter he learne d a

bo ut t he sto len lic en se p lat e er

ror , h e as ke d ano the r of

fi cer on the sce ne to
rem ov e G ill es’ hand cu ff

s, ap pro xim ate ly f

if tee n to tw enty m inutes af ter the ini tia l st op . G ill es contends thatshe was held in handc uffs for m ore than one hour
. The officers searched t he van and recover ed Gilles’ driver’ s license and the shippi ng inv oic es. Th eydid

no t di sco ve r any e xp los ive de vic es o r m ate ria ls t hat co uld be us ed to c reate such a device. Gil les maintains thatshe explaine d that her c ustomers bought quantiti es of food and clothing i tems on sale in this c ountry to send t o their r elative s in Jamaica and Haiti. Repi cky claims that Gille s continued t o disavow knowledge of the content s of the container s. According to Repicky, a t approximately 10:00 a.m. he requeste d that Gill es accompany him to headquarters, buttold her “I can’t jus t let you go.” Repi cky testi fied that his motive for ask ing he r to “co m e v olu ntaril y” to h ead qu art ers wa s to en ab le h er t o u se t he bathr oo m

to c lean up be cau se i t w as e vid ent th at s he ha d b eg un to m en str

uate h eav ily . A cco rdi ng to G ill es,5

Re pic kyord ere d h er t o f

oll owthe m

ba ck to h ead qu art ers . G ill es a ck no wl ed ge d th at s he ha d be gun to ble ed , b ut t est if

ied that R ep ick

y n ev er a sk ed

he r to co m e to he ad qu art ers or g av e h er
any re aso n o the r th anthat he ha d to co m ple te h is i nv est igatio n. Gi lle s w as p erm itt ed to d riv e h er
van, wi th a

po lic e v eh icl e in

fr ont of he r an d a po lic e v eh icl e b eh ind

he r. S he did

no t f eel fr ee t o leave, and Repicky t estified tha t she was detai ned at thatpoint, alt hough not under arr est. At police headqua rters, Repi cky eventuall y spoke to someone at the shippi ng company, wh o c on fi rm ed

that G ill es h ad

anon go ingbu sin ess rel ati on sh ip w iththe m . R ep ick y s po ke wi th his supervi sors and then i nform ed Gilles t hat she was free to l eave, at 11:30 a .m. Gilles filed a civil r ights act ion againstRepicky, assert ing that hercontinued det ention vio lat ed he r F ourthAm en dm ent ri gh t to be fr ee o f u nre aso na ble search

an d s eiz ure . In

an
un pu bli sh ed de cis ion , th e d istric t co urt grante d s um

m ary jud gm ent to Re pic ky , f

ind ingthat Repicky was entit led to quali fied imm unity for his act ions. Gi lles v. Re pic ky , No. 05 Civ. 374 (C LB ), 2 00 6 W L 3 60 17 1, at * 4 (S .D .N .Y . F eb . 1 5, 20 06 ). S pe cif ica lly , th e d ist

ric t co urt
co nc lud ed

“th at i t w as o bje cti ve ly r eas on ab le f or D ete cti ve Re pic kyto h av e b eli ev ed that hi s act ion s w ere law fu l at

the tim e o f t

he sto p and

de tentio n o f P lai nti ff

.” Id. Th e d ist

ric t co urt dis m iss ed Gi lle s’ c ontentio n th at h er c ontin ue d d ete nti on

wa s unre aso na

ble : “the fa ct that m ore tim e w as t ak enthan n ece ssary i n c onne cti on wi th o the rw ise rea so na

ble po lic e co nd

uc t is no t in its elf a b asi s f or a civ il r ights v iol ati on .” Id.

DI SC US SI ON I. Sta nd ar d o f R evi ew “‘W e re vie w a

grant o f s um

m ary jud gm ent deno vo , construing t he record i n the light
m os t f av ora ble to t he no n-m ov ingparty .’” Ru sso v. Ci ty o f B rid ge po rt , 479 F.3d 196, 203 (2d6

Cir.) (quoti ng Ho

yt v . A nd reu cci , 433 F.3d 320, 327 (2d Cir. 2006)), cer t. d en ied, 128 S. Ct. 109 (2007). We accept Gilles’ evidence as t rue and draw all reasonable inferences in he r favor. Id. ;
seeals o S co tt v . H arris , 1 27 S. Ct . 1 76 9, 17 74 (20 07 ). W e w ill af fi rm a g rant of

summ ary jud gm en t w he re the re i s n o g enuin e is su e as to anym ate ria l f act , and wh ere the m ov ingpartyis
en tit led to a jud gm ent as a m att er o f l aw . F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c) . T hu s, we wi ll a ff irm the dis tri ct court only i f no rational t rier of fact could c onclude thatthe facts est ablished t hat Repicky violated Gil les’ const itutiona l rights and was unprotect ed by qualified immunity. Se e R us so , 479 F.3d at 203. II. Qu ali fie d Im mu nit

y Qu ali fi ed imm un itypro tec ts o ff

ici als fr om

lia bil ityfo r ci vil dam ag es a s lo ng as “ the ir conduct does not vi olate cl early est ablished st atutory orconstitut ional ri ghts of which a
rea so na ble pe rso n w ou ld h av e k

no wn .” Ha rlo w v . F

itz ge ra ld , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). A right is “ cle arl y e sta

bli sh ed ” if

“[ t] he co nto urs of

the rig ht .
. . [are] su ff

ici entlycle ar that a r eas on ab le of fi cia l w ou ld u

nd ers tan d th at what he is d oin g v iol ate s th at r ight.” Anderson v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). Whe n a de fe nd ant of

fi cer ch arg ed wi th v iol ati on s o f f

ed era l co ns tit

uti on al r ights inv ok es q ua lif ied imm un ityto s up po rt a

m oti on fo r summ ary

jud gm ent, a

co urt m us t f irs t co ns ide r a thre sh old

qu est ion : D o th e f

act s, vie we d in

the lig ht m os t favo rab le t o th e p lai nti ff

, s ho w that th e o ff

ice r’s co nd

uc t vi olated

a co ns tit uti on al ri g h t? Walczyk v. Ri o , 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir. 2007). If the facts , viewed in thatlight, do not est ab lis h a

vio lat ion of a co ns tit uti on al r ight, “ ‘th ere is n o n ece ssi ty f or f urt he r in qu iri es concerning qual ified imm unity,’” and t he officer is enti tled to summary judgm ent. Id. (quoting Sa uc ier v. Ka tz , 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)).Gi lle s p rop erl y h as n ot c ontes ted the leg ali ty o f t

he sto p o f h er v eh icl e. A b rie f 3 inv est igator

y s top of a v eh icl e b ase d o n p rob ab le c au se o r re aso na ble su sp ici on

“th at c rim ina l activit y ‘may be afoot’” does not contra vene the Fourth Amendm ent. Un ite d S tates v . A rvi

zu , 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting United States v. Sokolow , 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). For approximately thir ty minutes, during which Repicky ver ified that Gil les’ li cense plat e had not be ensto len , s ear ch ed

he r van and

rec ov ere d h er v ali d d

riv inglic en se and

the sh ipp inginv oic es, an d s ub jec ted the van to can ine search es f or b om bs an d d rug s w ith out re su lt, Gi lle s co nc ed es that the s top was supported by r easonable sus picion, if not probable cause. Se e Wh ren v. Un ite d Sta tes , 517 U.S. 806, 819 (1996) (probable cause to bel ieve drive r comm itted t raffic violati on ren de red autom ob ile sto p re aso na

ble un de r th e F ourthAm en dm ent); seeals o U nited Sta tes v. Jenkins , 452 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir. 2006) (r easonable butmistaken belief as to facts e stablis hing 7 If, however, the facts coul d establi sh a violat ion of a constitut ional ri ght, then “the next . .
. s tep is t o a sk

wh eth er the rig ht w as c learlyest ab lis he d. ” Sa uc ier , 5 33 U. S. at 2 01 . In determining whether a r ight was clea rly established, a cour t asks “‘whet her it would be c lear to a
rea so na ble of fi cer that hi s co nd

uc t w as u nlawf ul i n th e si tuatio n h e co nf ronted .’” Walczyk , 496 F.3d at 154 (quoting Sa uc ier , 5 33 U. S. at 2 02 ) (e m ph asi s o m itt ed ). T he inq

uir y into whe the r a right atissue was cle arly est ablished i s tied to t he specific facts a nd context of the cas e. Id. ; Sa uc ier , 5 33 U. S. at 2 02 . If the co nd uc t di d n ot v iol ate a cl ear ly e sta bli sh ed co ns tit uti on al r ight, or if it was objec tively r easonable for the officer to believe that his c onduct did not vi olate such a right, the n the officer is prot ected by quali fied imm unity. Se e R us so , 479 F.3d at 211 (quoting Po e v. Le on ar

d , 2 82 F. 3d

12 3, 13 3 (2 d C ir. 20 02 )); Jen kin s v. Ci ty o f N ew Yo rk, 478 F.3d 76, 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (quot ing Cerrone v. Brown , 246 F.3d 194, 199 (2d Cir. 2001)). III. Fourth Amendment Violation Gi lle s ar gu es t

hat th e in iti al s eiz ure of

he r ve hic le and

pe rso n w as u

nc on sti tut ion all y pro lon ge d f

or m ore than tw o h ours a ft er anyrea so na ble su sp ici on

of cri m ina l ac tiv ityha d dis sip ate d, durin g whic h s he rem ain ed co nf ine d in hand cu ff s at the sce ne an d th enwa s d ire cte d to a cco m panythe of

fi cer s to po lic e h ead qu art ers . 3probable caus e will not under mine constitutional validity of a stop). 8 Th e d istric t co urt

did no t un de rtake the fi rst

ste p o f a Sa uc ier

v. Ka tz an aly sis , n am ely whether the facts showed a violati on of Gilles’ Fourth Amendm ent right s. Because it would be unnecessary t o undertake t he second step of the a nalysis were no Fourth Amendm ent violat ion fo un d, we pro cee d to de ter m ine wh eth er the fa cts , if pro ve n, wo uld

de m on str ate a F ourth Am endment violation. Th e F ourthAm en dm ent pr oh ibi ts “ unrea so na ble search es and

sei zures .” U. S. Co ns t.
am en d. IV . T he tem

po rar y d ete nti on

of a p ers on wh enthe po lic e h av e st op pe d h er v eh icl e, regardle ss of its brevi ty or limited int rusiveness , constitut es a seizur e for Fourth Amendm ent purposes, and thus must not be unreasonable. Whren v. Un ite d S tates , 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996). Contrary to t he distri ct court’ s view, it has l ong been the law tha t “an invest igative detention must be temporary and las t no longer t han is necess ary to effectuate t he purpose of the stop. Similarly, the i nvestigat ive methods employed should be the leastintrusi ve means
rea so na bly av ail ab le t o v eri fy

or d isp el the of

fi cer ’s s us pic ion

in a sh ort pe rio d o f t im e. ” Florida
v. Ro yer , 4 60 U. S. 49 1, 50 0 (1 98 3) ( plu ral ityop ini on ); see also Unite d States v. Tehrani , 49 F.3d 54 , 5 8, 61 (2d

Ci r. 1 99 5) ( sco pe an d d

uratio n o f i nv est igativ e d ete nti on m us t be rea so na

ble , b oth as to stop and t o inquiry). Th e ri gh t to be fr ee f

rom arr est wi tho ut p rob ab le c au se h as l ike wi se l on g b een establi shed. Mar tin ez v . S im on ett i , 202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Without a doubt, t he right
no t to be arr est ed

wi tho ut p rob ab le c au se i s cl ear ly e sta bli sh ed .” ). I f p oli ce o ff

ice rs “ res tra in an individual in a manner that, though not t echnicall y an arrest , is nonethel ess so intrusive as to be9

‘tantamount’ to an ar rest,” pr obable cause i s also requi red. Un ite d S tates v . Ma rin , 669 F.2d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 1982). “[P]robable caus e to arre st exist s when police officers have ‘knowledge or
rea so na bly tru stw ort hyinf orm ati on of fa cts an d c irc um stanc es t hat ar e su ff

ici ent to warrant a pe rso n o f r eas on ab le c autio n in the be lie f t

hat th e p ers on

to b e ar res ted ha s co mm itt ed

or i s
co mm itt ing a cr im e. ’” Walczyk , 496 F.3d at 156 (quoting Wey an t v. Ok st , 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Ci r. 19 96 )) . P ol ic e o ffi ce rs may n otse ekto ve ri fy o r d is pe l t he irre as on ab le su sp ic io ns of c ri me “b y m ean s th at a

pp roa chthe co nd iti on s o f arre st. ” Ro yer , 460 U.S. at 499 (citi ng Du na wa y v. Ne w Y or k , 442 U.S. 200, 211-12 (1979)). To be sure, not every police encount er, even one tha t occurs ata police st ation, constitut es an arre st. See, e.g. , Oregon v. Mathiason , 4 29 U.S . 4 92 , 4 95 (1 97 7) (p ercu ri am) (voluntary appearance a t police s tation does not amount to custody). “[C]ustody must be de ter m ine d b ase d o n h owa re aso na ble pe rso n in

the su sp ect ’s s itu ati on

wo uld pe rce ive [h er] cir cum stanc es. ” Yarborough v. Alvarado , 5 41 U. S. 65 2, 66 2 (2 00 4). Whe the r G ill es r eas on ab ly be lie ve d th at s he wa s n ot f ree to l eav e th e sc en e o nc e h er h an dc uf fs we re r em ov ed , o r to ref us e Repicky’s reque st that s he accompany the officers to police headquarter s, is normally a questi on of law, to be determined from the circumstances as they devel oped. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Ceballos , 8 12 F. 2d

42 , 4 6-4 7 (2 d C ir. 19 87 ). T his is “ anob jec tiv e in qu iry[t

hat] po int ed ly eschews consider ation of intentand involves an e ssential ly legal a ssessment of whether the parti cu lar cir cum stanc es w ou ld w arr ant th e b eli ef that a p ers on

ha s b een de tai ne d. ” Un ite d Sta tes v. Mon til la , 9 28 F. 2d 58 3, 58 8 (2 d C ir. 19 91 ). “ Pe rti ne nt f act ors ide nti fy inga p oli ce seizure c an include the thr eat en ingpre sen ce o f s ev era l of fi cer s; t he dis play o f a

we ap on ; phys ica l tou ch ingof

the pe rso n b y th e o ff

ice r; l an gu ag e o r to ne ind icatin g th at c om pli an ce10

wi th t he of fi cer wa s co m pu lso ry; pro lon ge d re tentio n o f a pe rso n’s pe rso na l ef fe cts , s uc h a s ai rpl an e ti ck ets or i de nti fi cat ion ; an d a req ue st b y th e o ff

ice r to ac co mpan y h im t o t he po li ce st at io n o r apo li ce ro om. Brow n v . C

ityof O ne on ta , 221 F.3d 329, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (quot ing Un ite d S tates v . H oo pe r , 935 F.2d 484, 491 (2d Cir. 1991)). At the time police officers st opped Gilles’ van, Repicky suspect ed that the driver of the
van h ad co mm itt ed

a sp eed ingvio lat ion , th at the van c ou ld h av e co nta ine d e xp los ive de vic es,
an d th at t he lic en se p lat e o n th e v anha d b een sto len . T he de cis ion

to s top the ve hic le w as b ase d upon probable caus e. Se e Wh ren , 5 17 U. S. at 8 10 . A t is su e is wh eth er this ini tia l pr ob ab le c au se jus tif ied Gi lle s’ c ontin

ue d d ete nti on

on ce R ep ick

y’s inv est igatio n f

ail ed to u nc ov er anyill eg al activit y or any reasonable suspici on of illegal ac tivity. So m e tw enty t o th irty m inutes af ter the sto p, Re pic kywa s in fo rm ed that th e st ole n license pl ate repor t was an error . He had inspected t he cardboard ba rrels a nd detected not hing suspicious. A bomb-sniffing dog had checked out the van. A narcotics dog had sniffed the van. Neither dog had al erted. Gill es’ wallethad been retr ieved from the van, and she produced a valid dri ver’s li cense and regi strati on. Repicky had recover ed the shippi ng invoices from the
van and Gi lle s h ad

tol d h im that sh e h ad

a b us ine ss t

ran sp ort ingsh ipp ingco nta ine rs f or h er customers in Poughkeepsie. Repic ky’s suspici on that Gill es was transpor ting VBIEDs, if not completely allayed, ha d been consider ably dissi pated. After all thi s had occurre d, Gilles was hel d at the roa dside for approximately an hourand then direc ted to accompany the officers to pol ice headquar ters, where s he was detained for
an oth er h our an d a

ha lf . O n th is r eco rd, tak ingthe ev ide nc e in the lig ht m os t f

av ora ble to G ill es, sh e co uld no t re aso na

bly have fe lt f

ree to d ep art

fr om po lic e p res en ce o nc e h er h an dc uf fs we re11

rem ov ed . S ev era l po lic e o ff ice rs h ad ef fe cte d th e st op of

he r van, an d tw o h ad

ap pro ach ed

he r with drawn weapons. She had been handc uffed and placed in the re ar seat of a poli ce cruise r. After her handcuffs were removed Repicky requested t hat she accompany the officers to t he police st ation, but t old her thathe couldn’t j ust let he r go. Although Gille s drove herse lf to the station, s he was escorte d by police cruisers i n front of and behind her. The ini tial st op and investiga tive dete ntion had evolve d into a situation indi stinguishable from an arrest, as the distri ct court c oncluded. Se e G illes , 2 00 6 W L 3 60 17 1 at *3 ; see also Unite d States v. Sharpe , 47 0 U .S . 6 75 , 6 85 -86 (19 85 ) (i nv est igativ e st op that ex cee ds tim e re qu ire d to co nf irm or d isp el
su sp ici on wi th r eas on ab le d ili ge nc e b eco m es defac to arrest ). Ac co rdi ng ly, we co nc lud e G ill es h as d em on str ate d f act s f rom wh ich a re aso na ble factfinder could concl ude that hercontinued det ention withoutprobable caus e violate d the Fo urt h A m en dm ent. IV. Re pic ky’ s E nti tle me nt to Q ua lif

ied Im mu nit y Ne ve rth ele ss, Re pic kyis e nti tle d to qu ali fi ed imm un ityif his co nd uc t di d n ot v iol ate a cle arl y e sta

bli sh ed co ns tit uti on al r ight, o r if

it w as o bje cti ve ly r eas on ab le f or h im to b eli ev e th at his conduct di d not violat e such a right
. Se e R us so , 4 79 F. 3d at 2 11 . T he dis tri ct c ourt
co nc lud ed

on thi s se co nd

ste p o f t he Sa uc ier

v. Ka tz an aly sis that R ep ick

y w as e nti tle d to qualified imm

unity: “He had ar guable probabl e cause becaus e it was objec tively r easonable for him to b eli ev e th at p rob ab le c au se e xis ted , and at the ve ry l eas t of

fi cer s o f r eas on ab le
co m pe ten ce c ou ld d isa gre e o n whe the r pr ob ab le c au se e xis ted .” Gi lles , 2006 W L 360171 at *4 (citi ng Escalera v. Lunn , 3 61 F. 3d 73 7, 74 3 (2 d C ir. 20 04 ) (“ Ar gu ab le p rob ab le c au se e xis ts ‘ if either ( a) it was obj ectivel y reasonable for the officer to beli eve that pr obable cause e xisted, or12

(b) of fi cer s o f r eas on ab le c om

pe ten ce c ou ld d isa gre e o n whe the r th e p rob ab le c au se t est wa s
m et. ’”)
. “‘Argu ab le’ pro ba

ble cau se s ho uld

no t be m isund ers too d to m ean ‘al m os t’ p rob ab le
cau se. ” Jen kin s v. Ci ty o

f N ew Yo rk, 478 F.3d at 87. If on the undisput ed facts Repicky unreasonably c oncluded he had probable caus e, or if disputed materia l issues of fact pre cluded a determination of probable c ause, then summ ary judgment was inappropri ate. See id. at 88. The distri ct court found “ar guable probabl e cause” base d on “the awarenes s of a high level of terror ism alert, and the r eport thatthe lice nse plate was s tolen, toget her with his obs ervation of fi ft y-f ive ga llo n d

rum s co ve red

wi th a blank et i n an o ve rw eig ht v eh icl e h ead ed tow ard s N ew Yo rk C ity .” Gi lles , 2 00 6 W L 3 60 17 1 at *4 . T he dis tri ct c ourt n ote d a dd iti on all y th e f act that Gilles sl owed down to the posted spee d limit when a marked patrol car appr oached. Id. Th e p rob lem

wi th t he dis tri ct c ourt’ s an aly sis is t hat th ese fa cto rs s up po rte d th e in iti al sto p and a b rie f i nv est igativ e d ete nti on . R ep ick y h im sel f d id n ot b eli ev e th at h e h ad pro ba ble
cau se b ase d o n th e f

act s k no wn to h im at the po int

Gi lle s w as r ele ase d f

rom hand cu ff s an d th en asked or tol d to go to the pol ice stat ion. Se e Z ell ne r v. Su mm erl in , 4 94 F. 3d 34 4, 36 9 (2 d C ir. 2007) (“‘Whether probabl e cause exis ts depends upon the reasonable conclusion t o be drawn from the facts known to the a rresti ng officer at the ti me of the arre st.’”) ( quoting De ven pe ck v

. Al for d , 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004)). Once the factor s giving ri se to the st op were investi gated, and produced no rea son to conclude t hat Gilles had comm itted a c rime (other than spe eding), the
m os t R ep ick

y re tai ne d w ere su sp ici on s. No rea so na ble of fi cer co uld co nc lud e th at h e h ad probable caus e to arre st Gilles at that poi nt, and accordi ngly Repicky is notimm une from suit on this basi s.13

Be cau se t he dis tri ct c ourt i nc orr ect ly c on clu de d th at R ep ick y h ad “ar gu ab le p rob ab le
cau se” to arre st G ill es t

hro ug ho ut t

he ir e nc ounte r, and

fa ile d to co ns ide r whe the r G ill es’ detention was unc onstitut ionally pr olonged, its c onclusion tha t Repicky was prote cted by qu ali fi ed imm un ityat s um

m ary jud gm ent m

us t be rev ers ed . Und er the cir cum stanc es G ill es
rem ain ed in p oli ce c us tod

y throu gh out he r en co unter wi th R ep ick

y and the Ne w Y ork

state police. As the l aw was clearly e stablis hed that Gill es had a consti tutional right to be free from
arr est wi tho ut p rob ab le c au se, as w ell as a co ns tit uti on al r ight to be fr ee f

rom unrea so na

bly pro lon ge d o r intru siv e inve sti gativ e d ete nti on , and Re pic kyha s n ot d em on str ate d th at i t w as objective ly reasonabl e for him to believe that hi s conduct did notviolate t hese right s, he is not entitl ed to the prot ection of qualified i mm unity at summary judgm ent. CO NC LU SI ON Th e d istric t co urt ’s F eb ruary 1 6, 20 06 jud gm ent di sm iss ing Gi lle s’ § 19 83 act ion is vacated, and t he case is r emanded for f urther pr oceedings consi stent with t his opinion.