Opinion ID: 783048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anthony's Claims Stemming from the Events at Wright's Home

Text: 18 Anthony raises a number of claims on appeal stemming from the conduct of the police officers who responded to the 911 call from Wright's apartment. She first alleges that the warrantless entry into Wright's apartment violated the Fourth Amendment, and that this constitutional violation supports a § 1983 claim for damages against Officers Collegio and Migliaro in their individual capacities. Anthony next alleges that the warrantless seizure for the purpose of involuntarily hospitalizing her also violated the Fourth Amendment, and that this constitutional violation supports a § 1983 claim for damages against Officers Collegio and Migliaro individually, the City of New York, and the named and unnamed police officers in their official capacities. Finally, Anthony claims that she is entitled to damages under Title II of the ADA, arguing that by seizing and involuntarily hospitalizing her, the City of New York intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. We address these arguments in turn. 19 A. The Warrantless Entry — Anthony's § 1983 Claim Against Officers Collegio and Migliaro Individually 20 Section 1983 exposes any person acting under color of law to liability for money damages if he or she subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Anthony raises a § 1983 claim against Officers Collegio and Migliaro in their individual capacities, based on the allegedly unconstitutional warrantless entry into Wright's apartment. 21 The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search of a home must either be conducted pursuant to a warrant or meet an exception to the warrant requirement. See Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001). Among the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is the presence of exigent circumstances: 22 The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment guarantees the fundamental right to be free from government intrusion into the privacy of one's home. It is well-settled, however, that the warrant requirement must yield in those situations where exigent circumstances demand that law enforcement agents act without delay.... 23 The essential question in determining whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry is whether law enforcement agents were confronted by an urgent need to render aid or take action. 24 United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766, 769 (2d Cir.1990) ( in banc ) (citations omitted) (quoting Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 391 (D.C.Cir.1970) ( in banc )). 25 In granting summary judgment for defendants on this claim, the district court found that no reasonable jury could conclude other than that exigent circumstances existed sufficient to justify the warrantless entry. Anthony, 2001 WL 741743, at  (The issue of whether exigent circumstances existed is quickly resolved. Because it was reasonable for the officers to believe that there was an armed man in Wright's apartment who was committing a violent crime against the caller, exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into Wright's apartment.). In its later ruling on plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion, the district court further explained that the substance of the [911] call — a plea for help from a terrified woman who claimed to be under attack — created exigent circumstances justifying, and indeed requiring, an immediate response. Anthony, 2002 WL 731719, at . The district court thus found that the substance of the 911 call provided the exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless entry as a matter of law. 26 On appeal, Anthony argues that the district court's conclusion contravenes our recent holding that the police may not rely solely on an anonymous and uncorroborated 911 call to justify a warrantless entry into a private dwelling. Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 238 (2d Cir.2001). The facts of the instant case are different from those of Kerman, however. The call in Kerman came from an anonymous caller who directed the police to a different location than that from which the call was placed, without verification or corroboration of the connection between the caller and the location to which the police responded. See id. at 235. In the instant case, the call came from the same location to which the police responded, and more importantly, the caller described an immediate and deadly threat of harm to which she herself was being exposed at that location. The concern we expressed in Kerman regarding the reliability of anonymous and uncorroborated calls — that is, calls reporting an emergency at a different location and involving someone other than the caller — is not implicated here, where the caller expressed an immediate risk of harm to herself, and where the address from which the call was placed was verified. 2 See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 276, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that instant caller identification can provide a check against unreliable anonymous calls). We hold that the substance of this 911 call thus created exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry, 3 and we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on the § 1983 claim based on the warrantless entry. 4 B. The Warrantless Seizure 27 It is undisputed that Anthony was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when she was handcuffed and taken to Kings County Hospital. See Appellees' Brief at 26. It is also undisputed that the officers did not have a warrant for her seizure. Anthony alleges that the seizure and subsequent hospitalization violated the Fourth Amendment, and that this constitutional violation supports her § 1983 claim for damages against Officers Collegio and Migliaro individually, the City of New York, and the named and unnamed police officers in their official capacities. 28
29 A warrantless seizure for the purpose of involuntary hospitalization may be made only upon probable cause, that is, only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seized is dangerous to herself or to others. Glass v. Mayas, 984 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting Villanova v. Abrams, 972 F.2d 792, 795 (7th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099, 1102 (6th Cir.1997) (The Fourth Amendment requires an official seizing and detaining a person for a psychiatric evaluation to have probable cause to believe that the person is dangerous to himself or others.). 30 Reading the facts in the light most favorable to Anthony, we credit that part of the officers' deposition testimony that described her as sitting calmly and quietly (although uncommunicatively) in Wright's apartment while the officers searched the apartment and attempted to contact Wright. [JA 189-94] We reiterate as well, however, that the facts also showed that Officers Collegio and Migliaro knew they were responding to a 911 call from a woman inside the apartment who claimed to be at risk of immediate physical injury, requested assistance, and was potentially emotionally disturbed. [JA 178, 356] 31 On this factual record, we decline to determine as a matter of law whether Officers Collegio and Migliaro had probable cause to seize Anthony and transport her to Kings County Hospital. We do not, however, disturb the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on this claim, because even if the seizure did violate Anthony's Fourth Amendment rights, Officers Collegio and Migliaro are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. 32 Police officers are immune from liability for money damages in suits brought against them in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). We have explained that [e]ven where the plaintiff's federal rights and the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was `objectively reasonable' for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the challenged act. Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 420 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)); see also Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) ([P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights.). A police officer's actions are objectively unreasonable, and therefore are not entitled to immunity, when no officer of reasonable competence could have made the same choice in similar circumstances. Lennon, 66 F.3d at 420-21 (citing Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)). 33 We hold that Officers Collegio and Migliaro are entitled to qualified immunity for their seizure of Anthony. In addition to the circumstances of which Officers Collegio and Migliaro were aware from their receipt of the 911 dispatch and their personal observations inside the apartment, it is undisputed that Officers Collegio and Migliaro were responding to the order of a superior officer, Sergeant Mendez, to seize Anthony and remove her to the hospital. Plausible instructions from a superior or fellow officer support qualified immunity where, viewed objectively in light of the surrounding circumstances, they could lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the necessary legal justification for his actions exists ( e.g. a warrant, probable cause, exigent circumstances). Bilida v. McCleod, 211 F.3d 166, 174-75 (1st Cir. 2000); cf. Varrone v. Bilotti, 123 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir.1997) (holding that subordinate officers who carried out the apparently valid order of a superior officer were entitled to hav[e] the same qualified immunity that the [superior officer] had); Diamondstone v. Macaluso, 148 F.3d 113, 126 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for his reliance on the advice of his superiors because that advice was not plausibly valid). Sergeant Mendez's order to seize Anthony was an apparently valid order in light of the substance of the 911 call and all of the surrounding circumstances known to Officers Collegio and Migliaro. Officers Collegio and Migliaro therefore reasonably could have concluded, given Sergeant Mendez's order, that probable cause existed to seize Anthony. They are thus entitled to qualified immunity from Anthony's § 1983 claim against them in their individual capacities based on the warrantless seizure. 5 34 2. Anthony's § 1983 Claim Against the City of New York and the Officers in their Official Capacities 35 Anthony next asserts § 1983 claims against the City of New York and the named and John Doe police officers in their official capacities based on the allegedly unconstitutional warrantless seizure. Assuming, arguendo, that the warrantless seizure and involuntary hospitalization did violate the Constitution, the City and the officers sued in their official capacities are liable under § 1983 only if the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers or is conducted pursuant to governmental `custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Anthony claims that there is a custom or policy of arresting and restraining disabled persons regardless of their need for assistance. Appellants' Brief at 33. The existence of an official policy of seizing and hospitalizing disabled persons, Anthony argues, is shown here in two ways: first, through the actions of Sergeant Mendez, as an individual with final decision-making authority; and second, through a City policy of inadequate training or supervision. 36 Actions by an individual with final decision-making authority in a municipality constitute official policy for purposes of a § 1983 claim. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). The individual must be responsible for establishing final government policy in order for municipal liability to attach. Id. at 483, 106 S.Ct. 1292. Anthony argues that Sergeant Mendez was such an individual, and that his order to Officers Collegio and Migliaro to seize and hospitalize her thereby constituted a municipal policy of arbitrarily committing non-violent disabled individuals. 37 In applying the Pembaur standard, we have explained that [w]here an official has final authority over significant matters involving the exercise of discretion, the choices he makes represent government policy. An official has final authority if his decisions, at the time they are made, for practical or legal reasons constitute the municipality's final decisions. Rookard v. Health & Hosps. Corp., 710 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1983) (footnote and internal citation omitted). Thus, in Rookard, we held that the Executive Director of Harlem Hospital and the Vice President for Corporate Affairs at HHC (which ran Harlem Hospital) were final decision-makers with respect to personnel decisions at the hospital, because their authority over personnel decisions was final. Id. Similarly, in Jeffes v. Barnes, 208 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.2000), we found, based on an analysis of a sheriff's authority under state law, that an elected sheriff in charge of the county jail had final authority over personnel decisions at the jail. Id. at 60-61. 38 Anthony likens Sergeant Mendez to the county sheriff in Jeffes, arguing that Sergeant Mendez had decision-making authority over the conduct of the officers at the scene. We think, however, that an elected county sheriff has significantly more responsibility in creating official policy than does a police sergeant in the NYPD. Anthony does not provide any analogue to the state-law authority that a county sheriff possesses, and instead argues only that Sergeant Mendez is a final decision-maker because he had discretion to determine how to handle the particular situation at Wright's apartment. But in Jeffes, we explicitly rejected the view that mere exercise of discretion was sufficient to establish municipal liability. See id. at 57 (It does not suffice for these purposes that the official has been granted discretion in the performance of his duties. (citing St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988))). We accordingly reject Anthony's argument that Sergeant Mendez's order constitutes an official municipal policy. 39 The existence of an official municipal policy or custom can also be demonstrated by establishing a deliberate government policy of failing to train or supervise its officers. See City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388-89, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Municipal liability attaches only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. Id. at 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197. 40 This standard is not met in the instant case because Anthony has not shown that there exists a deliberate City policy of failing to train its police officers in how to interact with non-violent disabled individuals. Anthony argues only that [i]t is apparent from the actions of the officers and the testimony of Migliaro that there was no special training in place regarding the treatment of non-violent disabled persons. Appellants' Brief at 34. To the contrary, when asked about his training, Officer Migliaro expressly stated that the NYPD did have a training policy in place to instruct officers in how to interact with what the NYPD terms emotionally disturbed persons (EDPs), and that the policy distinguished between EDP emergencies involving someone who was violent or dangerous and EDP emergencies involving someone who was not violent or dangerous. [JA 213-16] We thus reject Anthony's argument that an official policy can be established using a failure to train theory, because the evidence made available through discovery shows that the City did have training procedures in place to assist its officers in interacting with non-violent disabled individuals. 6 41 Because Anthony has not shown that there is an official policy or custom of arbitrarily seizing and hospitalizing disabled individuals, we reject her § 1983 claims for damages against the City and against the named and unnamed police officers in their official capacities. 42 C. Anthony's ADA Claim Against the City of New York 43 In addition to her § 1983 claims based on the warrantless entry and warrantless seizure, Anthony also claims that she is entitled to damages from the City of New York pursuant to Title II of the ADA. 7 Anthony argues that in seizing and involuntarily hospitalizing her, the City intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. 44 Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. If, as Anthony claims, the seizure and hospitalization were motivated by the officers' discrimination against individuals with disabilities, she would presumably have a claim that she was subjected to discrimination by a public entity in violation of Title II. 8 45 There is no evidence, however, that the seizure and hospitalization were motivated by discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Anthony has alleged no facts showing that Sergeant Mendez, who ordered Officers Collegio and Migliaro to seize Anthony, acted with discriminatory intent. Anthony notes only that [t]he officers admitted that they perceived [Anthony] as disabled, and that they arrested her simply because they thought there was something wrong with her. Appellants' Brief at 40. This is apparently a reference to Officer Migliaro's comment in his deposition testimony that Anthony seemed to be needing of assistance because she appeared to be slow. 9 [JA 191] However one might interpret Officer Migliaro's comment, it is not enough, standing alone, to establish sufficient facts to defeat summary judgment on the claim that discriminatory intent was a motivating factor in Sergeant Mendez's decision to order Officers Collegio and Migliaro to seize Anthony. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment against Anthony on her ADA claim against the City of New York. 10 46