Police Officer’s Immunity Does Not Extend to New York County Employer: U.S. Court

A municipality in New York may be held liable for wrongful action by an employee even though the employee was granted individual immunity.

A police detective found liable by a jury for a false arrest was entitled to qualified immunity but the officer’s employer, Nassau County in New York, was not entitled to immunity and can still be held liable for damages stemming from the officer’s wrongful action, a federal appeals court ruled this week, partially overruling a lower court.

After a jury concluded that the defendant Nassau County detective had committed a wrongful arrest, the lower district court vacated the claims against both the individual detective and the county based on qualified immunity, leaving the plaintiff empty-handed.

However, the plaintiff, Daniel Triolo, appealed and on Jan. 21 (Triolo v Nassau County), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with him in part. It upheld the qualified immunity for the detective but found the lower court erred in extending this immunity to the detective’s employer. The county was held liable for the $185,000 in damages sought by Triolo.

What Happened

In 2015, the Nassau County detective arrested Triolo without a warrant based on a domestic incident report signed by Triolo’s brother and mother. Triolo spent time in a precinct holding cell where he was handcuffed to a wall. He was then transported to a hospital to receive treatment for a shoulder injury he sustained during an altercation with a family member. After being held in a different location until the next morning, he was transported to criminal court and eventually released on bail. The criminal charges against Triolo were dismissed shortly thereafter.

In 2016, Triolo sued the detective for false arrest under New York state law and Nassau County, his employer, under the theory of respondeat superior, which holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent.

In December 2018, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Triolo on both the federal and state claims, finding that the police detective committed a false arrest because in the jury’s view he did not have probable cause to arrest Triolo. The jury awarded Triolo $150,000 in compensatory damages against the defendants and $35,000 in punitive damages against the detective.

The district court upheld the jury’s finding that there was no probable cause, acknowledging the verdict was reasonable given the evidence. However, the district court then vacated the jury’s verdict and dismissed the claims against both defendants. The court’s reasoning was that, although the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the officer did not have actual probable cause for the arrest, the officer had “arguable probable cause” as a matter of law and was thus entitled to qualified immunity. Then, based on the officer’s immunity, the district court also dismissed the claims against Nassau County.

Appeals Court

On appeal, Triolo argued that the district court erred in vacating the jury’s verdict and dismissing his false arrest claims against both the officer and the county.

The appeals court disagreed in part with Triolo, ruling that the district court properly dismissed the claims against the officer. The appeals court agreed that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he had arguable probable cause as a matter of law.

The court also disagreed with Triolo’s argument that the jury’s award of punitive damages “necessarily precludes immunity under both federal and New York law.” The court said the officer was also immune under federal law because he had arguable probable cause.

Also, the court added, New York law grants government officials qualified immunity on state law claims, including false arrest claims, unless “there is bad faith or the action taken is without a reasonable basis.” The record in this case does not establish bad faith, the court said.

“Even where actual probable cause does not exist, an officer may be entitled to qualified immunity on… a false arrest claim if his actions were objectively reasonable or if ‘arguable probable cause’ existed at the time of the arrest,” the appeals court decision by Justice Danny Chen reiterated, adding that a defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

The officer lacked actual probable cause because he ignored exculpatory evidence and information that undermined the truthfulness of those accusing Triolo. But the court said that does not preclude a finding of arguable probable cause because, on the evidence, “it is not clear that no reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed.”

Lower Court Error

However, the appeals court then came down in Triolo’s favor, agreeing that the lower court erred in dismissing the claims against the county. The appeals court ruled that the county was vicariously liable for the compensatory damages against the officer under New York state law.

The county is not entitled to qualified immunity, and its employee’s immunity does not somehow transfer to his municipal employer, the court said, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that municipalities are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law. (Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit).

The court said that under New York law it is clear that a municipal employer can be held vicariously liable for its individually immune employee when that employee has been found liable for an underlying wrong and been granted immunity. The county is liable for the damages for its detective who was acting within the scope of employment when he made the arrest, according to the ruling.

Topics USA New York Commercial Lines Business Insurance Law Enforcement