Winfield v. Trottier, No. 11-4404 (2d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant, a police officer, appealed from the district court's denial of his motion for qualified immunity in a claim brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated her Fourth Amendment rights when, while searching her car with her consent during a traffic stop, he read a piece of her mail. The piece of mail was a court document pertaining to the arrest of plaintiff's husband "for possession," and a letter that plaintiff had written to a judge. The court concluded that, while the scope of plaintiff's consent was not limited to a search for any particular object or contraband, it did not extend to the text of her mail. However, since this right was not clearly established at the time of the search, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.
Download PDF
11-4404-cv Winfield, et al. v. Trottier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued: October 5, 2012 Decided: March 6, 2013) Docket No. 11-4404-cv - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MARIE WINFIELD and JASON WINFIELD, Plaintiffs-Appellees, - v.DANIEL TROTTIER, Defendant-Appellant, AIMEE NOLAN, STATE OF VERMONT, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, POOLER and HALL, Circuit Judges. A police officer appeals the denial of qualified 33 immunity by the United States District Court for the 34 District of Vermont in a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 35 alleging that he violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a 36 motorist and her passenger when, while searching her car 37 with her consent during a traffic stop, he read a piece of 38 her mail. We reverse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MICHAEL B. KIMBERLY, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC for Appellees. MEGAN J. SHAFRITZ, Assistant Attorney General, (Jana M. Brown on the brief) for, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General for the State of Vermont for Appellant. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: Daniel Trottier ( Trottier ), a Vermont State Police 14 officer, appeals from an order entered in the United States 15 District Court for the District of Vermont (Reiss, J.), 16 denying his motion for qualified immunity in a claim brought 17 by motorist Marie Winfield ( Winfield ) under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983, alleging that Trottier violated her Fourth Amendment 19 rights when, while searching her car with her consent during 20 a traffic stop, he read a piece of her mail. 21 At issue is the scope of Winfield s consent to the 22 search of her car, which is determined by looking at what a 23 reasonable person would have understood by the exchange 24 between Trottier and Winfield. 25 scope of Winfield s consent was not limited to a search for 26 any particular object of contraband, it did not extend to 27 the text of her mail. 28 clearly established at the time of the search, Trottier is 29 entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that, while the However, since this right was not 2 We therefore reverse. 1 2 BACKGROUND The district court found that the following facts were 3 undisputed. On May 26, 2007, Winfield was driving north on 4 Interstate 89 in Vermont, en route to visit her father in 5 Montreal. 6 driving twenty miles per hour over the limit, and was 7 inspired to search the car by certain things he deemed 8 suspicious: 9 making eye contact with him; and Winfield was eating a Trottier, a state trooper, stopped her for The passenger, Winfield s son Jason, avoided 10 Powerbar in what he regarded as a hurried manner. 11 Winfield v. Trottier, No. 5:08-cv-278, 2011 WL 4442933, at 12 *1 (D. Vt. Sept. 21, 2011). 13 As Trottier was waiting for verification of Winfield s 14 identity, he approached the car and asked, Ms. 15 you don t have to if you don t want to, but while we re 16 waiting, would you mind coming back here for a minute 17 [behind the car] and talk[ing] to me for a second? 18 out and walked with Trottier to the back of her car while 19 State Trooper Aimee Nolan arrived on the scene, as backup. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Winfield, She got The following exchange ensued: TROTTIER: Listen, is there anything in there I should know about? You seemed awfully nervous when I was talking with you. . . . Your hand was shaking and you re--you had, like, a leg tremor going on. No? 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WINFIELD: Not that I know of. TROTTIER: Oh, Okay. Not that you know of, or there s nothing? It just kind of, you know, piqued my interest there. WINFIELD: Really? TROTTIER: Because when I was talking with you, you were shaking; your voice was shaking. 8 Winfield explained that she was probably tired 9 because her daughter s high school graduation was the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 previous night. The conversation continued: TROTTIER: Okay. Okay. There s nothing in there I should know about is there? No guns or money? WINFIELD: You can look if you want. TROTTIER: Oh you don t mind? Do you mind? No--no large sums of money in there or--no? Okay. WINFIELD: Be my guest. TROTTIER: Okay. WINFIELD: You can look. TROTTIER: Okay. Here. Hold on one second. WINFIELD: Inside my trunk? TROTTIER: Okay. WINFIELD: I don t know [inaudable]-TROTTIER: Here. Do me a favor, okay? WINFIELD: I don t have anything. TROTTIER: What s that? WINFIELD: No, I don t have anything in there. My-TROTTIER: Okay. Oh, just stay over here for a second. I don t want you to get run over. Do you mind? WINFIELD: I was just going to pop my trunk. TROTTIER: Oh, that s okay. Do you mind if I look through--do--do you mind? You don t mind? Okay. Do me a favor. Stand over here for me. You don t have anything on you we should know about, do you? No guns or bombs or anything like that? 4 1 2 3 WINFIELD: TROTTIER: [Inaudible.] No? Okay. Id. at *2-3. 4 After patting down Jason (with his consent), Trottier 5 searched the car. Trottier, who admits he was not looking 6 for anything in particular, found an envelope addressed 7 either to or from a court, opened it,1 and read what was 8 inside. 9 Winfield s husband for possession, and a letter that It was a court document pertaining to the arrest of 10 Winfield had written to a judge. Id. at *3 n.4. 11 finishing the search and finding nothing, he issued a 12 speeding citation and the Winfields proceeded on their way. After The Winfields sued, alleging, inter alia, violations of 13 14 the Fourth Amendment s prohibition of unreasonable searches 15 and seizures. 16 reasonable understanding of the exchange between Ms. 17 Winfield and Trooper Trottier could be construed as consent 18 for Trooper Trottier to read Ms. Winfield s mail, regardless 19 of to whom or from whom [the mail] was addressed. 20 *10. The district court concluded that no Id. at The court denied qualified immunity because [i]t was 1 The record on appeal does not indicate whether Trottier unsealed the envelope. The district court noted, in its findings of undisputed facts, that Trottier simply removed from its envelope and read the document inside. Id. at *3. 5 1 well-established at the time of the search that [i]t is a 2 violation of a suspect s Fourth Amendment rights for a 3 consensual search to exceed the scope of the consent 4 given. 5 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2006)) (second alteration in 6 original)). Id. at *11 (quoting United States v. McWeeney, 454 7 8 9 DISCUSSION The Court reviews de novo a decision on a motion for 10 summary judgment. 11 758, 763 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Miller v. Wolpoff & 12 Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). 13 judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to 14 any material fact and the moving party is entitled to 15 judgment as a matter of law. 16 assessing a motion for summary judgment, the Court is 17 required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all 18 permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against 19 whom summary judgment [was granted]. 20 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks 21 omitted). Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d Summary Miller, 321 F.3d at 300. 22 6 In Terry v. Ashcroft, 1 2 I Qualified immunity protects officials from liability 3 for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate 4 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 5 which a reasonable person would have known. 6 Repicky, 511 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Harlow v. 7 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). 8 qualified immunity, courts ask whether the facts shown [i] 9 make out a violation of a constitutional right, and [ii] 10 whether the right at issue was clearly established at the 11 time of defendant s alleged misconduct. 12 Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (internal quotation marks 13 omitted). 14 Gilles v. In deciding Pearson v. To be clearly established, [t]he contours of the right 15 must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would 16 understand that what he is doing violates that right. 17 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 18 way, qualified immunity shields official conduct that is 19 objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules 20 that were clearly established at the time it was taken. 21 X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, 196 F.3d 56, 66 (2d Cir. 1999) 22 (alterations omitted) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639); 7 In this 1 see also Taravella v. Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 134-35 2 (2d Cir. 2010). 3 4 II 5 Plaintiffs challenge appellate jurisdiction on the 6 ground that the qualified immunity inquiry in this case 7 turns on a question of fact: the reasonableness 8 determination as to the scope of Winfield s consent. 9 We have appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory 10 appeal. [A] district court s denial of a claim of 11 qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue 12 of law, is an appealable final decision within the meaning 13 of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final 14 judgment. 15 (emphasis added). 16 on a district court decision as to what occurred, or why an 17 action was taken or omitted, but [must related to] disputes 18 about the substance and clarity of pre-existing law. 19 v. Jordan, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 884, 893 (2011); see 20 also Britt v. Garcia, 457 F.3d 264, 271-72 (2d Cir. 2006). Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 529 (1985) An appealable order therefore cannot turn 21 22 8 Ortiz 1 A 2 The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect s 3 consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of objective 4 reasonableness--what would the typical reasonable person 5 have understood by the exchange between the officer and the 6 suspect? 7 Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991). As there are no disputed facts in this case, 8 Plaintiffs argument is essentially that an appeals court 9 lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that turns 10 on a determination of reasonableness. 11 contexts, courts hold that reasonableness may be a question 12 of law when the facts are undisputed. 13 Katz, 312 F.3d 568, 577 (2d Cir. 2002) ( [W]hen the 14 defendant accepts . . . the plaintiff s version of the 15 facts, the defendant may immediately appeal the denial of [a 16 summary judgment] motion because the objective 17 reasonableness of the undisputed actions may then be 18 susceptible to resolution as a matter of law. (emphasis 19 added) (citing Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 20 1996))); Huang v. Attorney Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 385 (3d Cir. 21 2010) ( [I]n the context of qualified immunity for 22 constitutional torts, the reasonableness of a state actor s 9 But in other See, e.g., Kent v. 1 conduct based on undisputed facts is subject to de novo 2 review as a question of law. (emphasis added)); Vaughn v. 3 Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124, 1128 (8th Cir. 2001) ( If the material 4 predicate facts are undisputed, the reasonableness inquiry 5 is a question of law. ). 6 Plaintiffs fail to cite a single case holding that an 7 appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a ruling on 8 qualified immunity when the facts are undisputed.2 9 they cite cases such as Hatheway v. Thies, 335 F.3d 1199, 10 1204 (10th Cir. 2003), in which the question was whether 11 certain facts were disputed, and Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 12 639 F.3d 1025, 1027 (10th Cir. 2011), in which [t]he 13 parties provide[d] distinctly differing accounts of the 14 ensuing encounter. Instead, 15 2 Plaintiffs cite cases in which the scope of consent to search is a question of fact reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Gandia, 424 F.3d 255, 265 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Garrido-Santana, 360 F.3d 565, 570 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir. 2004). Gandia, the only Second Circuit case plaintiffs cite, turned on facts that were disputed. 424 F.3d at 265. Moreover, these cases were criminal cases in which the court set out the standard of review without touching on the question presented here, whether there is appellate jurisdiction to review a denial of qualified immunity involving the scope of consent. 10 1 In this case involving no disputed facts, we have 2 appellate jurisdiction, under Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 3 511 (1985), to decide whether there was a violation of a 4 constitutional right. 5 6 B We also have appellate jurisdiction to decide whether 7 the right at issue was clearly established. See Moore v. 8 Andreno, 505 F.3d 203, 207 (2d Cir. 2007) ( Nevertheless, 9 our appellate jurisdiction over this case is not in doubt. 10 The district court s holding that the law governing 11 third-party consent searches was clearly established is a 12 conclusion of law and is thus immediately appealable. ); 13 Salim, 93 F.3d at 89 (finding it easy to apply Mitchell v. 14 Forsyth whenever a defendant s interlocutory appeal 15 challenges a denial of a qualified immunity defense on the 16 ground that the district court erred in ruling that the law 17 the defendant is alleged to have violated was clearly 18 established ). 19 20 21 22 III Courts may exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis 11 1 should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in 2 the particular case at hand. 3 223, 236 (2009). 4 difficult to decide whether [the] right [in this case] is 5 clearly established without deciding precisely what the 6 existing constitutional right happens to be. 7 Lyons v. Xenia, 417 F.3d 565, 581 (6th Cir. 2005) (Sutton, 8 J., concurring)). 9 inquiry in turn. 10 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. Here, we analyze both because it is Id. (quoting We consider each qualified immunity A 11 The Fourth Amendment is not offended by a warrantless, 12 suspicionless search to which a suspect consents. Florida 13 v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250-51 (1991). 14 individual who consents to a search of his car should 15 reasonably expect that readily-opened, closed containers 16 discovered inside the car will be opened and examined. 17 United States v. Snow, 44 F.3d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 1995). 18 A suspect may of course delimit as he chooses the In general, an 19 scope of the search to which he consents. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 20 at 252. 21 what would the typical reasonable person have understood by 22 the exchange between the officer and the suspect? 23 251. To determine the parameters of consent, we ask 12 Id. at 1 The scope of a search is generally defined by its 2 expressed object. Id. 3 believed he overheard the defendant arranging an illegal 4 drug transaction over a public telephone followed the 5 defendant s car and pulled him over to give him a ticket 6 when he made an illegal turn. 7 expressed his suspicion and asked, and was granted, 8 permission to search the car for drugs. 9 brown paper bag on the floor of the car was opened and In Jimeno, a police officer who Id. Id. at 249-50. 10 yielded cocaine. 11 12 reasonably be understood to extend to a particular 13 container, the Fourth Amendment provides no grounds for 14 requiring a more explicit authorization. A the search was lawful: If a suspect s consent would 15 Id. at 250. The officer then The Supreme Court held that Id. at 252. Here, Winfield s consent was not limited to a search 16 for guns or money because Trottier s full question did not 17 convey any expressed object of the search: There s 18 nothing in there I should know about is there? 19 money? 20 should know about, of which guns and money were examples. 21 A typical reasonable person would not think that Winfield s 22 consent was limited to places that could hold guns or money. 23 Winfield s consent authorized a search for drugs or smuggled No guns or The open-ended question reached anything he 13 1 cigarettes or child pornography as things Trottier should 2 know about, even in places that could contain neither guns 3 nor large sums of money. 4 Trottier did not tell Winfield that he was looking for (or 5 suspected she had) any particular kind of contraband.3 6 Nevertheless, Winfield s consent did not arguably This case is nothing like Jimeno; 7 extend to Trottier s reading her mail. He did not, for 8 example, get specific consent to search for evidence of 9 extortion by mail or securities fraud. The Fourth Amendment 10 specifically protects [t]he right of the people to be 11 secure in their . . . papers. 12 Reading a person s personal mail is a far greater intrusion 13 than a search for contraband because it can invade a 14 person s thoughts. U.S. Const. amend. IV. See United States v. Dichiarinte, 445 3 Winfield arguably limited the scope of her consent to the trunk of the car. She repeatedly referred to her trunk during her interaction with Trottier. Moreover, Trottier asked Winfield, there s nothing in there? while standing with her at the rear of her car. See United States v. Neely, 564 F.3d 346, 349-51 (4th Cir. 2009) (concluding that scope of consent was impliedly limited to trunk of car based on surrounding circumstances). We need not decide the issue because even if Winfield arguably limited her consent in this way, a reasonable officer in Trottier s place could believe that the scope was not so limited. See Taravella v. Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 134-45 (2d Cir. 2010) ( [T]he qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was objectively reasonable for him at the time of the challenged action to believe his acts were lawful. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 14 1 F.2d 126, 130 n.4 (7th Cir. 1971) ( The fact that the 2 defendant submitted to a degree of intrusion upon his 3 privacy by permitting the agents to enter his home and 4 rummage through his personal property does not mean that the 5 much greater intrusion on his privacy resulting from 6 government agents reading his personal papers must 7 automatically be allowed. ). 8 the typical reasonable person would not assume that consent 9 to a general search of a car for contraband would include Given this greater intrusion, 10 consent to read personal papers. 11 envelope and discovered neither large sums of money nor 12 contraband,4 he should have moved on to search the rest of 13 the car. 14 when he read the letter. Once Trottier opened the Trottier exceeded the scope of Winfield s consent 15 Trottier argues that he read her mail because he 16 thought it might contain evidence of a parole or probation 17 violation. 18 mail, just as Trottier might have perused love letters for 19 evidence of statutory rape, or brokerage receipts for 20 evidence of insider trading. 21 reasonable person would believe that the consent given by That is a conceivable rationale for reading But the issue is whether a 4 We assume without deciding that the envelope could have contained contraband. 15 1 Winfield authorized such a search for such a purpose. 2 think not. 3 his support.5 4 We And Trottier cites no persuasive authority in [T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 5 reasonableness. 6 398, 403 (2006). 7 assume that Winfield gave Trottier consent to read her 8 personal mail. 9 Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable 10 Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. A typical reasonable person would not Therefore, Trottier violated Winfield s searches. 5 We are unpersuaded by the one case holding that generalized consent to search an area grants police the authority to read documents found in that area. United States v. De La Rosa, 922 F.2d 675, 679 (11th Cir. 1991). The rest are easily distinguishable. In United States v. Kwan, No. 02 CR. 241, 2003 WL 21180401, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2003), the defendant authorized the police to look around, knowing they were investigating a possible theft of confidential documents. Id. at *1; cf. Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 252. Moreover, the court focused on whether Kwan had given the agents consent to search in his desk, not read his papers. Id. at *6. The search in United States v. Vaneenwyk was a lawful search incident to arrest; so the discussion as to scope of consent was dicta. 206 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). In United States v. Reyes, 922 F. Supp. 818, 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), and United States v. Galante, No. 94 Cr. 633, 1995 WL 507249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1995), the officers read no personal papers; they searched the digital memory of pagers and cell phones found in a car they had consent to search. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 745-46 (1979) (holding that defendants have no legitimate expectation of privacy in numbers they dialed or numbers that dialed them). 16 1 B 2 Trottier is entitled to qualified immunity if the right 3 he violated was not clearly established at the time of the 4 events at issue. 5 The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a 6 right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to 7 a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the 8 situation he confronted. 9 Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Id. at 202. We must first determine the level of generality at 10 which the relevant legal rule is to be identified. 11 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). 12 we should balance . . . the interests in vindication of 13 citizens constitutional rights and in public officials 14 effective performance in their duties. 15 Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 195 (1984)). 16 be defined in a more particularized, and hence more 17 relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be 18 sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would 19 understand that what he is doing violates that right. 20 at 640. 21 22 Id. To do so, (quoting The right must The district court defined the right at a level so general as to be insufficiently clear : [I]t is a 17 Id. 1 violation of a suspect s Fourth Amendment rights for a 2 consensual search to exceed the scope of the consent 3 given. 4 4442933, at *11 (D. Vt. Sept. 21, 2011) (alteration in 5 original) (quoting United States v. McWeeney, 454 F.3d 1030, 6 1034 (9th Cir. 2006)). 7 Winfield v. Trottier, No. 5:08-cv-278, 2011 WL The right at issue is properly stated as follows: It is 8 a Fourth Amendment violation when a police officer reads a 9 suspect s private papers, the text of which is not in plain 10 view, while conducting a search authorized solely by the 11 suspect s generalized consent to search the area in which 12 the papers are found. 13 has so held. 14 objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules 15 that were clearly established at the time it was taken, 16 X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, 196 F.3d 56, 66 (2d Cir. 1999) 17 (alterations omitted) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639), 18 and he is entitled to qualified immunity. 19 No prior case in the Second Circuit Accordingly, Trottier s actions were * * * 20 The district court s decision denying Trottier s motion 21 for summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to 22 the district court with instructions to enter judgment for 23 Trottier on the ground of qualified immunity. 18
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
