Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Brontoli

July 11, 2006

RODNEY TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LINDA BRONTOLI, ULSTER COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER; TREVOR BARRINGER, ULSTER COUNTY POLICE OFFICER; ANDREW SEYFARTH, ULSTER COUNTY POLICE OFFICER, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Following his arrest after a probationary search of his girlfriend Tracy Malloy's residence, plaintiff pro se Rodney Taylor filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Pending are various motions for summary judgment made by Taylor and the defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 42, 48, 57.*fn1 For the reasons that follow, the motions for summary judgment are DENIED with leave to renew. If the parties choose to refile, the following areas should be addressed: (1) greater factual detail of the search conducted of the Malloy home, (2) Taylor's privacy interest in the place searched and (3) the impact of Georgia v. Randolf on the parties' claims. See Georgia v. Randolf, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (2006).

II. Background

A. Malloy's Probationer Status

Linda Brontoli was assigned to supervise probationer Tracy Malloy in January 2004. See Brontoli SMF ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 48. As a condition of her probation, Malloy was required to abstain from the consumption or possession of alcohol or illegal drugs. See id. at ¶ 3.*fn2 Malloy was also required to allow Brontoli to search her "person, premises, residence, vehicle and any area under her immediate control without prior notification." See id. at ¶ 4. Taylor, Malloy's boyfriend, was aware that she was on probation. See id. at ¶ 5.*fn3 He was also aware that Malloy's residence had been subject to searches in the past. See id. at ¶ 6.

B. Alcohol Purchase

On March 9, 2004, Brontoli observed Malloy and Taylor in a high crime area of Kingston purchasing what appeared to be alcoholic beverages. See Brontoli Aff. ¶ 4. Later that day, Brontoli conducted a home visit at Malloy's residence*fn4 accompanied by another probation officer and three Ulster County Police Officers, including defendant officers Seyfarth and Barringer. See Taylor SMF ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 45.*fn5 Upon arrival at Malloy's residence, the officers were met by Taylor. See Brontoli SMF ¶¶ 13, 14, 16; Taylor SMF ¶ 3. He informed the officers that Malloy was not home and that they could not enter the trailer because they did not have a warrant. See id. Brontoli had previously observed Malloy at the residence and informed Taylor of her right as a probation officer to enter and search the premises. See Brontoli Aff. ¶ 5.

C. The Entry and Search of the Malloy Residence

After Taylor refused entry to the premises, Officer Barringer physically removed Taylor from the entranceway and the defendants entered the trailer. See Taylor SMF ¶ 4. Once inside, Brontoli asked Malloy to provide a urine sample and began to search the premises for alcoholic beverages. See id.at ¶ 6.*fn6 While searching the common areas of the trailer, Brontoli uncovered a bolt action .22 rifle in an unzipped suitcase filled with women's clothes on top of Malloy's washer. See Brontoli Aff. ¶ 7.*fn7 Following this discovery, Taylor admitted to owning the gun and was subsequently arrested. See Taylor SMF ¶¶ 10, 12.*fn8

III. Discussion

A. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)

The Local Rules of this district require the moving party initiating a motion for summary judgment to submit a statement of material facts. More specifically, Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) provides:

Any motion for summary judgment shall contain a Statement of Material Facts. The Statement of Material Facts shall set forth, in numbered paragraphs, each material fact about which the moving party contends there exists no genuine issue. Each fact listed shall set ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.