The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Robert L. and Bonnie S. Krug commenced this action pro se on June 4, 2004 asserting thirty-five (35) causes of action contending that their rights secured by the United States Constitution were violated. The claims arise from circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Robert L. Krug's arrest and prosecution for attempted armed robbery. See generally Compl. [dkt. # 1]. Through various amendments to the Complaint, Plaintiffs added over fifteen additional causes of action. See 1st Am. Compl. [dkt. # 4]; 2nd Am. Compl. [dkt. # 40] ("Am. Compl."). After numerous and lengthy adjournments occasioned by Robert Krug's medical difficulties, the Court addressed Defendants' motion for summary judgment which resulted in many of the claims and the County of Rennselaer being dismissed from the action. See March 31, 2008 Decision & Order, dkt. # 148 reported at Krug v. County of Rennselaer, 559 F. Supp.2d 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). Defendant Chirstopher Cieplik has also been dismissed from the action by Stipulation and Order. See, Stip & Ord, dkt. # 199.
Now before the Court is Defendants' second summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the remaining claims in this action. See Motion dkt. # 194. Plaintiffs, who are now represented by counsel, have opposed the motion. See Opp. dkt. # 201.
The Court will apply the well-settled standard for resolving Rule 56 motions as set forth in the prior Decision and Order in this matter. See Krug, 559 F. Supp.2d at 233-35.
The Court assumes familiarity with the factual background of this case as set forth in the March 31, 2008 Decision and Order in this matter. See Krug, 559 F. Supp.2d at 235-38. Only the facts pertinent to the pending motion will be discussed below.
After the March 31, 2008 Decision and Order, the following claims survived and are the subject of the instant motion:
(1) Bonnie Krug's false arrest claims;
(2) Bonnie Krug's Fourth Amendment search claims alleging that her two residential properties in New Baltimore, New York were illegally searched;
(3) Robert and Bonnie Krug's Fourth Amendment search claims alleging an illegal search of a van on their residential properties in New Baltimore, New York;
(4) Robert and Bonnie Krug's Fourth Amendment seizure claims alleging that a 1989 Oldsmobile was illegally seized (any claim arising from the search of this vehicle was dismissed);
(5) Robert and Bonnie Krug's Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims alleging that a rented pick-up truck was ...