Judge Arthur Spatt
Kanciper’s farm houses rescued horses. After investigations of abuse by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SCPA), former prosecutor Lato allegedly “surreptitiously” decided to investigate if Kanciper committed any crimes. Based on warrants Lato drafted for the SCPA, Kanciper was indicted on three counts of animal cruelty related to dogs, and two counts of child endangerment. She was eventually exonerated, and brought lawsuits against Lato, district attorney Spota and the SCPA. Her Feb. 15, 2013, action under 42 USC §1983 alleged Lato’s and Spota’s violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Only partly dismissing suit, the court concluded that to the extent it was not barred by absolute immunity, Kanciper’s §1983 claims against Lato and Spota stated causes of action. Although his role in the procurement of search warrants was protected by absolute immunity, Lato’s actions in taking part in the search of Kanciper’s property were not. Seizures do not become prosecutorial functions merely because a prosecutor has chosen to participate. In refusing to dismiss the §1983 claims against Spota the court noted that he did not dispute that he knew of and failed to remedy Lato’s allegedly unconstitutional misconduct.
