MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Tarell McIlwain walked out of his apartment building wearing a green hoodie, a blue jacket, and silver sneakers. He was arrested at the direction of officers who identified him as the seller in an undercover drug sale that they had just witnessed nearby. At his criminal trial, the officers who witnessed the sale testified that the seller of drugs had been wearing clothing identical to that worn by Plaintiff at the time of his arrest. But the jury evaluated that testimony at Plaintiff’s criminal trial and ultimately acquitted Plaintiff.Plaintiff brought this action against the three officers who were involved in his arrest, as well as the City of New York, claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of his right to a fair trial. Defendants argue that they are protected by qualified immunity, asserting that they had arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff principally because, they claim, he was wearing clothing identical to that of the drug seller. There is no dispute that Plaintiff was wearing certain clothing at the time that he was arrested. And there is no dispute that the officer’s post-hoc descriptions of the clothing worn by the man that they saw involved in the drug sale matched the clothing worn by Plaintiff that day. But there are substantial issues of fact that call into question whether the officers’ descriptions of the clothing worn by the seller of drugs were true — or if, instead, they represent a false narrative coordinated by the officers after the fact to support their arrest of the wrong man. Because the facts underlying Defendants’ claim that arguable probable cause existed are disputed, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment is DENIED.II. BACKGROUND1A. Factual BackgroundOn February 7, 2015, Detectives Ramos and Wilkinson, and an undercover officer designated “UC #308″ (“UC 308″) were conducting “buy-and-bust operations” in upper Manhattan as part of a New York Police Department (“NYPD”) narcotics team. Defs.’ Responsive Statement of Facts (“56.1″) (ECF No. 52)
4-5. Detective Ramos was working undercover that day. Id. 4. At around 2:30 p.m., near the intersection of 145th Street and Seventh Avenue, Detective Ramos struck up a conversation about buying drugs with two men, Antonio Jimenez and Elik Johnson. Id. 6. The men told Detective Ramos that they could help him buy crack. Detective Ramos, on the hunt for drug dealers, accepted the offer. Id. 7. The men walked south down Seventh Avenue from 145th Street. Id. 8. Along the way, Messrs. Johnson and Jimenez asked several people for crack, but without luck. Id. 9.The three men turned at 141st Street, and encountered a man with a dog (the “Seller”) near a bodega on the corner of 141st Street and Lenox Avenue. Id. 10. Messrs. Jimenez and Johnson engaged the Seller in a “drug-related conversation.” Then the Seller walked into a bodega on the corner of 141st Street and Lenox Avenue, leaving his dog outside with Mr. Jimenez. Id. 11. Shortly thereafter, the Seller walked out of the bodega, handed two small bags of crack to Mr. Johnson, took his dog back from Mr. Jimenez, and turned onto Lenox Avenue to walk away. Id. 13. Mr. Johnson then gave one of the bags of crack that he had received to Detective Ramos. Id. 14. Detectives Wilkinson and Ramos, and UC 308 all observed the sale and the individuals involved. Id.
