DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff Dorethea Franklin seeks damages from the City of Buffalo and one of its officers for violating her constitutional rights when the Buffalo police established a checkpoint outside her house and issued summonses to her two weeks after she publicly criticized the City’s checkpoint policy. Before this Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 21), which this Court will deny, for the following reasons. II. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. This Court takes the facts in the light most favorable to Franklin, the non-moving party. See Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2016) (at summary judgment, a court “views the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to…the non-moving party”). Franklin occupies a house at 90 Cloverdale Avenue in Buffalo, New York. She identifies her neighborhood as an “area of color.” (Franklin Deposition, Docket No. 21-4 at p. 37.) On July 7, 2017, the Buffalo Police Department (“BPD”) set up a checkpoint on Cloverdale Avenue in front of Franklin’s house. (Id. at pp. 24-25; Pariseau Deposition, Docket No. 21-5 at p. 9.) During the checkpoint, Franklin felt unable to leave her house due to the police cars blocking her driveway. (Docket No. 21-4 at p. 39.) Franklin considered herself “held hostage” in her house. (Id. at p. 41.) In her complaint, Franklin alleges that the July 7, 2017, checkpoint was set up in retaliation for her speaking out against the City’s checkpoint policy in a television news interview two weeks earlier. (Complaint, Docket No. 1,