In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term, 2023

(Argued: October 2, 2023 Decided: March 14, 2025)

Docket Nos. 21-3075(L), 22-103(C) *

TROY ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

–v.–

CITY OF SYRACUSE, DETECTIVE RORY GILHOOLEY,

Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Cross-Defendants-Appellees,

COUNTY OF ONONDAGA,

Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee,

L.M.,

Defendant-Cross-Defendant. †

Before: NEWMAN, LEE, and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.

*21-3075 (L) was determined by order filed March 15, 2022. † The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above. Plaintiff-Appellant Troy Alexander appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.) granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees City of Syracuse, County of Onondaga, and Detective Rory Gilhooley.

The summary judgment record, viewed in the light most favorable to Alexander, reflects that on October 24, 2016, after receiving a report of a brutal sexual assault at Alexander’s home, the Syracuse Police Department (SPD) dispatched officers to his house. There, officers pushed their way into Alexander’s home and searched and seized the residence for approximately 12.5 hours before seeking a search warrant. They also looked into the windows of, and then towed, two of Alexander’s cars. After obtaining and executing a warrant, officers discovered narcotics and drug paraphernalia in Alexander’s bedroom. The City and County then brought several waves of criminal charges against Alexander, which, respectively, charged offenses relating to burglary, narcotics, and a sexual assault. Alexander posted bail after the first two sets of charges, but was not immediately released. The same happened after he posted bail in connection with the sexual assault. Ultimately, the City and County dropped all charges.

Alexander subsequently filed this action, alleging the City, County, and Detective Gilhooley violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution and New York state law. In particular, he alleges that the warrantless entry, search, and prolonged seizure of his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights, that Detective Gilhooley violated his Fourth Amendment rights by shining a light through the windows of his parked cars, that he was falsely arrested, that he was subjected to malicious prosecution, and that he was improperly detained after posting bail. After discovery closed, the district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. Alexander now appeals, principally arguing that the district court impermissibly credited the defendants’ version of events over his.

We agree with Alexander, but only in part. Alexander’s claims arising from the warrantless entry into and the search and seizure of his home (including his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims) present triable issues of fact. And gaps in the evidentiary record preclude summary judgment for the City and County on Alexander’s state law claims arising from his continued detention after posting bail. We therefore VACATE and REMAND the judgment as to these claims. We AFFIRM the judgment in all other respects. Judge Newman dissents from those parts of the Court’s opinion that remand for further proceedings.

TROY ALEXANDER, pro se, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiff- Appellant.