Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. ____ (2013)
Facts: It was nighttime, and Police Officer was responding to a report of a disturbance involving a man with a bat in a neighborhood known for violence. As Police Officer approached the location, he saw three men walking. When the three men saw the police car, two of them went into an apartment complex that was close by. The Third Man crossed the street in front of the police car and walked or ran toward a residence. Police Officer stopped his car, got out, and shouted, "Police". He ordered the Third Man to stop. The Third Man did not stop, but went through a six foot high wooden gate, which closed behind him. Police Officer could not see into the yard. Police Officer said he feared for his safety and made a 'split-second' decision to kick open the gate. Resident was standing behind the gate, unbeknownst to Police Officer. When the gate swung open, it struck Resident and caused her injuries.
Procedural History: Resident brought a lawsuit against Police Officer in federal district court, under Section 1983, claiming that Police Officer had searched her property without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to Police Officer because (1) Police Officer was pursuing Third Man, it was a dangerous situation, and Resident had less expectation of privacy in her gated yard; (2) Police Officer had qualified immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Resident had as much expectation of privacy in her gated yard as in her home itself, there as no immediate danger, and Third Man had only committed the minor offense of disobeying a police officer. The Ninth Circuit also held that the law was clearly established that warrantless entry was unjustified where person is only suspected of a misdemeanor, thus Police Officer could not claim qualified immunity.
Outcome: Reversed and remanded on issue of qualified immunity.
1. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. It gives breathing room for government officials to make reasonable mistakes and protects all but the 'plainly incompetent'. Existing precedent must have placed the question beyond debate, even if there is no case directly on point. Here, federal and state courts are divided on the question of whether an officer with probable cause in hot pursuit of a suspect of a misdemeanor may enter a home without a warrant.
2. The Ninth Circuit relied on two cases, Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) and United States v. Johnson, 256 F. 3d 895 (2001). In Welsh, the Supreme Court had said the hot pursuit rule did not apply to the facts in that case and that a warrant was usually required where the offense was a misdemeanor. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit had also said that the facts of that case did not show hot pursuit. The Ninth Circuit said that where the offense is a felony, and where the police are in hot pursuit, a warrant is usually not required, but where the offense is a misdemeanor, and the police are not in hot pursuit, a warrant is almost always required.
3. The Ninth Circuit said that Police Officer in this case was plainly incompetent.
4. The determining factor is hot pursuit, not the seriousness of the crime (i.e., whether the crime is a misdemeanor or a felony). The hot pursuit doctrine applies to the facts of this case: Police Officer saw Third Man enter property and had reason to believe he was 'just beyond the gate'.
5. California courts have said that hot pursuit doctrine is not limited to felonies. District courts in the Ninth Circuit have granted qualified immunity because the law on entry without a warrant in hot pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect is not settled or beyond debate.
6. Therefore, because the law is not clearly established, Police Officer was not "plainly incompetent" and was entitled to qualified immunity.
1. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. It gives breathing room for government officials to make reasonable mistakes and protects all but the 'plainly incompetent'. Existing precedent must have placed the question beyond debate, even if there is no case directly on point. Here, federal and state courts are divided on the question of whether an officer with probable cause in hot pursuit of a suspect of a misdemeanor may enter a home without a warrant.
2. The Ninth Circuit relied on two cases, Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) and United States v. Johnson, 256 F. 3d 895 (2001). In Welsh, the Supreme Court had said the hot pursuit rule did not apply to the facts in that case and that a warrant was usually required where the offense was a misdemeanor. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit had also said that the facts of that case did not show hot pursuit. The Ninth Circuit said that where the offense is a felony, and where the police are in hot pursuit, a warrant is usually not required, but where the offense is a misdemeanor, and the police are not in hot pursuit, a warrant is almost always required.
3. The Ninth Circuit said that Police Officer in this case was plainly incompetent.
4. The determining factor is hot pursuit, not the seriousness of the crime (i.e., whether the crime is a misdemeanor or a felony). The hot pursuit doctrine applies to the facts of this case: Police Officer saw Third Man enter property and had reason to believe he was 'just beyond the gate'.
5. California courts have said that hot pursuit doctrine is not limited to felonies. District courts in the Ninth Circuit have granted qualified immunity because the law on entry without a warrant in hot pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect is not settled or beyond debate.
6. Therefore, because the law is not clearly established, Police Officer was not "plainly incompetent" and was entitled to qualified immunity.
The opinion is available on the Supreme Court's website, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment