Morris v. Bowers: Panel Affirms Denial of Qualified Immunity for Police Officers' Warrantless Home Entry, But Reverses Denial of Qualified Immunity for False Arrest Claim

Morris v. Bowers, No. 13-10434, from NDAl

 

Circuit Judge Tjoflat, joined by Circuit Judge Wilson, and Senior District Judge Bucklew (MDFla)

 

Summary: In this § 1983 suit, the plaintiff sued police officers for violations of the Fourth Amendment after they allegedly entered his home without a warrant and then arrested him for punching an officer. The district court denied the police officers’ motion to dismiss premised on qualified immunity and they filed an interlocutory appeal.

The court first noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012), which held that a grand jury witness has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on the witness’s testimony, foreclosed two of the plaintiff’s claims and required reversal of the district court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims.

Next, the panel examined whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim concerning the illegal warrantless entry of his property.  The officers had no warrant, no exigent circumstances, and no reasonable suspicion to enter the plaintiff’s home (the panel assumed, for the sake of argument, that reasonable suspicion could justify a warrantless entry).  Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that the police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this count.

 

The panel then determined whether Plaintiff’s false arrest claim under the Fourth Amendment was barred by qualified immunity.  Since the existence of probable cause at the time of arrest is an absolute bar to a subsequent constitutional challenge to the arrest, the panel examined whether the facts and circumstances would have caused a prudent person to believe that the plaintiff had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal act. The panel also examined whether arguable probable cause existed: whether reasonable officers could have believed that probable cause existed. 

Alabama law, unlike federal law, permits a person to use force to resist an unlawful arrest.  However, in this case, although the detention amounted to an unlawful seizure, once the plaintiff punched a police officer, the police officers had probable cause and arguable probable cause to believe that the plaintiff had committed an assault.  The plaintiff had thus failed to plead a false arrest claim and that claim should have been dismissed by the district court.

The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity with respect to the claim that the police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the plaintiff’s house, but reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the false arrest claim.