FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Compression Tactical Bra - Cheata Tactical
Patented technology is designed to provide the stability of 2-3 sports bras,...

Departments : Point of Law

Entries and Civil Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court backed officers who were sued over their warrantless entry in two cases.

July 07, 2015  |  by Devallis Rutledge - Also by this author

Photo: Vincent Taroc
Photo: Vincent Taroc

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the definition of a Fourth Amendment "search" to include not only an infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy (the longstanding test under Katz v. U.S.), but also any "trespass" by officers onto someone's person, house, papers, or effects, in an effort to obtain information (the second definition of a "search," under Jones v. U.S.). One result of the broadened definition of "search" has been greater restrictions on entry onto the curtilage of the home (for example, Florida v. Jardines, prohibiting a K-9 sniff on the suspect's front porch).

Another result of the enlarged definition of "search" has been a surge in civil suits against officers for engaging in "trespasses" onto property, even where no reasonable expectation of privacy is compromised. Fortunately, the Supreme Court recently overturned two federal court rulings that had exposed officers to potential liability in cases involving warrantless entries.

Carroll V. Carman

Officers of the Pennsylvania State Police received information that a felony suspect they were investigating might be in the home of Andrew and Karen Carman. The officers went there to conduct a "knock-and-talk" to see if the suspect was there. They found that the Carman house sat on a corner lot, with doors facing both streets. Because the closest parking they could find was nearer the side entrance than the front entrance, they approached the sliding glass door on the side of the house and knocked. Mrs. Carman consented to their entry and search of the house, which revealed that the suspect was not there, so the officers left.

The Carmans then sued one of the officers, Trooper Carroll, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights when he had approached the side door, rather than the front door, to attempt the knock-and-talk. Trooper Carroll contended he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit, because knock-and-talks at customary entryways do not constitute "trespasses" under Jones. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Carroll qualified immunity. Citing to and quoting from both Jones and Jardines, the appeals court ruled that because Carroll knocked at the side door instead of the front door, "his warrantless entry into the Carmans' curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law."

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit and held that Trooper Carroll's conduct did not violate any clearly established law, and that he was therefore entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Quoting from several other opinions, the court said the following:

"A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. In the Third Circuit's view, a 'knock and talk' must begin at the front door. But that conclusion does not follow.

"Officers conducting a knock and talk need not approach only a specific door if there are multiple doors accessible to the public. Because the officer approached a principal entrance to the house that other visitors could be expected to take, he did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is not implicated when officers go to the back door reasonably believing it is used as a principal entrance to the dwelling." (Carroll v. Carman)

San Francisco V. Sheehan

Teresa Sheehan lived in a room at a mental health group home. She stopped taking her medications, holed up in her room, and yelled at the staff that she had a knife and would kill them. Police were called, and two officers responded. When officers entered her room, Sheehan grabbed a five-inch kitchen knife and yelled, "I'm going to kill you! Get out!"

Both officers backed out of the room and Sheehan closed the door. The officers then devised a plan that one would push the door open and the other would immediately spray Sheehan with pepper spray. When they followed this plan (thereby making a second warrantless entry into the room), Sheehan seemed unaffected by the pepper spray and repeated her threats with the knife. Fearing for their safety, both officers shot Sheehan (multiple rounds). She survived and sued for, among other claims, illegal entry into her room.

Both officers moved for qualified immunity, based on the exigency facing them—namely, the need to disarm a dangerous, uncooperative mental patient who had threatened facility staff and police officers with death. When the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that court agreed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as to their initial entry into Sheehan's room, but ruled that the officers should be subject to suit as to the second entry. The Ninth Circuit said that "a jury could find that the officers 'provoked' Sheehan by needlessly forcing the second confrontation."

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. After repeating the rule that officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law, the court surveyed a number of court rulings that showed there was no clearly established law prohibiting the officers from re-entering Sheehan's room; in fact, said the court, most of the case law supports the reasonableness of the officers' actions. The court said this:

"There is no doubt that the officers did not violate any federal right when they opened Sheehan's door the first time. Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Because the two entries were part of a single, continuous search or seizure, the officers were not required to justify the continuing emergency with respect to the second entry.

"The officers knew that Sheehan had a weapon and had threatened to use it to kill three people. They also knew that delay could make the situation more dangerous. The Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness, and it is reasonable for police to move quickly if delay would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. No precedent clearly established that there was not an objective need for immediate entry here." (San Francisco v. Sheehan)

Evaluating the reasonableness of the force the officers had used in firing multiple shots at Sheehan, the court said, "Nothing in the Fourth Amendment barred the officers from protecting themselves, even though it meant firing multiple rounds."

And on a related issue raised by the testimony of the plaintiff's "expert" witness who testified that the officers did not follow proper tactics or their training, the court said, "Even if an officer acts contrary to her training, that does not itself negate qualified immunity. In close cases, a jury does not automatically get to second-guess these life and death decisions, even though a plaintiff has an 'expert' who claims the situation could have been handled differently."

Liability Risk Reduction

When approaching a private home for a knock-and-talk or other investigation, it's best to stay on sidewalks or paths apparently open to public use, and to knock at doors that reasonably appear to be commonly used for access.

If exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry, be sure to document all of the reasons why immediate entry was necessary to neutralize the exigency.

Devallis Rutledge is a former police officer and veteran prosecutor who currently serves as special counsel to the Los Angeles County district attorney. He is the author of 12 books, including "Investigative Constitutional Law."


Be the first to comment on this story





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

Civil Unrest Response Equipment
From ballistic protection to batons, these pieces of gear are built to meet your needs in...
Real Change
Obtaining tacit knowledge is considered our most important and powerful learning activity,...
Life Insurance as a Savings Vehicle
By maximizing the advantages of whole life insurance, you can accrue secure capital that...
Policy Won't Stop Vehicle Attacks
Unrealistic policies make it tougher for officers to respond quickly in vehicle ramming...
Briefing Skills
Effectively providing information in a briefing requires choosing the right presentation...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine