Officers Violated Couple's Civil Rights

Cortez v. McCauley, 2006 WL 308260 (2/10/06) - Bernalillo County's finest detain husband and wife at 1:00 a.m. and search their home without a warrant based on a nurse's complaint that a mother told nurse that her two year old daughter said the husband of her baby-sitter had "hurt her pee pee." If the allegations were true, the officers violated the husband's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights because what they did amounted to an arrest, [officers grabbed the husband from the doorway of his home, handcuffed him, advised him of his Miranda rights, placed him in the back seat of a locked squad car and questioned him while he was in the back seat] and the officers did not have probable cause. The probable cause standard requires officers to reasonably interview witnesses readily available at the scene, investigate basic evidence or otherwise inquire if a crime has been committed before arresting. The officers didn't interview the mother, nurse or doctor, inspect the child's clothing for signs of assault or wait for a preliminary report from the doctor, who found no evidence of abuse. It was okay to consider the hearsay statement of a two-year old, but the officers needed corroboration to establish probable cause.

If the allegations were true, even if the wife was only detained, rather than arrested, the officers also violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law with respect to her. The officers did not have reasonable suspicion of her involvement in the alleged offense. The only accusations were about her husband and there was no evidence of any likelihood of evidence destruction.

Clearly no exigent circumstances existed to justify entry and search of the home. Citing an urgent need without factual support is insufficient. There was no danger to the officers, since the plaintiffs had been asleep when the officers disturbed them, the husband was dressed only in his shorts, they both cooperated, and there was no evidence anyone else was in the home.

The 10th adopted the notion that an excessive force claim could only succeed if the detention or arrest were lawful, but carried out in an excessively forceful manner, precluding relief for the wife because, while she had a reasonable case for excessive force, it wasn't a clearly established case.