No 4th Amendment Violations Found in Section 1983 Action
Reeves v. Churchich, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1196502 (April 24, 2007)
In a 1983 action, Plaintiffs sued police who had come to a duplex to look for and question a possibly armed man wanted for beating his wife. Plaintiffs lived in the downstairs apartment, and alleged that police violated their 4th Amendment rights in various ways when police pointed guns at them and gave them various commands.
The 10th upholds the district courts determination that police had qualified immunity because there were no Fourth Amendment violations.
1. Although police pointed guns at the Plaintiffs and gave them verbal commands, Plaintiffs did not “submit” to the orders and there was therefore no Fourth Amendment seizure.
2. Insertion of police rifle barrel through open, unscreened but barred window was not a search. Officer was not on curtilage when that occurred, the window was open so there was no expectation of privacy in what could be seen through the open window, and the rifle barrel was not a detection device.
3. In the context of the overall encounter, Plaintiffs were not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs actions belied that they thought they were not free to leave or that their movements were otherwise restricted.
EVEN IF there had been a seizure, it was objectively reasonable. Police were on premises to apprehend a possibly armed individual for whom they had probable cause to arrest and did not know Plaintiffs' relationship to that person. They trained their guns on Plaintiffs for only a brief time until it was determined they had no relationship with the person they were seeking. One of the Plaintiffs was interfering, so it was reasonable to order her back to her apartment.
In a 1983 action, Plaintiffs sued police who had come to a duplex to look for and question a possibly armed man wanted for beating his wife. Plaintiffs lived in the downstairs apartment, and alleged that police violated their 4th Amendment rights in various ways when police pointed guns at them and gave them various commands.
The 10th upholds the district courts determination that police had qualified immunity because there were no Fourth Amendment violations.
1. Although police pointed guns at the Plaintiffs and gave them verbal commands, Plaintiffs did not “submit” to the orders and there was therefore no Fourth Amendment seizure.
2. Insertion of police rifle barrel through open, unscreened but barred window was not a search. Officer was not on curtilage when that occurred, the window was open so there was no expectation of privacy in what could be seen through the open window, and the rifle barrel was not a detection device.
3. In the context of the overall encounter, Plaintiffs were not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs actions belied that they thought they were not free to leave or that their movements were otherwise restricted.
EVEN IF there had been a seizure, it was objectively reasonable. Police were on premises to apprehend a possibly armed individual for whom they had probable cause to arrest and did not know Plaintiffs' relationship to that person. They trained their guns on Plaintiffs for only a brief time until it was determined they had no relationship with the person they were seeking. One of the Plaintiffs was interfering, so it was reasonable to order her back to her apartment.
posted by Anonymous at 4:30 PM
<< Home