## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

Nos . 11 -1 04 8/ 11 -1 16 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

San dr a Der; Gord on Der, in di vi du al ly *

an d a s p aren ts an d n at ur al gu ard ia ns *
fo r G.D., a m in or , *

* App el la nt s, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Sean Co nn ol ly, in hi s i nd iv id ua l an d *
of fic ia l ca pa ci ty; Mi ke Am m en d, i n *
hi s i nd iv id ua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty; *

Is an ti Co un ty, *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 11
Fi le d: Jan ua ry

25 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re BYE, SMI TH, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

San dr a an d Gor do n Der, in di vi du al ly an d on be ha lf of th ei r s o n G

. D

. su ed

, in te r al ia

, Is an ti Co un ty Dep ut y Sh eri ff Sean Co nn ol ly in hi s in di vi du al an d of fic ia l

cap aci ty un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d rel ev an t st at e la w. The Ders so ug ht da m ag es fo r

in juri es al le ge dl y su ffer ed w h e n Dep ut y Co nn ol ly en te red th ei r ho m e wit ho ut awarra nt

. A jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of Dep ut y Co nn ol ly, an d th e di st ric t co ur t 1

de ni ed th e Ders ' m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. On ap pe al

, th e Ders se ek a ne w tri al

, arg ui ng

tha t the dis tr ic t co ur t ga ve erro ne ou s jury in st ru ct io ns an d m ad e erro ne ou s ev id en ti ary

ru li ng s. We affi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

"We reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury's ve rd ic ts ." W hi te v.

McKi nl ey , 60 5 F .3d 52 5, 5 28 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot at io n a nd cit at io n o m it te d)

.

On th e aft ern oo n of Apr il 22

, 20 08

, R.D., San dr a's te en ag e so n fro m a pr ev io us

m arri ag e, ret ur ne d ho m e fro m sc ho ol

. W he n he cam e ho m e, San dr a was lying on th e

co uc h. Sh e be ga n sc ream in g, y el li ng , and swea rin g a t R.D., acc us in g h im of ta ki ng

th e ph on e ou t of he r ha nd an d ha ng in g it up , ev en th ou gh th e ph on e was ne xt to he r.

San dr a a l s o c a l l ed R.D. a "p ig " an d to ld hi m th at he was fat . R .D. b el ie ve d th at hi s

m ot he r was dr un k be cau se sh e was "ac ti ng weir d" an d "s l ur rin g he r wor ds ."

Acco r d i n g t o R.D., hi s m ot he r's al co ho l co ns um pt io n ha d in crea se d ov er th e pa st

co up le of m on th s. R

. D

. at tri bu te d th e in crea se to hi s st ep fat he r's ab se nc e. His

st ep fat he r, Gord on Der, was "o n a tru ck in g jo b" an d " was n't aro un d m uc h."

R

. D. le ft th e ho m e an d wen t to a fri en d's ho us e, whe re he cal le d hi s fat he r , Terry Darb y , an d as ke d Terry to pi ck hi m up

. R.D. th en wen t to hi s fat he r's res id en ce,

whe re he ta lk ed to hi s fat he r an d hi s st ep m ot he r, Heat he r Darb y , ab ou t wha t oc cu rred

. R.D. to ld H e a th er th at he was "co nc ern ed ab ou t [h is ] [fi ve -y ear- ol d] li tt le br ot he r [ G.D.] be cau se

. . . [h is ] m om was dr un k." Heat he r cal le d 91 1 to as k th e po li c e t o

co nd uc t a wel fare ch eck on G.D.

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-Dep ut y Co nn ol ly was di sp at ch ed to co nd uc t th e "wel fare ch eck on a fiv e-yearol d so n an d an in to xi cat ed m ot he r" at th e Der res id en ce. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly le arn ed

fro m in fo rm at io n di sp at ch ed to hi s co m pu te r th at "an an on y m ou s cal le r ha d cal le d in

to di sp at ch st at in g th at he r 15 -y ear- ol d ha d res id ed at th is res id en ce

. . . an d [h e] wen t

to th e ne ig hb or 's ho us e to ge t away fro m hi s m ot he r du e to th e fact th at s h e w as

in to xi c a t ed an d he di d no t feel sa fe th ere." Add it io na ll y , th e cal le r was co nc ern ed

ab ou t th e "s ta tu s of th e m ot he r be in g in to xi cat ed " an d th e welf are of th e fiv e-year-o ld

so n. Befo re arri vi ng at th e Der ho m e, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly sp ok e to Heat he r, who ga ve

hi m th e sa m e in fo rm at io n th at sh e ha d gi ve n di sp at ch

, in cl ud in g he r co nc ern th at th e

fiv e-year-o ld so n was si ck an d n ot ge tt in g t he pro pe r car e, as he was wi th hi s " ve ry

dr un k" m ot he r.

At 9: 45 p.m ., Dep ut y Co nn ol ly arri ve d at th e Der res id en ce an d kn oc ke d on th e

do or f o r two to th ree m in ut es be fo re "a fem al e vo ic e y el le d ou t st op , kn oc k it of f."

D ep ut y Co nn ol ly id en ti fie d hi m se lf an d st at ed th at he ne ed ed to sp eak w i t h h e r

. W he n San dr a op en ed th e do or , Dep ut y Co nn ol ly ex pl ai ne d to he r th at he ne ed ed he r

to st ep ou ts id e so th at he co ul d sp eak wit h he r reg ard in g a ph on e cal l th at he ha d

rece iv ed co nc ern in g th e welf are of he r ch il dr en

. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly "n ot ic ed a st ro ng

od or of an al co ho li c be ve rag e" on San dr a an d th at sh e "h ad bl oo ds ho t, wate ry ey es ."

San dr a res po nd ed th at Dep ut y Co nn ol ly co ul d no t en te r th e ho m e an d be ga n sh ut ti ng

th e do or

. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly co ul d te ll th at San dr a was "a li tt le bi t m or e ag it at ed ." As

sh e was sh ut ti ng th e do or , Dep ut y Co nn ol ly st op pe d th e do or wit h hi s fo ot to pr ev en t

it fro m cl os in g. He was st il l st an di ng ou ts id e th e fro nt en tra nc e. He ag ai n ex pl ai ne d

th at he ne ed ed San dr a to st ep ou ts id e to di sc us s th e welf are of he r ch il dr en . San dr a

res po nd ed , " F* *k y ou , you are no t f* ** ** g co m in g in , g o away. " Sh e im m ed ia te ly

at te m pt ed to sh ut th e do or

. At th at ti m e, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly pl aced on e of hi s ha nd s on

he r wris t an d tri ed to pu ll he r ou ts id e th e do or to be tt er co nt ro l th e en vi ro nm en t an d

fo r hi s o wn s afet y

.

-3

-Dep ut y Co nn ol ly le t go of San dr a's wris t whe n two l a r g e , g ro wli ng do gs

ap pe ared

. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly to ld San dr a to res tra in he r do gs an d pu t th em away, bu t

sh e refu se d. W he n he ad vi se d he r th at he wou ld us e fo rce if th e do gs tri ed to bi te hi m , San dr a co m

pl ie d an d se cu red th e do gs

. Afte r pu tt in g th e do gs away, San dr a ret ur ne d

to sp eak wit h Depu ty Co nn ol ly. He ag ai n exp la in ed to he r th at he was o nl y th ere to

ch eck on h e r c h i l d r e n 's welf are an d he r welf

are ba se d on a ph on e cal l th at he

rece iv ed

. He co n fir m ed wit h San dr a th at he r fiv e-year-o ld so n was si ck

. Sh e to ld
Dep ut y Co nn ol ly th at th e ch il d w a s u p st ai rs

. Sh e th en as ke d Dep ut y Co nn ol ly

whe th er he "wan t[e d] to go up st ai rs to se e hi m ," an d Dep ut y Co nn ol ly rep li ed "yes."

Thu s, acco rd in g to Dep ut y Co nn ol ly, San dr a c o n s e nt ed to en te r th e ho m e be cau se

"s he ba si cal ly sa id

, y es , y ou can co m e up an d ch eck on m y ki d." Acco rd in g to Dep ut y

Co nn ol ly, on ce San dr a un de rs to od th at he was on ly th ere to co m pl et e a welf

are ch eck

on he r ch il dr en , sh e b ecame m or e co m pl ia nt an d l es s i rri ta bl e an d b el li ge ren t.

San dr a an d Dep ut y Co nn ol ly th en w a l k e d u ps ta irs an d in to th e li vi ng ro om

whe re G.D. was l y in g o n t he co uc h. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly w as co nc ern ed be cau se G.D.
"ap pe ared si ck ly, le th arg ic

, [an d] ve ry pa le ." W hi le Dep ut y Co nn ol ly was ev al ua ti ng G.D., San dr a be ga n a te le ph on e co nv e r sa ti on ; sh e rai se d he r vo ic e du rin g th e cal l.
Dep ut y Co nn ol ly fel t G.D.'s fo reh ead an d de te rm in ed th at th e ch il d ha d a hi gh fev er. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly t he n po li te ly as ke d San dr a to en d t he ph on e cal l, bu t sh e refu se d.

Afte r as ki ng ad di ti on al ti m es , D e p u t y C on no ll y ex pl ai ne d to San dr a th at he r ch il d

was ve ry si ck

. San dr a th en en de d th e ph on e cal l. D e p u t y C on no ll y as ke d San dr a

whe n sh e ha d las t ta ke n th e ch il d's te m pe rat ur e, an d sh e rep li ed "fi ve to ei gh t ho ur s

ag o." D e p u ty Co nn ol ly reco m m en de d th at sh e ta ke hi s te m pe rat ur e ag ai n. San dr a

to ok G.D.'s te m

pe rat ur e, w h ic h was 10 2.9 de gr ees

. San dr a ag reed hi s co nd it io n

req ui red att en ti on

.

Afte r San dr a ga ve G.D. fev er m ed ic at io n, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly co nt in ue d wit h hi s

in ve st ig at io n. He as ke d fo r Sa n d r a ' s id en ti fic at io n an d cal le d di sp at ch to in qu ire

whe th er San dr a ha d an y ou ts ta nd in g war ran ts . Depu ty Con no ll y th en as ke d San dr a

-4

-if sh e ha d con su m ed an y al co ho li c be ve rag es , an d sh e in di cat ed to hi m th at sh e ha d

o n e s h ot of ha rd li qu or

. In cred ul ou s, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly to ld San dr a th at sh e ha d

bl oo ds ho t, wate ry ey es an d a st ro ng od or of al co ho l. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly as ke d San dr a

to co ns en t to a po rta bl e br eat h te st (PBT), an d San dr a co ns en te d. The PBT in di cat ed

th at San dr a h ad a bl oo d- al co ho l co nt en t o f 0.2 0— ov er t wice th e le ga l l im it

.

To ev al ua te San dr a's ch il d welf are aware ne s s , D e p u ty Co nn ol ly as ke d if sh e

kn ew R.D.'s wh erea bo ut s. Sa nd ra re sp on de d t ha t h e was do wns ta irs sl eep in g in th e

be dr oo m

. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly su gg es te d th at San dr a go ch eck on R.D., ev en th ou gh
Dep ut y Co nn ol ly kn ew th at R.D. was no t t h e re. Afte r San dr a di sc ov ered R.D.'s

ab se nc e, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly to ld San dr a th at R.D. ha d le ft ho m e be cau se he fel t un sa fe

du e to he r in to xi cat io n an d was no w wit h hi s fat he r. San dr a th en be cam e ag it at ed an d

be ga n s crea m in g a t Dep ut y Co nn ol ly.

Dep ut y Co nn ol ly in fo rm ed San dr a th at , bas ed on hi s ob se rv at io ns of he r, he r

in to xi cat io n, an d th e in fo rm at io n th at he ha d rece iv ed fro m di sp at ch

, he di d no t feel

th at sh e co ul d pr op erl y care fo r G.D. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly t ol d San dr a th at sh e ne ed ed

to fin d s om eo ne to ta ke care of G.D. In res po ns e, San dr a "g ot pr et ty u ps et ," s ta ti ng

th at sh e was "p erfe ct ly cap ab le " of ta ki ng care of G.D. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly to ld he r th at

he wan te d so m eo ne at th e ho m e un ti l sh e so be red up to ta ke care of G.D. San dr a di d

no t want to co nt act a fam il y m em be r to lo ok aft er G.D. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly ex pl ai ne d

th at th e ne xt op ti on was to cal l Fam il y Serv ic es

. San dr a th en "wen t in to a rag e." Sh e

y el le d, "I ha ve a g un , I kn ew y ou were a co p o ut th ere, i f I was go in g t o an swe r th e

do or an d y ou wou ld ha ve co m e in

, I wou ld ha ve sh ot y a." Co ns id eri ng th is th reat an d

San dr a's irr at io na l st at e, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly de ci de d to ha nd cu ff San dr a fo r ev eryone 's

sa fet y . De pu ty Co nn ol ly as ke d San dr a to tu rn aro un d an d pu t he r h an ds be hi nd he r

ba ck ; he in fo rm ed he r th at sh e was no t un de r arre st

. San dr a di d no t in it ia ll y co m pl y ;

in s t ead

, sh e as ke d why Dep ut y Co nn ol ly was pu tt in g he r in ha nd cu ffs

. San dr a

ev en tu al ly pl aced he r ha nd s be hi nd he r ba ck

. Dep ut y Co nn ol ly reac he d fo r on e of he r

wris ts

, an d San dr a pu ll ed away. D ep ut y Co nn ol ly ev en tu al ly ha nd cu ffed San dr a.

-5

-Dep ut y Co nn ol ly th en as ke d San dr a t o s i t

, b ut sh e refu se d to co m pl y

. Dep ut y

Co nn ol ly repea te dl y

to ld he r to si t d own

.

Afte r San dr a was ha nd cu ffed

, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly sp ok e by p h o n e w i th he r

hu sb an d an d ot he r fam il y m em be rs to arra ng e fo r so m eo ne to co m e to th e ho m e. Afte r

a fam il y m em

be r arri ve d, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly rem ov ed San dr a's ha nd cu ffs an d le ft th e

res id en ce.

The Ders

, in di vi du al ly an d on be ha lf of th ei r so n, G.D., su bs eq ue nt ly br ou gh t

su it un de r § 1 9 8 3 a n d s t a te la w ag ai ns t, in te r al ia

, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly. The la wsu it

so ug ht da m ag es fo r in

juri es al le ge dl y su ffer ed whe n Depu ty Co nn ol ly en te red th ei r

ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt

. The Ders pr in ci pa ll y cl ai m ed th at Dep ut y Co nn ol ly vi ol at ed

th ei r Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s by un reas on ab ly en te rin g th ei r ho m e, us in g ex ces si ve

fo rce ag ai ns t San dr a as he was en te rin g th e ho m e, co nd uc ti ng an un reas on ab le se arch

of th e Ders ' ho m e aft er he en te red it

, un reas on ab ly se iz in g San dr a whe n he pl aced he r

in ha n d c u f

f s , an d us in g ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t San dr a in co nn ect io n wit h

ha nd cu ffi ng he r. Afte r a fo ur -d ay tri al , th e jury fou nd in fav or of De pu ty Con no ll y

.

The Ders fil ed a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

, arg ui ng , in te r al ia

, th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d in (1 ) fai li ng to as si gn Dep ut y Co nn ol ly th e bu rd en of pr oo f reg ard in g San dr a's

al le ge d co n s e n t a n d whe th er an em erg en cy or ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d in th e

Ders ' ho m e at th e ti m e of hi s e n t r y, (2 ) in st ru ct in g th e jury as to wha t co ns ti tu te s

"ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces " jus ti fy in g a warra nt le ss en try in to th e ho m e, (3 ) fai li ng to

ex cl ud e th e pu rp or te d res ul ts of th e PBT gi ve n to San dr a as u n r e l ia bl e an d un du ly

pr ejud ic ia l, an d (4 ) fai li ng to ad m it ev id en ce reg ard in g a su bs eq ue nt ev en t in vo lv in g Dep ut y Co nn ol ly's en try in to an ot he r in di vi du al 's ho m e pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of

Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ). The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.

-6

-II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al

, th e Ders arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in (1 ) in st ru ct in g th e jury

th at

, to pr ev ai l on th ei r Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m , th e Ders ha d th e bu rd en of pr ov in g

th at San dr a d id no t con se nt to Dep ut y Co nn ol ly's en tra nc e in to th e ho m e an d t ha t i t

was ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le fo r Dep ut y Co nn ol ly to be li ev e th at an e mer g e n cy

req ui rin g hi s at te nt io n ex is te d wit hi n th e ho m e, (2 ) in st ru ct in g th e jury th at

, un de r th e

em erg en cy ai d do c t r i n e , a n em erg en cy ex is ts if a pe rs on ne ed s im m ed ia te ai d, (3 )

ad m it ti ng San dr a Der's PBT res ul t, an d (4 ) ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of a su bs eq ue nt ev en t

in vo lv in g Dep ut y

Co nn ol ly.

"Un de r Ru le 59

, th e de ci si on to gr an t a ne w tri al li es wit hi n th e so un d

di sc ret io n o f th e tr ia l co ur t, an d i ts de ci si on wil l n ot be rev ers ed on ap pe al ab se nt a

cl ear ab us e of th at di sc ret io n." Hai gh v. Geli ta USA, In c. , 63 2 F.3 d 46 4, 47 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "Th e ke y qu es ti on in de te rm in in g whet he r a

ne w tri al is warra nt ed is whe th er it is ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce."

Id

.

A. Bur de n- of -Pro of Ins tr uc ti on

Dur in g fin al jury in st ru ct io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t ge ne ral ly in st ru c t e d t h e jury

th at it s v erd ic t wo ul d

de pe nd on whe th er, in li gh t of all of th e ev id en ce, y ou fin d th at cert ai n fact s h av e b een pro ve d. Th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g a fact is up on th e p art y who se cla im

or de fen se de pe nd s up on th at fact . Th e pa rty who h as th e bu rd en of pr ov in g a fact m us t pr ov e it by th e gr eat e r w e i g h t o f th e

ev id en ce. To pro ve so m et hi ng by the gre at er weig ht of th e ev id en ce i s
to pro ve th at it is m or e li ke ly true th an no t t ru e.

The r e a f te r, th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury reg ard in g th e Ders ' cl ai m of

un reas on ab le en try int o t he ir h om e, st at in g:

-7

-Und er th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, an en try in to a pe rs on 's ho m e is a

type of se arch

. The Fo ur th Am en dm en t th eref or e fo rb id s a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l t o u nr eas on ab ly ent er a p ers on 's h om e.

San dr a, Gor do n, an d [G.D.] co nt en d th at Co nn ol ly vi ol at ed th ei r Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s by u n reas on ab ly en te rin g th ei r ho m e. To

pr ev ai l o n t hi s cl ai m , th e Ders m us t p ro ve th e fo ll owi ng two th in gs :

(1 ) San dr a Der di d no t kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly co ns en t

to Co nn ol ly's en tra nc e in to th e h om e; an d

(2 ) it was ob

jecti ve ly un reas on ab le fo r Co nn ol ly to be li ev e th at an em erg en cy req ui rin g hi s at te nt io n ex is te d wit hi n th e ho m e.

On ap pe al

, th e Ders as se rt th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y sh ift ed th e bu rd en

of pr ov in g th e affi rm at iv e de fen se s of c o n s e n t a n d ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces to th em

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n a di st ric t co ur t's jury in st ru ct io ns

. Zeb le y

v. Hea rt la nd In du s. of Daw so n, In c. , 6 25 F.3 d 4 4 9 , 4 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). "A di st ric t

co ur t po ss es se s bro ad di sc ret io n in in st ru ct in g th e jury, an d jury in st ru ct io ns do no t

ne ed to be te ch ni cal ly pe rfec t or ev en a m od el of cl ari ty." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. W e li m it ou r rev ie w " t o w h e t h e r th e jury in st ru ct io ns , ta ke n as a who le

, fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly rep res en t th e ev id en ce an d ap pl ic ab le la w in li gh t of th e is su es

pr es en te d to th e jury in a pa rti cu la r cas e." I d

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "[E]ven if we fin d th at a di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct ed th e jury, we wil l rev ers e

on ly wh ere th e erro r affe ct s th e su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of th e pa rti es ." Id . ( qu ot at io n an d

ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

In su pp or t of th ei r arg um en t, th e Ders c i t e C r e i g h t on v. Ci ty of St . Pa ul , 7 66

F.2 d 12 69

, 12 72 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ), va ca te d su b no m. And er so n v. Cr ei

gh to n , 48 3 U.S.

63 5 (1 98 7)

, as "fi nd in g th at la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers be ar th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th at

-8

-an ex cep ti on to th e warra nt req ui rem en t ex is ts in a ci vi l act io n fo r un la wfu l en try of

a ho m e pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ." Bu t, as th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d

la ng ua ge in Cr ei

gh to n v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l

, 76 6 F.2 d 12 69 (8 th Ci r.19 85 ),

can be read to su pp or t pl aci n g t he bu rd en on ei th er th e pl ai nt iff or th e de fen da nt

. Co mpa re id

. at 12 7 2

– 7 3 (h ol di ng th at de fen da nt po li ce of fic er "was no t en ti tl ed to su m m ary ju d g men t be cau se he ha s no t

pr ov ed

. . . th at he ha d pr ob ab le cau se " for a warra nt le ss en try) wi th id

. at 12 77 ("I f th e [p la in ti ffs ] can p r o v e th at th e of fic ers di d no t as k fo r

pe rm is si on to en te r an d di d no t ex pl ai n th ei r m is si on

. . . t h e n

. . . th e jury cou ld fin d t ha t t he en try was n ot pe acea bl e.").

Der v. Co nn ol ly

, No. 08 -CV-6 40 9 (PJ S/ JJ G), 20 11 W L 31 49 8, at *2 (D. Mi nn

. Ja n. 5, 2 01 1) (sl ip co py)

.

The Ders al so ci te Pat

zn er v. Bur ket t

, 77 9 F.2 d 13 63 (8 th Ci r

. 1 9 8 5)

, bu t

Pat zn er is in ap po si te ; it in v o l ve d a di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, no t

a jury tri al on th e ul ti m at e is su e of whe th er a § 19 83 vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. Id

. at 13 66

. W e co nc lu de d th at no ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact ex is te d an d th at

, as a m at te r of

la w, t he of

fic ers ' jus ti fic at io ns fo r en try i nt o t he ho m e fai le d. Id . a t 13 69 . We m ad e

no de fin it iv e h ol di ng on th e al lo cat io n o f th e b ur de n o f pr oo f in a § 1 98 3 c as e.

In st ead

, as th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y no te d, th is co ur t " h a s no t ex pr es sl y

de ci de d who be ars th e bu rd en of pr oo f in a § 19 83 act io n fo r a warra nt le ss arre st or

se arch ." Der

, 20 1 1 WL 3 1 4 9 8

, at *2

. W e do so no w. Two vi ews cu rren tl y pr ev ai l

am on g ou r si st er ci rcu it s. A m ajor it y of th e ci rcu it s pl ace th e bu rd en of pr oo f on th e pl ai nt iff in a § 19 83 act io n fo r a warra n t l e s s a rres t or se arch

, wit h so m e of th os e

ci rcu it s im

po si ng th e bu rd en of pr od uc ti on on th e de fen da nt

. A m in or it y of th e 2

Se e, e.g

. , Bog an v. Ci ty of Ch i.

, 64 4 F.3 d 56 3, 56 8– 71 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng 2

th at on ce po li ce of

fic ers cam e fo rward w it h ev id en ce of ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fy in g th ei r warra nt le ss se arch of pl ai nt iff 's ap art m en t, in pl ai nt iff

's § 19 83 act io n,

-9

-pl ai nt iff bo re ul ti m at e bu rd en of sh owi ng th at of fic ers di d no t reas on ab ly be li ev e th at

su sp ec t f o r who m th ey were se arch in g wou ld be fo un d in res id en t's ap art m en t; of fic ers di d no t be ar bu rd en of pr ov in g e xi st en ce o f ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ); Pav ao

v. Pag ay , 30 7 F.3 d 91 5, 91 9 (9 th Ci r. 20 02 ) ("I n a ci vi l cas e un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, ho wev er, th e pl ai nt iff carr ie s th e ul ti m at e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng each el em en t of hi s

or he r cl ai m , in cl ud in g la ck of co ns en t." ); Dub ne r v. Ci ty & Cn ty

. of Sa n Fra nc is co , 26 6 F.3 d 95 9, 96 5 (9 th Ci r. 20 01 ) ("Al th ou gh th e pl ai nt iff be ars th e bu rd en of pr oo f

on th e is su e o f un la wfu l ar res t, s he can m ak e a pr im a faci e cas e si m pl y by sho win g th at th e arre st was co nd uc te d wit ho ut a va li d warra nt

. At th at po in t, th e bu rd en sh ift s
to th e de fen da nt to pr ov id e so m e ev id en ce th at th e arre st in g of fic er s ha d pr ob ab le

cau se fo r a warra nt le ss arre st

. The pl ai nt iff st il l ha s th e ul ti m at e bu rd en of pr oo f, bu t th e bu rd en of pr od uc ti on fal ls on th e de fen da nt ."); Ran ki n v. Eva ns , 13 3 F.3d 14 25

, 14 36 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (h o l d i n g, in a warra nt le ss -arr es t cas e, th at al th ou gh th e "d efen da nt s ha d th e bu rd en of de m on st rat in g t h e e xi st en ce of pr ob ab le cau se as a de fen se to th e st at e c la im ," th e "p la in ti ffs ha d th e bu rd en of de m on st rat in g th e ab se nc e of pr ob ab le cau se in or d er to su ccee d in th ei r § 19 83 cl ai m "); Val an ce v. W is el

, 11 0 F.3 d 12 69

, 12 79 (7 th Ci r. 19 97 ) ("Th e pr es um pt io n [o f un reas on ab le ne ss ari si ng fro m a warra nt le ss se a r c h ] mer e l y se rv es to im po se on th e de fen da nt 'th e bu rd en of go in g fo rward wit h ev id en ce t o meet or reb ut th e pr es um pt io n' [(Fe d. R.
Evi d. 30 1) ], w h i c h a de fen da nt wou ld do by pr es en ti ng ev id en ce th at th e pl ai nt iff

co ns en te d to th e se arch

. In or de r to pr ov e th at th e se arch was un reas on ab le

, th en , th e pl ai nt iff wou ld be req ui red to sh ow ei th er th at he ne ve r co ns en te d or th at th e co ns en t

was in va li d be cau se it was gi ve n un de r du res s or co erci on ."); Rug gi er o v. Kr

ze min sk i

, 92 8 F.2 d 55 8, 56 3 (2 d Ci r. 19 91 ) (ack no wle d g i ng th at "s earc he s an d se iz ur es

co nd uc te d wit ho ut warra nt s are pr es um pt iv el y un reas on ab le " an d de te rm in in g th at
"t he pr es um

pt io n m ay cas t up on th e de fen da nt th e du t y o f p r od uc in g ev id en ce of

co ns en t or se arch in ci de nt to an arre st or ot he r ex cep ti on s to th e warra nt req ui rem en t"

an d th at "t he ul ti m at e ris k of no np ers ua si on m us t rem ai n sq ua rel y on th e pl ai nt iff ");

Cr ow d e r v

. Si ny ar d

, 88 4 F.2 d 80 4, 82 5– 26 (5 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (d is ag reei ng "t ha t th e bu rd en of pr oo f in a se ct io n 19 83 cas e ba se d up o n a n a l l eg ed fo ur th am en dm en t vi ol at io n sh ou ld be sh ift ed to st at e of fic ia ls on ce th e pl ai n t i f

f es ta bl is he s th at th e of fic ia ls ' act io ns were no t au th or is ed by a warra nt " an d ho ld in g th at "t he b ur de n of

pr oo f on th e is su e of whe th er th e it em s se iz ed were in pl ai n vi ew res ts on th e pl ai nt iff
in a se ct io n 19 83 act io n ba se d up on a warra nt le ss se arch whi ch de fen d a n t s se ek to jus ti fy un de r th at ex cep ti on to th e warra nt req ui rem en t" ), ov er ru le d in pa rt on ot he r

gr ou nd s b y Hor to n v . Cal if

or ni a , 49 6 U.S. 1 28 (19 90 ) .

-1 0-c i r c u i t s pl ace th e bu rd en of pr oo f on th e de fen da nt in a § 19 83 act io n. Se e, e.g

. ,

Armi jo ex re l. Armi

jo Sa nc he

z v. Pete rs on , 60 1 F.3 d 10 65

, 1 0 7 0 ( 1 0 t h Ci r. 20 10 )
(s ta ti ng , in th e co nt ex t of a § 19 83 act io n, "[t ]he of fic ers be ar th e bu r d en of

es ta bl is hi ng th at th e th reat s po se d ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ju s t i f yin g th e warra nt le ss

en try"); Har de st

y v. Hamb ur

g Twp

. , 46 1 F.3d 64 6, 65 5 (6t h Cir. 2 00 6) (co nc lu di ng

th e g o v e r n ment be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th e pr es en ce of ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fy in g th e warra nt le ss en try); Par ku rs t v. Tr ap p , 77 F.3 d 70 7, 71 1 (3 d Ci r. 19 96 )
("To ex cu se th e ab se nc e of a warra nt

, th e bu rd en res ts on t h e S t a t e t o sh ow th e

ex is te nc e of [ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ]. "); Tarte r v. R ay buc k

, 74 2 F.2 d 97 7, 98 0– 81 (6 th

Ci r. 19 84 ) (h ol di ng th at sc ho ol of fic ia ls bo re th e bu rd en of de m on st rat in g a st ud en t's

vo lu nt ary rel in qu is hm en t of th e co ns ti tu ti on al pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t un reas on ab le

s e a rch es in li gh t of th e "p res um pt io n ag ai ns t th e waiv er of co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s" ) ;

Lo sc h v. Bor ou gh of

Par kes bu rg , 73 6 F.2 d 90 3, 90 9 (3 d Ci r. 19 84 ) (co m m en ti ng th at

, in a § 19 83 act io n fo r m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , th e "d efen da nt s be ar th e bu rd en at tri al

of pro vi ng th e d efen se of g oo d fa it h a nd pro ba bl e cau se ").

Hav in g rev ie wed th e rel ev an t cas e au th or it y , we ag ree wit h th e m ajor it y of ou r

si st er ci rcu it s' "fo rm

ul at io n of th e pr op er al lo cat io n of th e pa rti es ' bu rd en s in a se ct io n

19 83 act io n al le gi ng a Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n." Val an ce , 11 0 F.3 d at 12 79

. W e

ha ve pr ev io us ly reco gn iz ed th at "p la in ti ffs or di na ril y ret ai n th e bu rd en of pr oo f

th ro ug ho ut th e tri al " in a su it "b ro ug ht pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ." Cl ar k v. Man n , 56 2 F.2 d 11 04

, 11 17 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ). Thu s, "em pl oyin g a cri m in al bu rd en of pr oo f
[in a § 19 83 ci vi l act io n] i s co nt rary to es ta bl is he d p rin ci pl es go ve rn in g c iv il tri al s,

na m el y , th at th e ul ti m at e ris k of no np ers ua si on m us t rem ai n sq ua rel y on th e pl ai nt iff ."
Bog an , 64 4 F.3 d at 57 0 (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. As th e Se v e n t h C i r cu it

ex pl ai ne d, "[e ]ven if a pr es um pt io n of un reas on ab le ne ss ari se s fro m th e fact of a

warra nt le ss se arch [o r en try]

, th at do es no t se rv e in a ci vi l cas e to sh ift 'th e bu rd en of

pr oo f in th e se ns e of th e ris k of no np ers ua si on .'" Val an ce , 11 0 F.3 d at 12 79 (q uo ti ng

Fed

. R. Evi d. 30 1)

. In st ead

, su ch "p res um pt io n m erel y se rv es to im po se on th e

de fen da nt 'th e bu rd en of go in g fo rward wit h ev id en ce to m eet or r e b u t t h e

-1 1-pr es um

pt io n.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Fed

. R. Evi d. 30 1)

. A de fen da nt m ay sa ti sf y th is bu rd en

of pr od uc ti on by " pr od uc [in g] ev id en ce of co ns en t or of so m e ot he r reco gn iz ed

ex cep ti on to th e warra nt req ui rem en t." Id

. at 12 78

. "Yet on ce th e de fen da nt ha s do ne

so , 'th e ul ti m at e ris k of no np ers ua si on m us t rem ai n sq ua rel y on t he pl ai nt iff in

acco rd an ce wit h es ta bl is he d pr in ci pl es go ve rn in g ci vi l tri al s.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Rug gi er o , 92 8 F .2d at 5 63 ).

Fo r ex am pl e, in Bog an , th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at fo r th e pl ai nt iff

to su ccee d on he r § 19 83 cl ai m th at po li ce o ffi cers vi ol at ed he r Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s whe n th ey en te red an d se arch ed he r ap art m en t wit ho ut a warra nt

, th e pl ai nt iff

m us t pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at a reas on ab le of fic er in th e de fen da nt 's po si ti on wou ld no t ha ve be li ev ed th at a cri m e su sp ect

wa s in [th e pl ai nt iff

's] ho m e [i.e

., th e "h ot pu rs ui t" ex cep ti on to th e

warra nt req ui rem en t].

64 4 F.3 d at 56 7. On ap pe al

, th e pl ai nt iff as se rte d th at "t he di st ric t co ur t's in st ru ct io n

on bu rd en of pr oo f co ns ti tu te d rev ers ib le erro r" be cau se "t he bu rd en of pr oo f fel l on

th e of fic ers to es ta bl is h th at th ei r act io ns were jus ti fie d by ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ." Id

.
at 56 8

. The co ur t reject ed th e pl ai nt iff 's arg um en t, co nc lu di ng th at "[t ]he di st ric t

co ur t's in s t r u ct io n on bu rd en of pr oo f co rrec tl y an d cl earl y st at ed th e la w, an d,

co ns eq ue nt ly, we fi nd no erro r on th is ba si s." Id . at 5 71

.

Here, as in Bog an , th e di st ric t co ur t's jury in st ru ct io n on th e bu rd en of pr oo f

"co rr e c t l y a n d cl earl y st at ed th e la w," id ., b y in st ru ct in g th e jury th at th e Ders bo re

th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th at San dr a "d id no t kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly co ns en t to

Co nn ol ly's en tra nc e in to th e ho m e" an d th at "i t was ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le fo r

Co nn ol ly to be li ev e th at an em erg en cy req ui rin g hi s at te nt io n ex i s t e d w i th in th e

ho m e." At tri al

, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly sa ti sf ie d hi s bu rd en of pr od uc ti on by pr od u ci ng

ev id en ce of San dr a's co ns en t an d th at an em erg en cy ex is te d wit hi n th e ho m e, bo th of

-1 2-whi ch are reco gn iz ed ex cep ti on s to th e warra nt req ui rem en t. Se e Val an ce , 11 0 F.3 d

at 12 78

. As a res ul t, "'t he ul ti m at e ris k of no np ers ua si on

. . . rem ai n[ ed ] sq ua rel y on

th e [Ders ] i n acco rd an ce wit h es ta bl is he d pr in ci pl es go ve rn in g ci vi l tri al s.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Rug

gi er o , 92 8 F .2d at 5 63 ).

The refo re, w e ho ld th at th e di st ric t cou rt d id no t err in in st ru ct in g th e jury on

who bo re t he bu rd en of p ro of

.

B. Emerg en cy-Ai d- Doc tr in e In st ru ct io n

Dur in g cl os in g arg um en ts

, th e Ders ' c o u n s e l arg ue d th at "[t ]here ha s to be

so m et hi ng co m

pe ll in g, so m et hi ng li fe th reat en in g" fo r th e em erg en cy ai d do ct rin e to ju s t i f y a n of fic er's warra nt le ss en try in to th e ho m e. Pri or to gi vi ng th e fin al jur y

in s t r u ct io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec te d co un se l's as se rti on th at "t he re is no t an

em erg en cy un le ss th ere is a li fe-t hr eat en in g si tu at io n in th e ho us e." The co ur t

in fo rm ed th e jury th at "fo r pu rp os es of ou r cas e to da y an em erg en cy ex is ts if a pe rs on

ne ed s i mm e di at e ai d. A pe rs on can ne ed im m ed ia te ai d ev en if hi s li fe is no t in

da ng er." Th erea fte r, th e d is tri ct co ur t i ns tru ct ed th e jury tha t

[f]or pu rp os es of th es e in st ru ct io ns , an " emer ge nc y" exi s t s if a pe rs on

ne ed s immed ia te ai d

. In de ci di ng whe th er it was ob jecti ve ly

u n r e a so na bl e fo r Co nn ol ly to be li ev e th at an em erg en cy req ui rin g h i s

at te nt i o n ex is te d wit hi n th e ho m e, y ou m us t no t co ns id er Co nn ol ly's

su bjec ti ve in te nt

. The qu es ti on is no t whe th er Co nn oll y him se lf be li ev ed
th at an em erg en cy req ui rin g hi s at te nt io n ex is te d wit hi n th e Ders ' ho m e. Rat he r, th e qu es ti on is whe th er, gi ve n al l of th e ci rcu m st an ces kn own to
Co nn ol ly at th e ti m e th at he en te red

, a reas on ab le of fic er in Co nn ol ly's

po si ti on —wi th ou t th e be ne fit of hi nd si gh t— wou ld ha ve be li ev ed th at

su ch an em erg en cy

ex is te d.

(Em ph as is ad de d.)

-1 3-The Ders arg ue th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in fai li ng to de fin e th e n at ur e an d

ex te n t of th e em erg en cy req ui red to jus ti fy a warra nt le ss en try of a pr iv at e ho m e.

Acco rd in g to th e Ders

, th e di st ric t co ur t m is in te rp ret ed Mic hi ga n v. Fis he r , 13 0 S. Ct

. 54 6 (2 00 9) (p er cu ria m ), in ru li ng th at th ere ne ed no t be an un de rlyin g "s eri ou s" ha rm

to jus ti fy a warra nt le ss en try pu rs ua nt to th e em erg en cy ai d ex cep ti on of th e ex ig en t

ci rcu m st an ces do ct rin e.

Co nt rary to th e Ders ' arg um en t, th e di st ric t co ur t's in st ru ct io n co rrec tl y reci te d

th e Su pr em e Co ur t's de sc rip ti on of an "em erg en cy ," as th e in st ru ct io n di rect ly qu ot ed

th e "i m m ed ia te ai d" la ng ua g e u s e d i n Fi sh er . I n th at cas e, th e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at

th e "em erg en cy ai d ex cep ti on " "re qu ire s on ly an ob jecti ve ly r e a so na bl e ba si s fo r

be li ev in g th at a pe rs on wit hi n t h e h ou se is in ne ed of im m ed ia te ai d." Id

. at 54 8
(q uo ta ti on s, ci ta ti on s, an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . F ur th erm or e, co nt rary to t he "d an ge r

to li fe or li m

b" in st ru ct io n th at th e Ders req ue st ed

, th e Co ur t st at ed th at "[o ]fficer s do

no t ne ed i r o n c l a d pr oo f of 'a li ke ly se rio us , li fe-t hr eat en in g' in jury to in vo ke th e

em erg en cy

aid ex cep ti on ." Id . at 5 49

.

Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in in st ru ct in g th e jury

reg ard in g t he em erg en cy

aid ex cep ti on

.

C. Admi ss io n o

f Po rt ab le Brea th Tes t Res ul ts

Dur in g tri al

, Dep ut y Co nn ol ly te st ifi ed reg ard in g th e PBT th at he ga ve San dr a

an d it s res ul ts

. Im

m ed ia te ly aft er th is te st im on y , th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve th e fo ll owi ng

li m it in g i ns tru ct io n:

Mem be rs of th e jury, y ou ha ve he ard te st im on y bo th fro m Ms

. Der

an d no w fro m Dep ut y Co nn ol ly ab ou t th e res ul t of a pr el im in ary br eat h

te st

, or wha t's cal le d a PBT, th at Dep ut y Co nn ol ly ad m in is te red to
San dr a Der aft er he en te red he r ho us e. You m ay us e th is ev id en ce, th at is th e ev id en ce o f th e res ul t o f th e PBT, fo r on e rea so n a nd on e rea so n

on ly. You m ay co ns i d e r th is ev id en ce in de ci di ng whe th er Dep ut y

-1 4-Co nn ol ly's act io ns aft er he ad m in is te red th e PBT were ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le

.

The PBT res ul t, whe th er accu rat e or in accu rat e, w a s a pi ece of
in fo rm at io n th at was kn own to Dep ut y Co nn ol ly a n d

, th us , y ou m ay

co ns id er th e PBT res ul t, al on g wit h al l th e ot he r in fo r m at io n th at was kn own to Dep ut y Co nn ol ly, in de ci di ng whe th er Dep ut y Co nn ol ly act ed

reas on ab ly after h e ad m in is te red th e te st

.

I in st ru ct y ou , th ou gh

, th at y ou m us t no t us e t h e P B T res ul t fo r

an y ot he r reas on

. Fo r ex am pl e, y ou m

us t no t co ns id er th e PBT res ul t in
de ci di ng whe th er Dep ut y Co nn ol ly's act io ns be fo re he ad m in is te red th e
te st

, su ch as hi s act io ns in en te r i n g th e Ders ' ho m e, were reas on ab le

. Obv io us ly, h e to ok th os e act io ns be fo re he ad m in is te red th e P B T a nd

, t h u s , t h e res ul t of th e PBT is irr el ev an t to th e reas on ab le ne ss of th os e
act io ns

.

In ad di ti on , y ou m

us t no t co ns id er the PBT resu lt as ev id en ce of
whe th er Mrs

. Der was in fact in to xi cat ed

. No ev id e nc e wil l be
in tro du ced in th is tri al ab ou t th e accu racy or th e la ck of accu racy of th e PBT an d, th us , y ou m

us t no t co ns id er th e res ul ts of th e PBT as ev id en ce of whet he r Mrs . Der was in fact in to xi cat ed

.

Aga in

, y ou m ay co ns id er th e PBT res ul t on ly in de ci di ng whe th er Dep ut y Co nn ol ly acted reas on ab ly after h e ad m in is te red th at tes t.

Dur in g fin al in st ru ct io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n cau ti on ed th e jury th at it co ul d

on ly co ns id er th e PBT res ul t " in de ci di ng whe th er Co nn ol ly's act io ns aft er he

ad m in is te red th e PBT were ob jecti ve ly rea so na bl e." Th e d i s tri ct co ur t st res se d th at

th e jury co ul d "n ot us e th e PBT res ul t fo r an y ot he r reas on ," su ch as " w he th er

Co nn ol ly's act io ns be fo re he ad m in is te red th e te st

. . . were reas on ab le " or "wh et he r

San dr a Der was in fact in to xi cat ed ."

The Ders as se rt th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng wha t th ey co ns id er th e

un du ly pr ejud ic ia l ev id en ce of th e al le ge d PBT res ul t. The y co nt en d th at th e ev id en ce

-1 5-un fai rly da m ag e d San dr a's cred ib il it y an d pe rm it te d th e jury to m ak e th e

in ap pr op ria te in fere nc e th at th ere wa s s c i en ti fic ev id en ce su pp or ti ng Dep ut y

Co nn ol ly's cl ai m

th at San dr a was in to xi cat ed

.

" A d i s tri ct co ur t en

joy s wid e di sc ret io n in ru li ng on th e ad m is si bi li t y o f

pr of fere d ev id en ce, an d ev id en ti ary ru li ng s sh ou ld on ly be ov ert ur ne d if th ere was a

cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n." Qui gl ey v. W in te r , 59 8 F.3 d 93 8, 94 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

A PBT la ck s su ffi ci en t rel ia bi li ty to b e a d mi tt ed as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce.

Howev er, a PBT is a d mi s s i b l e to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se

. Uni te d St at es v. Ir on

C l o ud

, 17 1 F.3 d 58 7, 59 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ); se e al so Sh er br oo ke v. Ci ty o

f Pe l i c a n Rap id s , 57 7 F.3 d 98 4, 98 7– 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng , in § 19 83 act io n fo r vi ol at io n

of Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts , th at po li ce offi cer had pr ob ab le cau se un de r st at e la w

to effe ct ua te arre st of pl ai nt iff fo r dr iv in g un de r t h e i n f l u en ce whe n, in te r al ia

, th e pl ai nt iff "reg is te red .11 on th e PBT" ).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad m it th e PBT res ul t as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce of

San dr a's in to xi cat io n. Ins te ad

, th e co ur t ex pr es sl y li m it ed it s p erm is si bl e u se by th e jury to de te rm in in g whe th er Dep ut y Co nn ol ly act ed reas on ab ly aft er he ad m in is te red

th e te st —fo r ex am

pl e, in ha nd cu ffi ng San dr a. As no te d, t h e d i s t r i ct co ur t ga ve tw o

li m it in g in st ru ct io ns to en su re th at th e jury us ed th e PBT res u l t f o r t hi s li m it ed

pu rp os e. "Th e co ur t's li m it in g in st ru ct io ns m in im iz ed th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e."

Ben ne tt v. Nu co r C

or p. , 65 6 F .3d 80 2, 8 12 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

-1 6-Thu s, we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e

P B T r e s ul t fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of de te rm in in g th e reas on ab le ne ss of Dep ut y

Co nn ol ly's act io ns aft er h e ad m in is te red th e te st

. 3

D. Excl us io n o

f S ub se qu en t Eve nt

Inv ol vi ng

Depu ty Co nn ol ly

At a s ta tu s co nf

eren ce p rio r to tri al

, th e Ders so ug ht to in tro du ce ev id en ce o f

a su bs eq ue nt in ci de nt in vo lv in g Dep ut y Co nn ol ly. Thi s in ci de nt al so in cl ud e d a

di sp ut ed ho m e en try. Th e Ders ha d s ub m it te d a n o ffer of p ro of of th e ho m eo wne r's

te st im on y

. Upo n rev ie win g th e pr of fer, th e di st ric t co ur t co mm e nt ed th at th is

ev id en ce ap pe ared to be "jus t pl ai n ol d ch arac te r ev id en ce." The co ur t di sc us se d th e

na tu re of th e te st im on y an d th e di st in gu is hi ng fact s be twee n th at in c i de nt an d th e

Ders ' cas e. The co ur t n ot ed th at th e u se of t he ev id en ce was "p rimaril y as ch arac te r

ev id en ce

. " Th e co ur t co m m en te d th at th e pr of

fere d ev id en ce wen t m ai nl y to sh ow

wha t Dep ut y Co nn ol ly was th in ki ng su bjec ti ve ly. The co ur t co rrec tl y vi ewed Dep ut y

Co nn ol ly's su bjec ti ve in te nt as la rg el y im m at eri al

. The co ur t ob se rv ed th at "fo r at

le as t th e fiv e fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s," th e te st is "an ob jecti ve te st

, no t wha t was

on th e m in d of th e act ua l of fic er, bu t wha t a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve co nc lu de d

un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces ." Thu s, th e co ur t di d no t be li ev e th at th e Ders co ul d sh ow

W e fin d m er i t l e s s th e Ders ' ad di ti on al arg um en t th at a pr io r ad vi so ry ru li ng 3

of th e di st ric t co ur t "

fo rc ed App el la nt s to rei ns ta te th ei r fo rm er cl ai m s in or de r to fu ll y pr es en t ev id en ce of th e tra um at ic ev en ts th at fo ll owe d Dep ut y Co n n o ll y 's

un la wf u l e nt ry in to th e Der ho m e." (Em ph as is ad de d.) Acco rd in g to th e Ders

, th ey in fo rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t of th ei r "d es ire to pr oc eed to tri al on fo ur cl ai m s cen te red

on th e un la wfu l en try an d Dep ut y Co nn ol ly's us e of ex ces si ve fo rce to en te r th e Der
h om e." In res po ns e, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at it "wo ul d be m uc h m or e res tri ct iv e in le tt in g ev id en ce in of wha t ha pp en ed aft er Dep ut y Co nn ol ly en te red th e ho m e."
The Ders co nt en d th at th is "ad vi so ry ru li ng " "re su l t e d i n th e [d ]ist ric t [c]ou rt

co m m it ti ng rev ers ib le e r ro r by ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of th e pr ejud ic ia l PBT res ul t

su gg es ti ng San dr a Der was dr un k th at wou ld ot he rwis e ha ve be en in ad m is si b l e

. "

W ha te ve r th e im

pa ct of th is "ad vi so ry ru li ng ," th e Ders m a d e t he in de pe nd en t de te rm in at io n to pr oc eed on al l of th ei r cl ai m s, i n c l u d i ng th os e co nc ern in g Dep ut y Co nn ol ly's co nd uc t af

te r en te rin g t he ho m e.

-1 7-"h ow Co nn ol ly's act io ns at th e [s ub se qu en t] ho us e m ad e it m or e or le ss li ke ly th a t

Co nn ol ly had a pl an or h e h ad so m e in te nt or s om e m ot iv e."

The co ur t furt he r co nc lu de d th at ev en if th e in ci de nt was rel ev an t to in te nt

, it

wou ld ex cl ud e th e e v i d e n c e un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3 be cau se "[t ]he

pr ob at iv e va lu e of in te nt is sl ig ht ." A cco rd in g to th e co ur t, the ev id en ce's pr ob at iv e

va lu e "wo ul d be su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e" be cau se

"i t's far m or e li ke ly t he jury wil l us e th e fo rb id de n in fere nc e—t ha t is , t he in fere nc e

th at Co nn ol ly is a ba d gu y an d th at 's why he li ke ly di d wha t pl ai nt iff s accu se hi m of

."

The co ur t al so ha d a "h ug e co nc ern " ab ou t "u nd ue de la y an d was te of ti m e" be cau se , "[t ]o fin d ou t wha te ve r pr ob at iv e va lu e th e [o th er] in ci d e n t ha s[ ,] we wou ld

es se nt ia ll y ha ve to try th e [o th er] in ci de nt ." The co ur t no te d th at it was "n ot go in g to

try two la wsu it s he re." Thu s, th e co ur t de ni ed th e Ders ' m ot io n to ad m it th e ev id en ce,

ex cl ud i n g i t b o t h un de r Ru le s 40 4 an d 40 3. It or de red "b ot h pa rti es to sa y no th in g

ab ou t t he [ot he r] inc id en t at th e tr ia l."

W e ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ex cl ud in g th e pr of fere d te st im on y

of a su bs eq ue nt ho m e-en try in ci de nt inv olv ing D ep uty Co nnol ly. Our pr eced en t ho ld s

th at "i ss ue s of m ot iv e an d in te nt are es se nt ia ll y irr el ev an t" in § 19 83 cas es in vo lv in g

cl ai m s of ex ces si ve fo r c e , u nr eas on ab le se arch , a nd un reas on ab le en try. Mor ga n v.

Ci ty of Ma r m a d u k

e
, Ar k

. , 95 8 F.2 d 20 7, 21 1 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) ("Th e te st 'in an

ex ces si ve fo rce cas e is an ob jecti ve on e.' Gra ha m v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 7, 10 9

S. Ct

. 18 65

, 18 72

, 10 4 L. Ed. 2d 44 3 (1 98 9)

. Thu s, '[a]n of fic er's ev il in te nt io ns wil l

no t m ak e a Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n ou t of an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le us e of

fo rce; no r wil l an of

fic er's go od in te nt io ns m ak e an ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le us e of

fo rce co ns ti tu ti on al .' Id ."); se e al so Moo re v. Ci ty of

Des lo ge
, Mo. ,64 7 F.3 d 84 1, 84 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ("Th e rel ev an t qu es ti on is th e ob jecti ve (al be it fact -s pe ci fic ) qu es ti on

whe th er a re as on ab le off

ic er co ul d h av e b el ie ve d t he off ic er's warra nt le ss sea rch to

be la wfu l, in li gh t of cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w an d th e in fo rm at io n th e se arch in g

of fic ers po ss es se d." ) (q uo ta ti on , alt erat io ns , and cit at io n o m it te d)

.

-1 8-III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-