## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r22,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
SC O T T FI SH B E I N , byand thr ough hi s m ot herand nextfr i end, Shel l ey Fi s hbei n; A A R O N H U G H E S, byand t hr ough hi s fatherand nextfr i end, Cl i ff Hu g h e s ; S HE L L E Y F I S HB E I N; M AR K F I S HB E I N,

P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ees, v. CI TY O F G LEN W O O D SPRI N G S, CO L OR ADO; T E RR Y WI L S ON, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas G l enw ood Spr i ngs Pol i ce Ch i e f; BI L L KI M M I NAU, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas G l enw ood Spr i ngs Pol i ce L i e u t e n a n t ; C H R I S T O P H E R M. D A N I E L S O N ; N E I L W A G S T R O M, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas G l enw ood Spr i ngs Pol i ce Offi c e r ; AAR ON MUNCH,

D efen dan t s, and B R Y A N K E IT E R , ind iv id u a llya n d in hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas G l enw ood Sp r i n g s Po l i c e Off

i c e r ; M ATTH EW H A G B E R R Y , ind iv id u a llya n d in h is offi ci al capa ci t yas G l enw ood Spr i ngs P o li ce O fficer, N o. 05- 1013The Honorable Eug ene E . Siler, Senior Circuit Judg e, United States Court of * Appeals for the Six th Circuit, sitting bydesignation. -2- D efen dan t s - A pp el l ants . AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO ( D. C. NO. 0 3 - CV- 1 0 8 3 - J LK- GJ R) J. A nd rew N at han and B ernar d W oessner of N at han , B rem er, D um m & M y ers , P . C . , D env er, C olor ado , for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants C i tyof G l enw oo d S pri ng s, C ol or ado. T heo do re G . H ess of T he L aw F i rm of T ed H ess, P . C . , G l enw oo d S pri ng s, C o lo ra d o , fo r P la in tiffs -A p p e lle e s , S c o tt a n d S h e lle yF is h b e in . B efo re B RI S CO E , M c CO NNELL , and S I LER , C ir c u it J u d g e s . *
M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge. G l enw oo d S pri ng s, C olor ado , po l i ce offi cers cl ai m t heirw arr antl ess i nt rus i on i nt o t he home of M ark and Shel l eyFi s hbei n w as nece s s aryt o pr ot ect o ffice rs’ sa fe ty . M r. an d M rs. F ish b e in c laim th e se a rc h v io late d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. W h ile o ffice rs m a yn o t p e rfo rm so -c a lled p ro tec tiv e sw e e p s s im p ly as a m att er o f c o u rse, w e c o n clud e h ere that the d efen d an t po li ce o fficers re a so n a b lyb e liev e d th e yfa c e d a n im m in e n t th re a t to th e ir sa fe tysu fficie n t to j us t i fyt hei ri ncur s i on. W e REVERSE th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .-3- I . Backg r ound S h o rtlya f

ter n o o n o n A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , D r. M a rk a n d S h e lleyF ish b e in returned thei r s on S cott , 15 , and his fri end A aron H ug hes, 16 , t o the Fis hb ei ns’ hom e i n G l enw ood Spr i ngs , C ol or ado. T he fourof them had been outt hat m o rnin g fo r a v isi t t o a n ea rbysk ate p ark . H av ing d ep o sit ed the tee n ag ers, M ark and Shel l eyr etr i eved tw o pi s t ol s fr om t he hous e and s etoff a gai n forShel l ey F is h b e in ’s ta tto o s h o p in d o w n to w n G le n w o o d S p ri n g s . Som et i m e l at ert hataft ernoon, a 911 ca l l ert ol d the G l enw ood Spr i ngs Pol i ce D epart m enthe had be en thr eat ened w i th a w eapon bya coupl e pol i ce b eli ev ed m atch ed the d esc ri p ti o n o f D r. an d M rs. F ishb ein. F ive o fficers r es ponded t o t he s ubs equentdi s pat ch, i ncl udi ng D efe ndant s B ry an K ei t erand M at t hew H agberr y . O ffi cer s K ei t erand H agberryand a thi r d pol i ceman l ocat ed th e F ish b e in s o u tsid e th e ir re sid e n c e a t ju st a f ter 6 :0 0 p .m ., lo iterin g n e x t to th e ir c a r p a rk e d a c ro ss th e stre e t f ro m th e h o m e . N o n e o f th e th re e o ffice rs c o u ld d iscern w h ethe r eith er D r. o r M rs. F ishb ein w as a rm ed , tho u g h O fficer H ag b erry s aw D r . Fi s hbei n r epea t edl yadj us t i ng the w ai s tar ea of hi s t r ous er s , as i f t oy i ng w i t h a w eapon. N o offi cerat t empt ed t o m ake c ont actw i th the Fi s hbei ns , opt i ng in s te a d to w a it fo r b a c k u p . Two a d d i t i o n a l o ffi c e r s a r r i v e d t e n o rfi f t e e n mi n u t e s l a t e r , a tj u s tt h e t i me D r . and M r s . Fi s hbei n l eftt hei rcar , cr os s ed the s tr eet , and bega n t o w al k t ow ar ds the h o u se. T o p rev en t th e F ishb eins fro m en teri n g their ho m e, th e five o fficers-4-

appr oache d t he coupl e on foot , w eapons br andi s hed. Fourof the off i cer s carr i ed pi s t ol s , t he otheran A R - 15 as s aul tr i fl e. A s D r . and M r s . Fi s hbei n r eac hed the law n , the o ffice rs o rd e re d th e m to g e t d o w n o n th e g ro u n d . D r. F ish b e in i m m edi at el ycompl i ed, butM r s . Fi s hbei n hes i t at ed and then cont i nued t ow ar ds th e f ro n t d o o r. A f

ter re p e a ted o rd e rs f

ro m th e o ffice rs, M rs. F ish b e in e v e n tu a lly pos i t i oned her s el f fa ce dow n on the l aw n as di r ect ed, and s he and he rhus band w e re h a n d c u ffe d a n d p la c e d u n d e r a rr e s t. O ne of the off

i cer s as ked M r s . Fi s hbei n i f ther e w as any one pr es ent l yi n t he ho use. S he repl i ed, “M ychil dren are i n the hou se, do n’tgo i nsi de. ” A pp el l ants ’ A pp . at39 5. O ffi cer K ei t er knew i nd epen den t l ythat the F i shbeins had at l east one t eena ged s on. A nd O ffi cerH agberry , w ho had bee n t o the Fi s hbei n r es i dence six tee n m o n th s b e fo re a n d o b se rv e d th e re a siz a b le c a c h e o f w e a p o n s— m u lti p le r i fl es , an A K - 47, and tw o handguns

— knew the Fi s hbei ns keptfi r earm s i n the h o u s e a s we l l , o rh a d a to n e t i me . Offi c e r s Ke i t e ra n d Ha g b e rrye n t e r e d th e h o me t ogethert o conducta pr ot ect i ve s w eep. A s M r s . Fi s hbei n pr edi ct ed, theyfound S c o tt F is h b e in a n d A a ro n H u g h e s in s id e , a n d e s c o rt e d th e m to th e f ro n t la w n . T he off i cer s t hen r etur ned t o t he hous e and s ear ched r oom t o r oom , y el l i ng

“ c l e a r ” a s t h e ywe n t . Es t i ma t e s r e g a r d i n g h o w l o n g th e o ffi c e r s we r e i n th e h o me r ange f r om t hi r t ys econds t o s l i ght l yl es s than fi ve mi nut es . T he off i cer s di d not r emove anyi t ems fr om t he r es i dence .-5-

M ark, Shel l ey , and Scot tFi s hbei n, and A ar on H ughes and hi s father , C l i ff, b ro u g h t th is a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , cla im in g m u lti p le v io latio n s o f th e ir F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. T h e F ish b e in s’ in iti a l co m p lain t n a m e d a s d e fe n d a n ts s even offi cer s — t he fi ve w ho w er e pr es entatthe arr es tand tw o s upervi s i ng offi cer s — and the C i t yof G l enw ood Spr i ngs . Fol l ow i ng di s coveryand on the defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , the di s tr i ctcour tacc ept ed the r ecomm endat i on of the magi s t r at e j udge and di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s butthe al l eged uncons t i tut i onal entr yi nt o t he Fi s hbei ns ’ hom e. A s t o thatcl ai m , the di s tr i ct cour tr ej ect ed the defendantoffi cer s ’ as s er t i on of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyand or der ed the c ase to p roc ee d to tr ial . O fficers K eit er a n d H ag b erryfil ed an interl o cu tory a p p e a l f ro m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n fo r q u a lifie d im m u n ity. I I . Juri s di ct i on

“ O r der s deny i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni tybefor e tr i al ar e appe al abl e onl yt o t he ext entt heyr es ol ve abs t r acti s s ues of l aw . ” Sh ru m v . C ity o f C o w e ta , 449 F. 3d 1132, 1137 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng B ehr ens v. P el l et i er , 516 U . S. 299, 313, ( 1996) ) . A n i nt er l ocut or yappea l i s i m pr operw hen the ques t i on i s t he s uffi ci ency of the evi dence ort he corr ectnes s of the di s tr i ctcourt ' s fi ndi ngs w i th r es pectt o a g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l fa c t. Id
. ( ci t i ng Johns on v. Jones , 515 U . S. 304, 313 ( 1995) ) . N ei t herpart yt o t hi s cas e cha l l enges ourj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he in ter lo c u to ryo rd e r o f th e d istric t co u rt d e n y in g q u a lifie d im m u n ity , an d b o th par t i es agr ee ther e ar e no di s put ed i s s ues of m at er i al fac t . T he Fi s hbei ns admi t t ed-6-

al l m at er i al fac t s O ffi cer s K ei t erand H agberryr el i ed upon i n thei rm ot i on for su m m aryjud g m en t. A p p ell an ts’ A p p . at 25 7 -61 , 3 9 2 . T h e d istri ct co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t b a se d o n th e se u n d isp u ted fa c ts, v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o t he Fi s hbei ns , t he defendant s l acke d “r eas onabl e gr ounds t o bel i eve ther e w as an i m m edi at e nee d t o s ear ch the hous e. ” Id . at419. G i ven thi s j udgm ent , our j ur i s di ct i on i s pr operunder28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he R epor tand R ecomm endat i on fi l ed bythe magi s tr at e j udge cont ai ns la n g u a g e th a t m ig h t s u g g e s t d is p u te d q u e s tio n s o f m a te ri a l fa c t. See A p p ell an t’ s A pp. at396 ( “[Q ] ues t i ons of fa ctconce rni ng the r eas onabl enes s of the s ear ch of th e F ish b e in s’ h o m e a re th e e x c lu siv e p ro v in c e o f th e ju ry. . . . ” ); id . at403 ( “I f, how ever , t he j ur yw er e t o deci de thatthe off i cer s had no r eas onabl e conc ern for t hei rs afe t y. . . defe ndant s K ei t erand H agberryw oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yfort hei ract i ons . ”) . E l s ew her e, how ever , the magi s tr at e j udge dec l ar ed fl at l yt hat“ther e ar e no di s put ed mat er i al fac t s . ” Id. at392. T o the ext entthat t he magi s t r at e j udge bel i eved thatthe r eas onabl enes s of a s ear ch, bas ed on undi s put ed fa ct s , i s a ques t i on forthe j ur y , orthatthe ca s e hi nges on w hethert he o ffi c e r s , a s a s u bj e c t i v e ma t t e r , e n t e r t a i n e d r e a s o n a b l e c o n c e rn s fo rth e i ro wn s afe t y , t he magi s t r at e j udge w as m i s t aken. T he s ol e ques t i on forthi s C our ton a p p e a l is w h e th e r, b a se d o n u n d isp u ted fa c ts a n d d ra w in g a ll rea so n a b le in fe re n c e s in fa v o r o f th e p lain tiffs, th e o ffice rs h a d a n o bjec tiv e lyre a so n a b le b a sis fo r c o n d u c tin g a p ro tec tiv e sw e e p . If th e yd id n o t, th e ya re n o t en tit led to-7-

qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T hi s i s pur el ya ques t i on of l aw , overw hi ch thi s C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. I I I . D i s cus s i on O ffi cer s K ei t erand H agberrycont end theyar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed im m u n ityfo r th e ir so -c a lled p ro tec tiv e sw e e p , a c laim w h ich , if tru e , effe c tiv e ly for ces s um m aryj udgm enti n t hei rfavor . Q ual i fi ed i m m uni tyi s “an e nt i t l ement nott o s t and tr i al orfac e the otherbur dens of l i t i gat i on. ” Mitch e ll v. Fo rsy th , 472 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 2 6 (1 9 8 5 ). O n c e e x e c u tiv e -b ra n c h o ffice rs a ss e rt a q u a lifie d im m u n ity defe ns e, t he bur den s hi ft s t o t he pl ai nt i ffs t o demonstr at e thatt he off i cer s ( 1) v io late d a fe d e ra l rig h t (2 ) th a t w a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d a t th e tim e o f th e in c id e n t. G re e n e v . B a rr e tt , 174 F. 3d 1136, 1142 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . B eca us e w e conc l ude th e d e fe n d a n ts’ p ro tec tiv e sw e e p d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, w e h o ld th e p la in tiffs fa il th e irb u rd e n . W e begi n ouranal y s i s bydet erm i ni ng w hethert he off i cer s ’ pr ot ect i ve s w eep vi ol at ed the Fi s hbei ns ’ Four th A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om “unr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . ” U . S. C ons t . amend. I V . A pr ot ect i ve sw e e p is a c u rso ry , li m ited se a rc h o f a re sid e n c e o r o th e r p re m ise s fo r th e so le p u rp o s e o f

s e c u ri n g o ffic e rs ’ s a fe ty d u ri n g a n a rr e s t o r i n v e s tig a tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hauk , 412 F. 3d 1179, 1185–86 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he pr ot ect i ve- s w eep d o c trin e re p re se n ts a n e x c e p tio n to th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s w a rra n t re q u ire m e n t, t heo ret i cal l yakin t o the excep t i on for exigentci rcum st ances. Uni t ed Stat es v.S c o tt F ish b e in e stim a ted th a t th e o ffice rs’ sw e e p to o k n o lo n g e r th a n th irty 1 s econds . A ppel l ant s ’ A pp. at200. T he tw o es t i m at es ar e r econc i l abl e i f A ar on (continued...) -8- Wi cks , 995 F. 2d 964, 970 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) . Pol i ce a r e perm i t t ed t o s ear ch a pr emi s es w i t houtj udi ci al pr e- author i zat i on w hen theyr eas onabl ybel i eve, on t he b a sis o f a rticu lab le fa c ts, th a t th e yfa c e a n im m in e n t th re a t to th e ir p e rso n a l sa fe ty o r t h a t th e s a fe ty o f

th ir d p a rt ie s is im m in e n tly th re a te n e d . Ma ry la n dv . B u ie , 494 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 (1 9 9 0 ). F u rth e r, th e se a rc h m u st n o t b e m o tiv a ted b ya n in ten t to a rr e s t o r s e iz e e v id e n c e . Id
. at326 ( “Such a pr ot ect i ve s w eep i s nota ful l s ear ch of the pr emi s es , butm ayext end onl yt o a cur s or yi ns pect i on of s pace s w her e a p e rso n m a yb e fo u n d .”); s ee Roska v. P eters on , 3 2 8 F . 3 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 4 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t a s e a rc h m o tiv a ted b ye x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s is law f u l o n ly w h e n n o t m o tiv a te d b yin te n t to a rr e s t o r s e iz e e v id e n c e ). I n o u rc a s e , t h e s e c o n d o f th e s e fa c t o r s i s mo r e e a s i l ya d d r e s s e d a n d we d isp o se o f

it firs t. W h ile th e F ish b e in s m a in tain th a t th e re is “ c o n sid e ra b le doubt ” as t o w hethert he s w eep of thei rhom e w as narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o the pr es ervat i on of off

i cers afe t y , t her e i s i n fac tl i t t l e evi dence t o s ugges tthe offi cer s ’ s w eep w as m eantforanythi ng otherthan pol i ce pr ot ect i on. N ei ther Offi c e rKe i t e rn o rOffi c e rHa g b e rryr e mo v e d a n yi t e ms f r o m th e h o u s e . No p e rso n w ith in th e h o u se w a s a rre ste d . T h e F ish b e in s’ a rg u m e n t is b a se d e n tirely on Pl ai nt i ff A ar on H ughes ’ s es t i m at e thati tt ook the off i cer s “a l i t t l e l es s than fi ve m i nut es m aybe” t o compl et e thei r s w eep. A ppel l ant s ’ A pp. at 205. T he 1(...continued) 1 w as r efe r r i ng t o t he ent i r e t i m e the off i cer s w er e i nvol ved i n s w eepi ng the hous e, i ncl udi ng t hei ri ni t i al encount erw i th the t eena ger s and es cort i ng them out s i de, w hi l e Scot tw as r efe r r i ng t o t he s ubs equents w eep a ft erhe and A ar on had bee n tak e n o u tsid e . In terp re tin g th e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e p a rty o p p o sin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t, w e a ss u m e th a t A a ro n ’s e stim a te is c o rre c t. -9- Fi s hbei ns ur ge thi s C our tt o s ur m i s e thatthe off i cer s w er e gather i ng evi dence d u ri n g th is tim e , b e h a v io r o u ts id e th e b o u n d s o f a p ro te c tiv e s e a rc h . B u ie , 494 U . S . a t3 2 6 . S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n , h o w e v e r , w o u l d b e u n s u p p o r t e d s p e c u l a t i o n . We d o n o t th in k fiv e m in u tes is a se lf-e v id e n tlye x c e ss iv e tim e fo r p o lice to c o n d u c t a l i m i t ed pr ot ect i ve s w eep t o ens ur e thatther e ar e no arm ed and da nger ous per s ons lu rk in g o n th e p re m is e s . B ui e couns el s thatthe s w eep s houl d be “no l ongerthan i s nece s s aryt o di s pel t he r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of dange r . ” 494 U . S. at335- 36. B utgi ven the cl ut t er ed i nt er i orof the Fi s hbei n hom e, the t i m e s pentr emovi ng t he t w o t eena ger s , t he off i cer s ’ conce rns r egar di ng the ca che of w eapons , and the fa ct t hatO ffi cer s K ei t erand H agberr ynei therr emoved evi dence fr om the hous e nor m ade a r r es t s w hi l e i ns i de, w e have l i t t l e tr oubl e i n concl udi ng thatthei rs w eep w a s le g itim a te ly ai m e d a t s e c u ri n g o ffic e rs ’ s a fe ty. T he maj orfocus of ouri nqui ryi s the r eas onabl enes s of the off i cer s ’ bel i ef t heyw er e i n i m m i nentdanger . Pr ot ect i ve s w eeps ar e notj us t i fi ed as a mat t erof c o u rs e . Uni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 3 6 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 2 -4 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); acco rd Hauk , 412 F. 3d at1186. O ffi cer s m us tart i cul at e s peci fi c fa ct s , “w hi ch, t aken to g e th e r w ith th e ra tio n a l in fe re n c e s f ro m th o se fa c ts, w o u ld w a rra n t a r e a so n a b ly-10-

prudentoffi ceri n bel i evi ng t hatthe ar ea t o be s w eptharbor s an i ndi vi dual pos i ng a dange rt o t hos e on the arr es ts cene . ” B u ie , 4 9 4 U .S . a t 3 3 4 . In th e in sta n t ca se , O ffice rs K e iter a n d H a g b e rrya rticu late tw o sp e c ific fac t s w hi ch theycont end j us t i fythei rbel i ef thatthe Fi s hbei n hom e harbor ed an i ndi vi dual danger ous t o pol i ce s afe ty : O ffi cer s knew thatthe Fi s hbei ns had at l eas tone t eena ged s on and thatfi r earm s had r ece nt l ybeen pr es enti ns i de the hom e. W e agr ee thata prudentoffi cerm i ghtr eas onabl yi nferfr om thi s know l edge t hat a t eenag er coul d b e l ocated i nsi de the ho m e, cou l d b e arm ed, and hav i ng j ust o b s e rv e d h is p a re n ts ’ a rr e s t, c o u ld b e h o s tile to th e a rr e s tin g o ffic e rs . T hi s r es ul tacc or ds w i t h ourpr ece dent s , w hi ch r ecogni ze thatunacc ount edfort hi r d par t i es w i t h acc es s t o fi r earm s m aypr es enta gr ave da ngert o arr es t i ng offi cer s . I n Un itedS ta tes v . So ria , 9 5 9 F .2 d 8 5 5 , 8 5 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ), w e h e ld t hata pr ot ect i ve s w eep of t he defendant ’ s aut o s hop w as pr operfol l ow i ng the d efen d an t’ s arrest d u ri n g a d rug tr an sac ti o n clos e to th e sh o p w h ere o fficers bel i eved a ccompl i ces m ayhave be en hi di ng. I n United S tates v. Mab ry , 809 F. 2d 671, 679 ( 10t h C i r . 1987) , w e found no c ons t i tut i onal pr obl em w i th a pr ot ect i ve s w eep of

a s us pect ed drug deal er ’ s hom e, part l yon the bas i s t hathos t i l e part i es m i ghthave be en i ns i de. M or e r ece nt l y , w e uphel d FB I agent s ’ pr ot ect i ve s ear ch i n Hauk , w h e n a g e n ts p o in ted to e v id e n c e su g g e stin g th e p re se n c e o f a th ird p a rty i n t he r es i dence w ho m i ghthave ha d r eas on t o as s i s tt he defendanti n r es i s t i ng a rr e s t. 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 1 .-11-

I n t he for egoi ng cas es , pol i ce r el i ed on var i ous bi t s of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o i nform t hei rj udgm entthata hos t i l e thi r d par tym i ghtbe pr es ent . T he l aw enfor cementagent s i n Hauk , fori ns t ance , i nferr ed fr om the pr es ence of a parked ca ri n t he defendant ’ s dr i vew aythata hos t i l e thi r d- partym i ghtbe i ns i de th e re s id e n c e . Id
. a t 1 1 9 2 . In th e c a se a t b a r, th e e v id e n c e su g g e stin g d a n g e r is m u ch str o n g er. M rs. F ishb ein flat lytold O fficers K eit er a n d H ag b errythat there w ere “chi l dren” p res ent i n the hom e, and atl easton e of the offi cers kn ew M rs . Fi s hbei n’ s “chi l dr en” i ncl uded a t eena ged mal e. A dm i t t edl y , as the pl ai nt i ffs poi ntout , w e have hel d t hatt he mer e pr es ence of chi l dr en i n the home i s not s u ffic ie n t, w ith o u t m o re , to ju s tif ya p ro te c tiv e s w e e p . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hogan , 38 F. 3d 1148, 1150 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . B utthe chi l d ati s s ue i n Hogan w a s n o t a t eena gerand pol i ce i n t hatcas e neve ral l eged the chi l d pos ed a thr eatt o offi cer s a fe t y. R a th e r, p o lice a p p a re n tlyc laim e d th e yn e e d e d to se a rc h th e h o u se in o rd e r t o p ro te c t th e c h ild . Id
. T he s i tuat i on her e i s al t ogetherdi ffe r ent , m or e ana l ogous t o cas es w her e an a c c o m p lice is lu rk in g o n th e p re m ise s. S c o tt F ish b e in w a s c e rta in lyo ld e n o u g h to know how t o fi r e a w eapon a nd offi cer s knew fr om pr evi ous per s onal obs ervat i on th a t w e a p o n s h a d b e e n a v a ilab le in th e F ish b e in h o u se h o ld . M rs. F ish b e in a ffirm a tiv e lyto ld o ffice rs h e r “ c h ild re n ” w e re in sid e . It i s e m in e n tlyre a so n a b le to in fe r f

ro m th e se sp e c ific a n d a rticu lab le fa c ts th a t S c o tt F ish b e in w a s lik e ly pr es enti n t he home att he t i m e of the i nci dent , thathe had a cce s s t o fi r earm s , and-12-

that h e h ad rea so n to b e u p set o r alarm ed o r oth erw ise h o sti le t o o fficers fo llo w in g h is p a re n ts ’ d ra m a tic a rr e s t o n th e f ro n t la w n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi ls on , 306 F. 3d 231, 238- 39 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng a pr ot ect i ve s w eep j us t i fi ed bas ed on the pr es ence of a c hi l d i n the home w i th acc es s t o fi r earm s and p o te n tia lly h o s tile to p o lic e a f te r t h e a rr e s t o f

h is p a re n ts ), over r ul ed on other g ro u n ds by Un itedS ta tes v . G o u ld , 3 6 4 F .3 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he pl ai nt i ffs r el yheavi l yon ourdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. C ar t erto ar gue thatbeca us e the G l enw ood Spr i ngs offi cer s had no ce r t ai n know l edge that S c o tt F ish b e in w a s p re se n t in th e h o u se , the ir sw e e p v io late d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. C ar t er , how ever , does notcompel thatconcl us i on. I n C ar t er , we r efus ed t o count enanc e a pr ot ect i ve s w eep w her e off i cer s had no r eas on t o bel i eve t her e w as anyhos t i l e per s on— oranyper s on atal l

— i ns i de the hous e. 360 F. 3d at 1 2 4 2 . O ffice rs K e iter a n d H a g b e rry , b yc o n tra st, h a d v e ryg o o d re a so n s to suspectt he p res ence o f a ho st i l e t hir d p arty , no tthe leas tof w hich w as M rs . Fi s hbei n’ s aff

i r m at i ve s t at ementthatherchi l dr en w er e i ndeed i ns i de. I n keepi ng w i t h B u ie , C ar t erre q u ire s o ffice rs to h a v e so m e a rticu lab le b a sis fo r th e ir s u s p ic io n o f

d a n g e r— n o t c e rt a in k n o w le d g e . Id
. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t p o lice o ffice rs h a d re a so n a b le g ro u n d s to b eli ev e the re w as a n im m ed iat e thre at t o their safety . A n d w e c o n clud e the yw ere n o t m o tiv a te d b ya n in te n t to a rr e s t o r s e iz e e v id e n c e . Hogan , 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 0 . T h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n s i d e r e d i n th e i rt o t a l i ty w e r e s u ffi c i e n tt o j u s t i f y a-13-

pr ot ect i ve s w eep of

t he Fi s hbei ns ’ hom e and a ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no vi ol at i on of th e F is h b e in s ’ o r t h e H u g h e s e s ’ F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . Hauk , 412 F. 3d at 1187. I f ther e has been no vi ol at i on of a feder al r i ght , the pl ai nt i ffs cannotdefe at t he defendantoffi cer s ’ as s ert i on of qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . T he pl ai nt i ffs fai l atthe fir s t s te p . G r eene , 1 7 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 2 . W e fin d n o n e e d to p ro c e e d f u rt h e r. O fficers K eit er a n d H ag b erryare en ti tl ed to q u ali fied im m u n ityan d to su m m ary ju d g m e n t in th e irfa v o r. I V . C oncl usi on W e REVERSE t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyand R E M A N D w i th i ns t ruct i ons t o ent ers um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the d e fe n d a n ts .