NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 13 a03 69n. 06
No. 09 -171 4
UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

KIRK ALFORD, SR., and KIRK PAT RICK ALFORD, I I,
Plaint if f s-Appe llants,

v

. DE T

. JAMES VERNIER, OFF I CE R JOSEP H MEIER, W ALT ER DU NCAN, ERIK DOLAN, JASON GINOPO LIS

. RY AN BOL T ON, AND OFF I CER JOHN DOE, in the ir individual a n d of f icial capa cities,
Def end ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FRO M T HE UNITE D ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE EAS T ERN DIST RICT OF MICHIGAN

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, CLAY, and W HIT E, Circuit Ju dges.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTRE Y, Circuit Judge. In this civ il rig hts action , f iled und er
42 U.S.C. § 198 3, the district court gr ant ed sum ma ry judgme nt to the def end ant s, w ho are

v arious of

f icers of the Oak Park (Michig an) Depa rtme nt of Pub lic Saf ety, af ter f inding tha t
the y w ere ent itled to qualif ied imm unity f rom liability f or const itution al v iolation s alleged by
the plaint if

f s, f ath er and son Kirk Alf ord, Sr. (Alf ord Sen ior), and Kirk P a t ri c k A lf ord, II (Alf ord). T he plaint if

f s a ppe al, claimin g tha t the district court erred in dism issing the ir
claims of illegal search and seizure and use of excessiv e f orce u n d e r the Fourth
Am end me nt, and v arious dep riv ation s of equal prote ction und er the F o u rt e ent hNo. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
Am end me nt, includin g discrimina tion and hara ssme nt. W e agree w ith the district court’s
det ermin ation tha t the re w ere no const itution al v iolation s com mitt ed by the def end ant s in
this case and af

f irm the gr ant of sum ma ry judgme nt, altho ugh f or slig htly dif f eren t reaso ns
tha n th ose giv en by the d istrict judge.

FA CTUA L A ND PROCEDURA L BA CKGROUND
T he und ispute d evidence tha t the district court gleaned f rom dep osition s take n prior
to the s u m m a ry dispo sition indicat ed tha t the enco unt er bet w een the def end ant of f icers

a n d Alf ord arose as the result of a call to the Oak Park police f rom Blake Aver y. A ve ry
repo rted tha t he had seen a burn t-orange Cadillac pull into the driv eway of a residen ce

across the s t re e t a t 129 41 Northf ield and its driv er, an Af rican-Am erican ma n, ent er the
hou se f rom the rear. Avery , him self Af rican-Am erican, later explained to police tha t he
mista kenly tho ught a Cauca sian f am ily liv ed at tha t residen ce and called 911 beca use he
f eare d th at a bu rg lary

w as ta king place.
T he Oak Park police issued a general dispa tch f or a possib le hom e invasion in
progress at 129 41 Northf ield. T he f irst o f f icer on the scene , Josep h Meier, f oun d the Cadillac parked i n the driv eway , as describe d, and the back door of the house ope n. H e
later co nced ed tha t th ere was no sign o f a f orced ent ry

. Meier neverthe less ent ered the
hou se and alm ost imm edia tely e ncou nte red Alf ord com ing u psta irs f rom the base me nt.
Accordin g to Alf ord, Of f icer Meier “pulled [him ] ou t of the hou se” at gunpo int, pat ted him
down f o r we a p o ns, and “told [him ] to get on the gr oun d” or “put him to the gr oun d” on a

nea rbypatio. Meier told Alf ord t hat po lice ha d rece iv ed a rep ort of a brea k-in and asked

- 2 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
him w hat he w as doin g in the hou se. Alf ord respo nde d tha t he liv ed the re, but w hen Meier
checke d Alf ord’s iden tif ication , the driv er’s license listed a dif f eren t residen tial add ress. (In
f act, the hou se w as Alf ord Sen ior’s residen ce. Alf ord had recen tly mo v ed o u t o f his
f ath er’s hou se but had com e by to check f or any ma il tha t w as still bein g delivered the re.)
W hen Meier poin ted out the discrepa ncy, Alf ord suggested tha t Meier telep hon e Alf ord
Sen ior to v erif

y tha t he w as legally on the prem ises, w hich Meier did. Assured tha t Alf ord

w as not , in f act, a burglar, Meier let him get up f rom the gr oun d but told him tha t he could
not go bac k in t o t h e h o u se unt il the oth er of f icers w ho had arriv ed on the scene w ere
out side. Al f o rd later testif ied in a dep osition tha t he could not recall how ma ny of f icers

cam e to the residen ce or how long the y w ere the re

. He said tha t he asked f or bad ge

num bers but w as giv e n only the num ber of the police inciden t repo rt, w hich he did not request or inspe ct. In f act, individually -f iled police repo rts ref lected tha t the of f icers arriv ed
at Alf ord Sen ior’s residen ce, “c le a re d the scene ,” and lef t in less tha n 20 min ute s. T he
repo rts also indicat ed “use of f orce” by the of f icers only to the extent tha t the y had drawn
the ir w eap ons w hen the y f irst arriv ed at t he residen ce.
In the subse quent com plaint f iled in this case, the plaint if f s alleged tha t unsp ecif ied
def end ant s “barged into the hom e” w ithou t “knock[in g] or ann oun c[ing] the ir prese nce [or]
indicat [ing] tha t the y w ere the re pursu ant to a search w arrant”; “point ed guns at [Alf ord’s]
hea d and y elled to him and orde red him to com e out side of the hou se”; “contin ued to hold
him at gunpo int and bega n t o in terrogate him ”; and “w ent inside of the hom e w ithou t
perm ission nor a search w arrant and cond ucte d a search [of the prem is e s ] .” T he

- 3 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
gr avame n o f t h e com plaint w as tha t “at no time did the individual def end ant s have prob able cause ent er [ sic ] the prem ises, orde r [Alf ord] out of the ho use at gunpo int, and
to cond uct a search of

the premises, ” espe cially in light of

the fact that Alf ord Senio r had

a v alid perm it f or a security alarm sy stem tha t had not bee n “activ ate d to alert of f icers tha t

an invasion ha d o ccurred.”
T he com plaint alleged tha t the def end ant s’ action s cause d the plaint if f s unsp ecif ied
“sev ere in ju ri e s and dam ages,” bot h com pen sato ry and pun itiv e, in the am oun t of $15 0,0 00. How ever, the claim of excessiv e f orce in t h e c o m p laint w as limited to the allegation tha t the def end ant s had used “unn ecessa ry and obje ctiv ely u n reaso nab le physical f orce

. . . [by] f orcing [Alf ord] out of his house at gunpo int.” In a later dep osition , Alf ord describe d b e in g t aken out of the hou se “by the shou lder” and told to get down on
the ground . A sked w het her the of f icer had otherw ise touche d him in any ma nne r, Alf ord replied , “Just pat ting me down, to ma ke sure I didn ’t have any w eap ons on me .” Asked

w het her the of

f icers had hit or kicked him , “or anything like tha t,” Alf ord respo nde d tha t the y
had no t. He also testif ied t hat he ha d n ot b een ha ndcu f f ed w hile o n th e groun d. Despite Alf ord’s dep osition testim ony tha t the of f icers’ physical cont act w ith him had
b e e n li m ited to a pat -down af ter bein g “g rabb ed by the collar” and remo v ed f rom the
h o u s e , the plaint if

f s f iled a respo nse to the mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt in w hich th e y alleged tha t Alf ord had bee n “f orcef ully thrown to the gr oun d and han dcuf f ed, ” in obvious
cont radiction to the sw orn dep osition testim ony tha t Alf ord had giv en six mo nth s earlier.
Som e tw o w eeks af

ter the respo nse to the mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt w as f iled, Alf ord

- 4 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
executed an af

f idavit in w hich he sw ore tha t he had bee n “thrown to the gr oun d” by Of f icer
Meier. In the respo nse, the plaint if f s also alleged tha t Alf ord Sen ior returne d to his hou se
and “w as shocke d beyond belief w hen he saw tha t his hou se had bee n ransh acked [ sic ].”
A lt h o u gh t h e com plaint ma de no me ntion of an inten siv e search of the hom e by poli c e during the short time tha t the y we re o n t h e s c e ne, or state a claim f or illegal se arch and seizure, the plaint if

f s allege d

– in re spon se to the mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt f iled
alm ost tw o y ears af

ter the f act – tha t closets, drawers, and tab les had bee n disturb ed and
tha t som eon e had gone throu gh Alf ord Sen ior’s “person al pap ers.” Moreover, desp ite the
abse nce of a t h e f t re p o rt in the record, the plaint if f s claime d f or the f irst time in the ir
respo nse tha t “some cash w as missing f rom [Alf ord Sen ior’s] bed room , alon g w ith a gold

ma son ring.”
T he district court gr ant ed the def end ant s’ mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, f inding tha t exig ent circumsta nces justif ied Meier’s origi nal ent ry into the hou se and tha t a claim of an illegal search and seizure of Alf ord Sen ior’s missing prop erty could not be susta ined in the
abse nce of any inf orma tion conce rning the iden tity of the of f icers w ho allegedly ransa cked
the Alf ord residen ce. In add ition, the district court held tha t “the police of f icer def end ant s
did n ot u se co nstitu tiona lly imp ermissible f orce in seizing [Alf ord], ” reason ing that :
T he crime at issue, a possib le hom e invasion, w as a serious one tha t had the pot ent ial f or dan ger to the of f icer and to oth ers. W hile the re is no evidence tha t [Alf ord] w as in any w ay unco ope rativ e, and it is possib le tha t the of f icer’s saf ety could have bee n ensu red w ith less intrusive cond uct, the Court cann ot f ind tha t the def end ant s’ cond uct w as a n o bjectively unre ason able use of f orce u nde r the circumst ance s. * * * * *

- 5 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
T here w as no Fourth Am end me nt v iolation beca use Meier had reaso nab ly believed tha t [Alf ord] could be a burglar, a nd his push ing of [Alf ord] to the gr oun d and requ ir in g th at he rema in the re w hile his iden tity was co nf irmed w as a ppro priate giv en the circumst ance s.
T he district court also f oun d tha t the plaint if f s had the burd en “to d e m onst rate tha t the
of f icers [w e]re not ent itled to qualif ied imm unity,” but tha t the y “ha[d ] not directe d the Court
to any case tha t clearly shows tha t Of f icer Meier’s con duct clearly v iolate d [Alf ord’s]
const itution al rig hts,” conclu ding, the ref ore, tha t Meier w as ent itled to qualif ied imm unity.
T he plaint if

f s now app eal the district court’s gr ant of sum ma ry judgme nt, arguing (1)
tha t the di s t ri c t c o u rt erred by decid ing dispu ted question s of ma terial f act instea d of

v iew ing t he evidence in the lig ht mo st f avorable to t h e p la intif f s; (2) tha t the use of f orce against Alf ord w as obje ctiv ely unre ason able , in v iolation of his Fourth Am end me nt rig hts; (3) tha t the of

f icers could not claim qualif ied imm unity in regard to the use of f orce against
Al for d be c ause the ir cond uct v iolate d clearly esta blished rig hts of w hich reaso nab le of f ic er s
shou ld have known; and (4) tha t the search and seizure o f it e m s f rom Alf ord Sen ior’s
residen ce w as c o ndu cted w ithou t prob able cause and the ref ore v iolate d the Fourth
Am end me nt.
A NA LYSIS
W e rev iew

a district court’s gr ant of sum ma ry j udgm ent de novo

. W uliger v. Mfrs.
Life Ins. Co. , 567 F.3d 787 , 79 2 (6 t h Ci r. 200 9). Unde r Fede ral Rule of Civ il Proced ure 56(a ), sum ma ry ju d gmen t is app ropriate “if the mo v ant shows tha t the re is no genuine dispu te as to any ma terial f act and the mo v ant is ent itled to judgme nt as a ma tter of law .”
In det ermin ing w het her a genuine dispu te of ma terial f act exists, w e, like the district court,
- 6 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.

m u s t v iew the evidence in the lig ht mo st f avorable to the non -moving party – here , t h e plaint if f s. S e e 6 0 I v

y St. Corp. v. Alexa nde r , 822 F.2d 143 2, 143 5 (6th Cir. 198 7). T he question of w het her a def end ant is ent itled t o qu a li f ied imm unity f rom liability und er 42
U. S

. C. § 198 3 also is a legal question tha t w e rev iew de novo

. Moldow an v. City o f
W arren , 57 8 F.3 d 3 51, 37 4 (6t h Cir. 20 09).
W e reject the plaint if

f s’ claim tha t the district court’s gr ant of sum ma ry judgme nt w as
proce dura lly def icient. T heir brief on app eal f ails to specif y w hat dispu ted issues the
district court imp rope rly det ermin ed or w hat evidence the cou rt f ailed to f ind in the lig ht

mo st f avorable to the m. Hence , und er Fede ral Rule of Civ il Proced ure 56(c)(1)(A), the f irst
issue raised on app eal is unre v iew able

. Moreover, the only “e v iden ce” tha t might

conce iv ably be take n to show excessiv e f orce w as not , in f act, e vid e n c e at all. It w as,
instea d, an oth e rwi s e u nsup porte d state me nt in a respo nse to the mo tion f or sum ma ry ju dgme nt tha t alleged f or the f irst time tha t Alf ord had bee n “han dcuf f ed” and “brut a ll y
f orced to the gr oun d w ith his han ds beh ind his back. ” But the com plaint cont aine d no such allegation , and in his dep osition , Alf ord den ied tha t he had bee n han dcuf f ed or tou ched in
any w ay, b eyon d b eing pat ted down f or a w eap on. In a later af f idavit, he did allege tha t
he w as “f orcef ully shoved to the gr oun d.” But , it is w ell-estab lished tha t “[a] party ma y not
create a f actu al issue by f iling an af f idavit, af ter a mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt has bee n

ma de, w hich co ntrad icts [his] earlier depo sition testim ony.” Reid v. Sea rs, Roeb uck a nd
Co. , 79 0 F.2 d 4 53, 46 0 (6t h Cir. 19 86).

- 7 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
T he district co u rt d id f ind, as f act, tha t Alf ord w as “push ed” to the gr oun d, but the
court also conclu ded , as a ma tter o f la w, t h a t the of f icer’s cond uct did not const itute
excessiv e f orce and , the ref ore, did not v iolate the Fourth Am end me nt. Beca use the re w as

no const itution al v iolation , the court did not err in gr ant ing sum ma ry judgme nt to t he
def end ant s on Alf ord’s claim of excessiv e f orce and did not nee d to reach the question of qualif ied im mu nity.
As to Alf ord Sen ior’s claim tha t his rig hts w ere v iolate d by the w arrantle ss ent ry into
his hom e and the ensu ing se arch of the residen ce and seizur e o f h is perso nal prop erty,

w e agree w ith the district judge, f irst, tha t the re w ere exig ent circumsta nces to excuse the
initial ent ry w ithou t a w arrant and , secon d, tha t altho ugh the scope of the search w as arguably excessiv e, the p la in t if f s ’ f ailure to tie the illegality to any particu lar def end ant prevente d recovery

. Altho ugh the re app ears to be no dispu te tha t num erou s law
enf orcem ent of

f icers ent ered the Alf ord residen ce, discovery cond ucte d by the p la in t if f s
f ailed to y ield any inf orma tio n supp orting the ir bald assertio n tha t perso nal prop erty had
bee n seized. In the abse nce of any evidence cont radicting the def end ant s’ sw orn af f idavits
and dep osition testim ony tha t no prop erty of the Alf ords w as remo v ed f rom the hom e, and
abse nt any iden tif ication of an individual even arguably respo nsible f or such an action , w e

nece ssarily agree w ith the ruling of the district court tha t the plaint if f s have f ailed to add uce
the evidence ne cessary to d ef eat the de f end ant s’ sum ma ry judgm ent m otion

. CONCLUSION
For the reaso ns se t ou t ab ove, w e A FFIRM the judgme nt o f the district co urt.

- 8 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
HELENE N. W HITE, Circ uit Judge , con curring in part and dissen ting in pa rt.
I respe ctf ully dissen t regarding the claim tha t Def end ant s v iolate d the F o urth
Am end me nt b y

the ir w arrantle ss en try an d se arch o f

the Alf ord h om e.
Meier ent ered 129 41 Northf ield w ithou t a w arrant and enco unt ered Alf ord II inside
the ba c k d o o r. Sub sequen tly , oth er of f icers ent ered the hou se and cond ucte d a search

o f the prem ises, also w ithou t a w arrant. T he district court held tha t this search , th o u gh

w arrantle ss, was ju stif ied by th e exig ency exception to t he Fourth Am end me nt’s warrant requireme nt.
In mo st circumsta nces, the Fourth Am end me nt proh ibits w arrantle ss ent ry of police
into a perso n’s hom e. Kyllo v. United Sta tes , 533 U.S. 27, 31 (200 1); Illinois v. Rodrigu ez , 497 U.S. 177 , 181 (199 0). “W arrantle ss ent ries are perm itted , howeve r, wh e re ‘exi gent
circumsta nces’ exist.” Ew olski v. City of Brunsw ick , 287 F.3d 492 , 501 (6 th Cir. 200 2).
“Ex igent circumsta nces exist w here the re are ‘real imm edia te and serious conse quence s
tha t w ould certain ly occur w ere a police of f icer to ‘postp one [ ] action to get a w arrant. ’” Id. (q uot ing O’

Brien v. City of Grand Rapids , 23 F.3d 990 , 9 9 7 (6th Cir. 199 4) (alteratio n in origi nal) (some inter n a l qu ota tion ma rks om itted )). “Th e relevant inquiry is w het her the
f acts are such tha t a n obje ctiv ely reaso nab le of f icer conf ronte d w ith the sam e
circumsta nces could reaso nab ly believe tha t exig ent circumsta nces existed

. ” Id. Unde r
the exig ency exception , “police ma y ‘ente r a residen ce w ithou t a w arrant if the re is prob able cause to believe tha t the re is a burglary in progress.’” United Sta tes v. McClain , 444 F.3d 556 , 562 (6th Cir. 200 5) (q uot ing United Sta tes v. Reed , 141 F.3d 644 , 649 (6th

- 9 -No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
Cir. 199 8)). Altho ugh bot h prob able cause and exig ency are nee ded und er this rule, “w hen
the police have prob able cause to b e li e ve t h a t a burglary is in progress, the y are also
conf ronte d w ith the nece ssar y e xig e n c y, tha t is, the nee d ‘to ensu re the prote ction of
every one on the scene and to prevent the loss or dest ruction of the owner's prop erty.’” Id. (q uot ing United

Sta tes v. Joh nson , 9 F.3d 506, 510 ( 6th C ir. 199 3)). “Th e e stab lishme nt
of prob able cause requires only a prob ability or subst ant ial chan ce of criminal activity , not

an actu al sho w ing of

such activity .” John son , 9 F.3d at 509

. T he district court held tha t the initial ent ry into the A lf o rd hom e w as justif ied by exig ent circumst ance s be cause
def end ant s w ere respo ndin g to a 911 re port of a possib le hom e invasion. T he perso n calling the tip state d tha t he w as a neigh b o r o f Alf ord Sr. and gav e his nam e and add ress, and the basis f or his belief tha t the Alf ord hom e w as bein g invaded, w hich gav e the of f icers prob able cause to ent er the hom e. T he f act t h a t the neighbo r w as incorrect, tha t the Alf ord hom e w as not bein g invaded, tha t Alf ord II w as legitimate ly the re, and tha t the neighbo r tho ugh t tha t the residen ts of the hou se w ere w hite, doe s not ma ke the of f icer’s cond uct in en tering the ho me un reaso nab le.
Alford , 200 9 W L 129 956 8, at *10

. I disagree, and w ould f ind tha t the of f icers did not have prob able cau se to en ter Alf ord S r.’s hom e.
In United Sta tes v. McClain , 44 4 F.3 d 5 56 (6th Cir. 200 5), th is court held tha t

a neighbo r’s pho ne call indicat ing tha t t h e o wn e rs had mo v ed out of the h o u s e

. . . several w eeks earlier and tha t the re w as a lig ht on in the hou se tha t had not bee n on bef ore, even coup led with the of f icers’ discovery of a slig htly ajar f ront doo r, doe s not prese nt the type of obje ctiv e f acts nece ssary to esta blish prob able cause tha t a burglary w as in prog re s s at the hou se. Unde r similar circumsta nces, our prece den t has required mo re-nam ely, the e xistence out side the search ed prem ises of som e physical signs o f a burglary or so me direct evidence of a h om e invasion.

- 10

-No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
Id. at 563

. In John son , by cont rast, a neighbo r called to repo rt a burglary in progress and “reporte d seein g individuals craw l throu gh the w indo w

. 9 F.3d at 507

. W hen the of f icers
arrive d a t t h e residen ce, the y discovered tha t the doo rs w ere locked and tha t a kitchen

w indo w had a broke n pan e.” Id. T he of f icers saw individuals inside the hom e throu gh the
broke n w indo w and , af

ter spea king to the m, det ermin ed tha t the ir explanat ions of w hy the y

we re in t h e hou se w ere not credible

. Id. at 507 , 509 -10. T hese f acts, in com bina tion,
create d prob able cause to believe a burglary w as in progress, and thu s exig ency to ent er
the ho use. Id. at 5 09-1 0. Here, as i n John son , police r eceived a credible pho ne tip fro m a neighbor abou t a burglary in progress: the neighbo r state d tha t he saw som eon e ent er the back gate of the
hou se w ho he did not think w as a re s id ent and provided a physical descript ion of tha t
perso n. How ever, as in McClain , po lice en coun tered no signs of f orced entry

w hen the y
arriv ed at the hou se, nor did the y see anyone inside the hou se unt il Of f icer Meier ent ered
throu gh the back doo r. T he pho ne call d id p ro vid e som e “direct evidence of a hom e invasion,” McClain , 44 4 F.3 d a t 56 3, b ut n ot a s m uch as in John son

. 1
Proba ble cause is def ined as “reason able gr oun ds f or belief , supp orted by less tha n prima f acie proo f but mo re tha n me re suspicion ,” and “p olice mu st have an obje ctiv ely

reaso nab le basis f or the ir belief th a t a c ri m e is bein g com mitt ed. ” McClain , 444 F.3d at

The 911 caller , Aver

y , appar ently based his suspicion that a burg lary was in prog ress on his 1 mistaken belief that the residents of 12941 Northfield wer e Whit e. There is no evidenc e, howeve r, that the responding office rs knew of Aver y ’s basis for making the call until after they arr ived at and
sear ched the house. F urther, the rac e of the person ha rdly seems re levant.
- 11

-No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
562 –63 (citation s and intern al quotat ion ma rks o m it t ed). T hat stan dard is not satisf ied
here

. T he pho ne call tip, w hich include d inf orma tion abo ut the iden tity of the caller and the
basis of his belief tha t a burglary w as in progr ess, did cont ain som e indicia of reliability in
supp ort of prob able cause

. Cf. Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 226 , 270 , 273 –74 (200 0) (requir ing
tha t ano nymou s tips mu st provide indicia of reliability in o rd er to provide reaso nab le suspicion f or a Terry stop and f risk). But see Thacke r v. City of Colum bus , 328 F.3d 244 , 254 (6th Cir. 200 3) (declining to f ind tha t “a 911 call alon e ma y justif y a w arrantle ss ent ry
into a priv ate hom e” und er the exig ency exception f or prote cting the police or oth ers f rom

a risk of dan ger). On the oth er h a n d , t h e la c k o f evidence of f orced ent ry , such as a
broke n w indo w or a splinte red doo r jam b, w eighs against f inding prob able cause , altho ugh
it is not det ermin ative. See United Sta tes v. Brow n , 449 F.3d 741 , 748 –49 (6th Cir. 200 6) (“[I]t is the tota lity of the circumsta nces and not the prese nce of pry m arks or a broke n

w indo w tha t is det ermin ative” in “estab lish[ing] prob able cause to believe a burglary [is] in progress.”) In Brow

n , an of f icer (Edm ond s)

respo nde d to a burglar alarm t h a t h e knew had bee n trig gered tw ice in a relatively short period of time and arriv ed w ithin just a f ew min ute s of the f irst activation. He w as not me t by a re siden t of

the ho use, bu t by the ne ighbor w ho directe d him to the base me nt doo r. T h e s o und ing alarm , the lack of respo nse f ro m t h e hou se, and the abse nce of a car in the driv eway , ma de it less likely tha t this w as an accide n t al activation. Investigating, Edm ond s f oun d the f ront doo r secur e d b u t the base me nt doo r in the back stan ding ajar. W hile Edm ond s did not f ind a broke n w indo w or pry ma rks on the ope n doo r, it w as obje ctiv ely reaso nab le f or him to believe tha t this w as not a f alse alarm but , rathe r, t h a t the sy stem had recen tly bee n trig gered by una uth oriz ed ent ry throu gh the ope n base me nt doo r. T hese circumsta nces, includin g the recen tly activated base me nt doo r alarm and evidence of a possib le h om e invasion throu gh tha t sam e doo r, esta blish prob able cause

- 12

-No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
to believe a burglary w as in progress and justif ied the w arrantle ss ent ry into the ba sem ent

. Id. at 748 -49. In the instan t case, Meier respo nde d to a credible 911 call and , on arriv ing
at the ho use, ob serv ed tha t th e b ack d oor was op en (like in Brow n ), bu t th e screen doo r

w as closed

. How ever, the 911 c a ll, alon e, w as insuf f icient to create prob able cause

. Police had not received inf orma tion tha t the security alarm at the hou se had bee n trig gered
and could see no signs of f orced ent ry

. Furthe r, w hile the 911 caller state d a basis f or his
belief tha t a b u rg lary w as in progress–th at he had seen a ma n w alk toward the back
ent rance of the house, w hich w as hidde n fro m his v iew by a f ence –th at basis w as not as

com pelling or subst a n t ive a s t he basis in John son , w here the caller repo rted seein g
individuals craw l throu gh the w indo w

. 9 F.3d at 507

. Altho ugh the 911 call here likely did
create reaso nab le suspicion tha t a crime w as in prog r es s, not hing tha t of f icers enco unt ered

o u t s id e 129 41 Northf ield provided inf orma tion allowi ng tha t suspicion to ripen int o prob able cause

. T hus, in the abse nce of any signs of a burglary , the w arrantle ss ent ry into
the ho use w as n ot re ason able

. I w ould f urthe r hold tha t Meier and the oth er of f icers w ho ent ered the hou se are not
ent itled to qualif ied imm unity. T he stan dard f or w arrantle ss ent ry on suspicion of a burglary in progr ess is clearly esta blished , see McClain , 444 F.3d at 562 ; John son , 9 F.3d at 510 , and i t should have been “ clear to a reaso nab le of f icer tha t his cond uct [w arrantle ss entry
ont o the prem ises] w as unla w f ul in the situat ion he conf ronte d,” Sau cier , 533 U.S. at 202

. It is clearly esta blished law tha t exi ge n t circumsta nces in a case such as this require prob able cause to believe a burglary is in progress. Of f icers are f requent ly called upo n to
- 13

-No. 09-1714

Alford, et al. v. Vernier, e t al.
det ermin e w het her prob able cause exists tha t a crime is b e in g c o mm itted , and are no strangers to tha t inquiry . Qu alif ied im mu nity is theref ore in app ropriate on this issu e.

- 14

-