Source: http://openjurist.org/400/f3d/1070/leaf-v-shelnutt
Timestamp: 2016-02-13 21:37:21
Document Index: 682556512

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 3109', '§ 3109', '§ 3109', '§ 3109', '§ 6']

400 F3d 1070 Leaf v. Shelnutt | OpenJurist
400 F. 3d 1070 - Leaf v. Shelnutt HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series400 F.3d
400 F3d 1070 Leaf v. Shelnutt 400 F.3d 1070
Larry J. LEAF, individually and as personal representative of the estate of John P. Leaf, deceased, Martha A. Leaf, John P. Leaf, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Ronald SHELNUTT, Defendant-Appellant.
Argued September 21, 2004.
Decided March 18, 2005.
This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. See Sullivan v. Ramirez, 360 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir.2004). Similarly, the question of whether an asserted federal right was clearly established at the time of a claimed violation is a question of law to be reviewed de novo on appeal. See Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516, 114 S.Ct. 1019, 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when, construing all facts and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide. See Sullivan, 360 F.3d at 696 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252-55, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
We pause to address the issue of whether we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity because it is a point of extreme conflict between the parties. Ordinarily, a district court's denial of summary judgment is not appealable. See, e.g., Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 530 (7th Cir.1995). However, when a district court has denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, an appellate court has jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that the denial turns on a question of law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). On the other hand, "a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a `genuine' issue of fact for trial." Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995).
This court may not reconsider the district court's determination that certain genuine issues of fact exist; such determinations are unappealable because they are not "final decisions" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151. Thus, we may not make conclusions about which facts the parties ultimately might be able to establish at trial. Such conclusions concern the "sufficiency of the evidence" and are not properly before a court of appeals considering the denial of qualified immunity. See id.
However, when the outcome of a question of law — for instance, whether a particular action violates the Constitution — does not depend on the outcome of a disputed factual question, we may review whether the district court correctly determined the question of law that it considered. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806. These are the "more abstract issues of law" to which an appeal of the denial of qualified immunity properly is limited. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 317, 115 S.Ct. 2151. When conducting such a review, we "simply take, as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment for that (purely legal) reason." Id. at 319, 115 S.Ct. 2151.
A defendant may appeal the denial of qualified immunity with respect to particular claims even when he still will be required to go to trial on a matter separate from the claims for which he asserted qualified immunity. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 311-12, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996).4 A plaintiff often seeks relief for a single incident on multiple theories of liability. When this occurs, the defendant does not lose his right to appeal the denial of qualified immunity as to one theory of liability even when he still will be required to go to trial on another theory. As several of our sister circuits have recognized,5 the term "claim" must be employed in this context in a manner that is compatible with the unique, yet firmly established, principles established by the Supreme Court with respect to the doctrine of qualified immunity. Consequently, in employing the term "claim" when determining whether a defendant may invoke the defense of qualified immunity, we must keep in mind that qualified immunity is designed to ensure that a defendant does not stand trial unnecessarily on an allegation that lacked a reasonable grounding in established law at the time the act was committed. We also must keep in mind that the defense of qualified immunity is only effective when it is applied at a meaningful level of generality. This requirement ensures that a defendant will have to stand trial only when he could reasonably anticipate that his conduct may give rise to liability for damages. Defining "claim" in light of these considerations quite naturally produces a different and more narrow definition of the term "claim" than we would encounter in other contexts such as res judicata. There, in determining whether the same "claim" arose in earlier litigation, "claim" has become a surrogate for the term "cause of action," and that term has been defined in turn to include all theories of liability arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.6 See Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 789 F.2d 589, 592-94 (7th Cir.1986).
Any other course would frustrate the Supreme Court's directive that an appeal of the denial of qualified immunity "cannot be foreclosed by the mere addition of other claims to the suit." See Behrens, 516 U.S. at 312, 116 S.Ct. 834; see also id. ("If the district court rules erroneously, the qualified-immunity right not to be subjected to pretrial proceedings will be eliminated, so long as the plaintiff has alleged (with or without evidence to back it up) violation of one `clearly established' right...."); see also International Action Center v. United States, 365 F.3d 20, 23-24 (D.C.Cir.2004); Beier v. City of Lewiston, 354 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that it would be contrary to Behrens if "any plaintiff alleging multiple claims arising under a single constitutional provision would be able to circumvent a qualified immunity appeal as long as one of those claims has some merit").
2. The Qualified Immunity Framework
Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy a qualified immunity from suit.7 See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Qualified immunity "shield[s] [officers] from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated." Id. at 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034. When qualified immunity applies, a defendant is not merely entitled to a defense from liability; he is entitled not to stand trial. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806.
In determining whether qualified immunity will apply to shield a defendant from suit, a court undertakes a two-part inquiry, see Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), to assess "the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law," Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). First, the court must ask the threshold question: "Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?" Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. As the Supreme Court has pointed out, "to deny summary judgment any time a material issue of fact remains ... could undermine the goal of qualified immunity." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151. Therefore, "[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
If the facts alleged make out a constitutional violation, then a court must determine "whether the right was clearly established." Id. This inquiry is a specific one: "The relevant, dispositive inquiry is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that the conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."8 Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citing Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999)). A right is clearly established when "[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034. The action's unlawfulness must be "apparent" from pre-existing law. Id.
The district court denied Deputy Shelnutt qualified immunity because it found that questions of fact existed respecting four actions that he took on May 5, 2001:(1) his entry into Mr. Leaf's apartment;9 (2) his subsequent search of Mr. Leaf's apartment; (3) his conduct toward Mr. Leaf while Mr. Leaf was lying on the bed; and (4) the manner in which he shot Mr. Leaf. The district court also denied Deputy Shelnutt qualified immunity for the excessive force claim on the ground that, because the first three actions listed may have violated Mr. Leaf's constitutional rights, Deputy Shelnutt may have created the need for force in such a way that his ultimate shooting of Mr. Leaf "was tainted by prior unconstitutional acts." Tom v. Voida, 963 F.2d 952, 956 (7th Cir.1992); see also, e.g., Sledd v. Lindsay, 102 F.3d 282, 287-88 (7th Cir.1996); Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444, 447 (6th Cir.1991).
Taking up the first question in the qualified immunity inquiry, we ask whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the Leafs, allege a constitutional violation. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. A warrantless entry into a private home constitutes a search and presumptively is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Rivera, 248 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir.) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-86, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 923, 122 S.Ct. 277, 151 L.Ed.2d 203 (2001). However, a warrantless search is permissible "when police have a reasonable belief that exigent circumstances require immediate action and there is no time to secure a warrant." United States v. Lenoir, 318 F.3d 725, 730 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 841, 124 S.Ct. 110, 157 L.Ed.2d 76 (2003). For instance, a warrantless search is permitted based on exigent circumstances "when the police `reasonably fear [ ] for the safety of someone inside the premises.'" United States v. Jenkins, 329 F.3d 579, 581 (7th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 910, 121 S.Ct. 259, 148 L.Ed.2d 188 (2000)). To determine whether there were exigent circumstances, we must "analyze the situation from the perspective of the officers at the scene" and must ask whether the officers had "an objectively reasonable belief that exigent circumstances existed." United States v. Marshall, 157 F.3d 477, 482 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1045, 119 S.Ct. 601, 142 L.Ed.2d 542 (1998).
Based on these principles, we agree with the district court's analysis of the officers' entry. As the district court pointed out, the broken window and open patio door supported an objectively reasonable belief that a burglary was occurring and that people inside the apartment were in danger. Furthermore, a 911 call had been placed, and, although the call itself was not answered, Deputy Jacobs learned from the caller, Murphy, that a man had been seen forcing entry into the apartment. We have held that a 911 call itself "can be enough to support [a] warrantless search[ ] under the exigent circumstances exception, particularly where ... the caller identified himself." Richardson, 208 F.3d at 630. Under the circumstances known to them at the time, Deputy Shelnutt and Deputy Jacobs had a reasonable basis to believe that an emergency situation justified a warrantless search of Mr. Leaf's apartment.10 Thus, on the record before us, we must conclude that the officers' entry was justified by exigent circumstances.
We next consider whether the officers' entry into Mr. Leaf's apartment was rendered unreasonable as a result of the officers' failure to announce their purpose before entering. The common law "knock and announce" principle,11 which requires a law enforcement officer "to announce his presence and authority" before opening the doors of a dwelling and entering,12 "forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment." Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 929, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995). The principle typically is understood to require both a knock and an announcement prior to entering. See, e.g., United States v. Buckley, 4 F.3d 552, 558 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied sub nom. Herman v. United States, 510 U.S. 1124, 114 S.Ct. 1084, 127 L.Ed.2d 400 (1994). The announcement generally must relate both the officer's identity as a member of law enforcement and his purpose or authority. See Wilson, 514 U.S. at 929, 115 S.Ct. 1914.13 Because the knock and announce principle is a part of the reasonableness inquiry according to which any search is judged, it is relevant to searches conducted without a warrant under some recognized exigency, as well as those authorized in advance by a warrant.14
The knock and announce principle is but one part of the reasonableness inquiry to be conducted under the Fourth Amendment. See Wilson, 514 U.S. at 929, 115 S.Ct. 1914. Therefore, the elements described above are not applied strictly in every situation. See, e.g., id. at 934, 115 S.Ct. 1914 (holding that "[t]he Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests").15 We are mindful that the principle of "knock-and-announce," as an "element of the reasonableness inquiry," has never been a "rigid" rule. Id. Although "in some circumstances an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be a violation of the Fourth Amendment," in other circumstances, an unannounced entry may be justified by "countervailing law enforcement interests." Id.
Courts have recognized three sets of circumstances which constitute exceptions to the knock and announce principle. "In order to justify a `no-knock' entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion16 that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be [(1)] dangerous or [(2)] futile,17 or [(3)] that it would inhibit effective investigation of the crime by ... allowing the destruction of evidence." Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). This court has described these situations, in which "executing [a] search in a no-knock fashion" is justified, as "exigent circumstances." United States v. Singer, 943 F.2d 758, 762 (7th Cir.1991); see also Sledd, 102 F.3d at 288.
Most of the cases explaining the danger exception to the knock and announce principle have taken place in the context of searches pursuant to warrant.18 However, this court also has excused officers' failure to comply with the knock and announce principle when the officers were making a warrantless entry and the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable belief that knocking and announcing would be dangerous to the officers. United States v. Hardy, 52 F.3d 147, 150 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 877, 116 S.Ct. 207, 133 L.Ed.2d 140 (1995). In Hardy, "the same exigent circumstances" that justified an officer's warrantless search of a hotel room "also excuse[d] a failure to knock and announce." Id. The circumstances known to the police in that case led them to "reasonably believe that their safety or the safety of others" was at risk. Id. at 149.19
D. The Protective Sweep
Deputy Shelnutt does not dispute any of the factual findings made by the district court with respect to his search of the apartment: for instance, that neither he nor Deputy Jacobs identified themselves after entering the apartment; that both officers lit the apartment with the tactical lights attached to their guns; that neither officer illuminated his badge; and that the officers did not attempt to wake Mr. Leaf immediately after finding him, but instead searched the rest of the apartment before waking him. However, Deputy Shelnutt does contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the search on the ground that it was justified under the protective sweep doctrine described in Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). A "protective sweep" has been defined as "a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others ... [and] narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding." Id. Although a protective sweep invades a home-owner's privacy, such a search tactic may be "reasonable when weighed against `the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence.'" Id. at 332, 110 S.Ct. 1093 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)).
A protective sweep, limited to "look[ing] in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest," is justified "incident to [an] arrest ... as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion." Id. at 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093. A search beyond those parameters is justified when there are "articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene." Id."[A] protective sweep ... is ... not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found. The sweep lasts no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger...." Id. at 335-36, 110 S.Ct. 1093. We have recognized generally that while entry into a dwelling typically requires a search warrant founded on probable cause, a "quick inspection[ ] may be justified by lower degrees of suspicion." United States v. Brown, 64 F.3d 1083, 1086 (7th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Concepcion, 942 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir.1991) ("How much cause agents need to do something depends on how deeply they invade the zone of privacy.").
We have noted on previous occasions that the inquiry whether a protective sweep was reasonable is "necessarily a very fact-specific one." United States v. Burrows, 48 F.3d 1011, 1016 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1168, 115 S.Ct. 2632, 132 L.Ed.2d 872 (1995). Furthermore, "the circumstances of the particular encounter [must] be assessed carefully in light of the overarching policy concerns articulated in Buie and in its first cousins, Terry and Long." Id.; see also Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868; Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). Those policy concerns include a proper regard for the safety of police officers, who "have an interest in ensuring their safety when they lawfully enter a house.... That interest justifies their ensuring that the dwelling does not harbor another person who is dangerous and who unexpectedly could launch an attack." Burrows, 48 F.3d at 1015-16.21
The Leafs contend that the search conducted by Deputy Shelnutt upon entering the apartment was not justified, because the cases have approved protective sweeps incident to arrest. The Leafs submit that the officers, when they entered the apartment, did not intend to make an arrest.22 However, the Leafs' argument misapprehends the lineage of the protective sweep. Although Buie recognizes that a protective sweep "occurs as an adjunct to the serious step of taking a person into custody for the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime," the protective sweep doctrine also is justified by the concerns that an officer conducting an in-home arrest is at a "disadvantage" and that he is susceptible to "[a]n ambush in a confined setting of unknown configuration." Buie, 494 U.S. at 333, 110 S.Ct. 1093. This concern for officer safety derives from the same principles recognized in Terry. See United States v. Arch, 7 F.3d 1300, 1303 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1139, 114 S.Ct. 1123, 127 L.Ed.2d 431 (1994). The protective sweep is justified by the need, based on the facts known to a law enforcement officer, to ensure officer and bystander safety. Buie, 494 U.S. at 327, 110 S.Ct. 1093. The underlying rationale for the protective sweep doctrine is the principle that police officers should be able to ensure their safety when they lawfully enter a private dwelling. Arch, 7 F.3d at 1303. That rationale also applies in this situation. The officers entered in order to ascertain whether a burglary had occurred; they had substantial reason to believe their safety might have been at risk. Accordingly, it was not necessary for the officers to have made an arrest in order for their search of the apartment to be justified; the only question is whether the search was objectively reasonable.
E. Illegal Seizure
1. Whether a Seizure Occurred
We begin our review of the district court's decision to deny Deputy Shelnutt qualified immunity for the seizure by asking whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the Leafs, show that Deputy Shelnutt violated the Constitution. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures. See, e.g., California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 624, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). In order to determine whether Deputy Shelnutt seized Mr. Leaf in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we must engage in a two-part inquiry. See White v. City of Markham, 310 F.3d 989, 993 (7th Cir.2002). We first consider whether Mr. Leaf was seized in his bedroom on May 5, 2001; if we conclude that he was seized, we then must determine whether the seizure was unreasonable. See id.
A seizure has been defined as a "governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied." Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (emphasis in original). A person is seized "only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person [in the subject's position] would have believed that he was not free to leave." United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). As well, for a seizure to have taken place, "the subject [must] actually yield to a show of authority from the police or be physically touched by the police." Tom v. Voida, 963 F.2d 952, 957 (7th Cir.1992) (citing Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547).
In concluding that Mr. Leaf was seized, the district court determined that a reasonable person in Mr. Leaf's situation would have believed that he was not free to leave. The Supreme Court has noted that a reasonable person might not believe he was free to leave when faced with "the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870. Furthermore, this court has noted some other factors that might influence a reasonable individual to believe that he was not free to leave: "whether the encounter occurred in a public or private place; whether the suspect was informed that he was ... free to leave; ... whether there was physical touching, display of weapons, or other threatening conduct; and whether the suspect eventually departed the area without hindrance." United States v. Scheets, 188 F.3d 829, 836-37 (7th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096, 120 S.Ct. 837, 145 L.Ed.2d 703 (2000).
In light of the fact that two police officers had their guns and tactical lights pointed at Mr. Leaf, while he lay in his bed in his own residence in the middle of the night, we agree with the district court that a reasonable person would not have believed that he was free to leave. However, this issue is not dispositive of the ultimate question of whether a seizure occurred. "[T]he objective test of Mendenhall states a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for seizure." Tom, 963 F.2d at 957. We must also consider whether Mr. Leaf was physically touched by the officers or whether he submitted to their authority, before we may conclude that a seizure occurred. Id.
The district court thought that the question of seizure turned on whether or not Mr. Leaf submitted to the officers' show of authority. However, because a seizure must be accomplished "through means intentionally applied," it is not the case that a seizure occurs every time there is a "governmentally desired termination of an individual's freedom of movement." Brower, 489 U.S. at 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (emphases in original). Where police seek to stop someone, but the subject is "in fact stopped ... by a different means," no seizure occurs. Id. If Mr. Leaf's failure to flee can be attributed to the fact that he was asleep or otherwise unconscious, we think that it cannot be said that the officers terminated his freedom of movement through their show of authority. Thus, the fact that Mr. Leaf did not flee, taken alone, cannot establish that he was seized.
In determining that a seizure had occurred, the district court did not make a finding as to whether or not Deputy Shelnutt actually touched Mr. Leaf. In fact, in its January 6, 2004 order denying Deputy Shelnutt qualified immunity, the district court stated that whether Deputy Shelnutt had touched Mr. Leaf was "irrelevant to the present motion." R.219 at 4. We may not reconsider the district court's apparent conclusion that there was a question of fact as to whether any touching occurred, nor may we express an opinion about which facts the parties may ultimately be able to establish at trial. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151.
The Supreme Court has noted that "[t]he word `seizure' readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful." Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547; see id. ("An arrest requires ... physical force...."). However, the Court has also said that, when a person merely is tapped on the shoulder by law enforcement agents attempting to get that person's attention, no seizure occurs. See INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 220-21, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984).25 This observation conforms to the Court's directive that a seizure is a "governmental termination of freedom of movement." Brower, 489 U.S. at 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (emphasis added). Here, Deputy Shelnutt sought to get Mr. Leaf's attention, not to terminate his freedom of movement. Thus, the Leafs have not alleged the first part of a Fourth Amendment violation; on these facts, they cannot show that Mr. Leaf was seized. Therefore, we must conclude that there was no unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that Deputy Shelnutt is entitled to qualified immunity as a defense against the Leafs' illegal seizure claim.
2. Whether a Seizure was Unreasonable
In the alternative, we note that, even if Deputy Shelnutt's conduct towards Mr. Leaf could be considered a seizure, it was reasonable as a matter of law. The reasonableness of a seizure is measured by weighing the governmental need to seize "against the invasion into one's privacy that the ... seizure entails." United States v. Sechrist, 640 F.2d 81, 86 (7th Cir.1981). When a police officer suspects that criminal activity is afoot, "[a] brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity ... may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to [an] officer at the time." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868). This court has held that "[a]n investigatory stop not amounting to an arrest is authorized if the officer making the stop is `able to point to specific and articulable facts' that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." United States v. Tilmon, 19 F.3d 1221, 1224 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868).
We judge the reasonableness of an investigatory stop by considering: "(1) whether the police were aware of specific and articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion; and (2) whether the degree of intrusion was reasonably related to the known facts." Id.; see also Scheets, 188 F.3d at 837. When evaluating the reasonableness of an investigatory stop, we consider the totality of the circumstances with which the officers were faced, in terms of both "the experience of the law enforcement agent and the behavior and characteristics of the suspect," and "exclud[ing] any facts learned thereafter." United States v. Odum, 72 F.3d 1279, 1284 (7th Cir.1995).
Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Leafs, as we must when considering qualified immunity, Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, we think that Deputy Shelnutt's conduct was reasonable. First, Deputy Shelnutt was aware of sufficient specific and articulable facts to give rise to reasonable suspicion that crime was afoot. As we have noted numerous times, the officers suspected someone had broken into the apartment. Furthermore, as the district court pointed out, "the officers did not know the identity of the [apparently] sleeping man." R.172 at 9. It is not important that the behavior that the officers observed (Mr. Leaf lying on his bed, apparently sleeping) could have been innocent behavior. Innocent characteristics, when "taken together," may add up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). Indeed, "there could ... be circumstances in which wholly lawful conduct might justify the suspicion that criminal activity was afoot." Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) (per curiam) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27-28, 88 S.Ct. 1868).
The Leafs argue that Deputy Shelnutt should have attempted to wake Mr. Leaf by a means other than approaching him to nudge him. However, the Supreme Court has held that the reasonableness of an officer's actions "does not turn on the availability of less intrusive investigatory techniques." Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 11, 109 S.Ct. 1581. Therefore, the manner in which Deputy Shelnutt approached Mr. Leaf does not render unreasonable any seizure that occurred.
It also is clear that any seizure that might have occurred did not last any longer than reasonably necessary. At most, Deputy Shelnutt engaged in a brief touch. See, e.g., Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 625, 111 S.Ct. 1547 (no continuing seizure after fugitive breaks free of officer's grasp). The Supreme Court has stated that a court reviewing the duration of an investigative stop should ask "whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant." United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). The means of investigation employed by the officers in this case, rousing a man to determine his identity, certainly constituted a quick way to gather information — perhaps the means used were the only way for the officers to learn what they needed to know. Furthermore, when "police are acting in a swiftly developing situation," as was the case here, a court must not "indulge in unrealistic second-guessing." Id.
F. Excessive Force
G. Failure to Intervene
The right to qualified immunity "is a right to immunityfrom certain claims, not from litigation in general; when immunity with respect to those claims has been finally denied, appeal must be available." Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (emphasis in original).
International Action Center v. United States, 365 F.3d 20, 23-24 (D.C.Cir.2004); Beier v. City of Lewiston, 354 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2004).
Because of the significant policies served by qualified immunity, a court should determine early in the proceedings whether qualified immunity will applySee Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); see also Donovan v. City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 947 (7th Cir.1994) (noting that "few individuals will enter public service if such service entails the risk of personal liability for one's official decisions").
When determining whether a constitutional right has been violated requires an analysis of the reasonableness of an officer's conduct — for instance, in the Fourth Amendment search context — the reasonableness standard for the constitutional violation is distinct from the qualified immunity standardSee Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 643-44, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Thus, "even if a court were to hold that [an] officer violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting an unreasonable, warrantless search, Anderson still operates to grant officers immunity for reasonable mistakes as to the legality of their actions." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
The district court did not address whether probable cause existed to justify the officers' entry. The cases on which the district court primarily relied in its analysis of exigent circumstances,United States v. Jenkins, 329 F.3d 579 (7th Cir.2003), and United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 910, 121 S.Ct. 259, 148 L.Ed.2d 188 (2000), do not address the requirement of probable cause separately from the existence of exigent circumstances. However, other cases of this court do apply the requirement of probable cause even in exigent circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 248 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir.) (holding that a warrantless search is constitutional "where there is probable cause and exigent circumstances create a compelling need for official action and insufficient time to secure a warrant"), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 923, 122 S.Ct. 277, 151 L.Ed.2d 203 (2001); United States v. Marshall, 157 F.3d 477, 481 (7th Cir.) (holding that a warrantless search and seizure inside a home is permitted "when probable cause and exigent circumstances exist"), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1045, 119 S.Ct. 601, 142 L.Ed.2d 542 (1998); see also Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) ("[T]here must be at least probable cause to believe that [exigent circumstances] were present...."). Circumstances constituting probable cause may include the reasonable belief "that illegal activity is being conducted in a particular place." Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 769 (7th Cir.2000). On the record in this case, we must conclude that the circumstances known to the officers at the time also gave them probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of Mr. Leaf's apartment.
A federal "knock and announce" statute permits a federal officer executing a warrant to break open a door or window and enter a private house if he has given "notice of his authority and purpose" and has been "refused admittance." 18 U.S.C. § 3109. This statute codifies a common law principle, "embedded in Anglo-American law," requiring a law enforcement officer to knock and announce himself before entering a homeMiller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958). In 1995, the Supreme Court "squarely held" that the knock and announce principle "is an element of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment" and thus applies to actions by state law enforcement officers as well. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995).
As a general rule, the knock and announcement must take place before a law enforcement officer may "break open the doors of a dwelling."Wilson, 514 U.S. at 929, 115 S.Ct. 1914. Even a minor entry or an entry which does not cause property damage is a "breaking." See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 71-72, 118 S.Ct. 992, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998) (officers broke one garage window and pointed gun through broken window); Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 589-90, 88 S.Ct. 1755, 20 L.Ed.2d 828 (1968) (holding that opening of closed but unlocked door by police officers constituted "breaking" under § 3109); Miller, 357 U.S. at 305-06, 78 S.Ct. 1190 (holding that, when officers ripped the chain off door to gain entry before announcing purpose to arrest, requirements of § 3109 were not fulfilled). In this case, the officers entered through a patio door which was wide open, but which was blocked by some blinds; Deputy Shelnutt held the blinds aside while he and Deputy Jacobs entered.
In addition, once the officer has knocked and announced, he must wait a reasonable amount of time before entering. "[T]he facts known to the police are what count in judging reasonable waiting time...." United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 39, 124 S.Ct. 521, 157 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003).
Although most of the cases developing the contours of the knock and announce principle have been decided in the context of police officers executing search or arrest warrants, the guidelines developed in those cases also apply to situations in which police officers conduct warrantless searches. The requirements of § 3109 have been held to cover warrantless searches and warrantless entries to arrest made by federal agentsSee, e.g., Sabbath, 391 U.S. at 588, 88 S.Ct. 1755; Miller, 357 U.S. at 308-09, 78 S.Ct. 1190 ("The requirement ... applies ... whether the arrest is to be made by virtue of a warrant, or when officers are authorized to make an arrest for a felony without a warrant."). See also 1 William E. Ringel, Searches & Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 6:7 (2d ed.2004).
United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 374 (7th Cir.1991) (emphasis in original). At least one of our sister circuits has held that, in certain circumstances, the knock is not required. See, e.g., United States v. Mendoza, 281 F.3d 712, 717 (8th Cir.) (holding that police had acted consistently with purposes underlying the knock and announce principle, even when no knock was given, when officers shouted warning and door already was off its hinges), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1004, 123 S.Ct. 515, 154 L.Ed.2d 401 (2002).
When made, "[a] knock and announcement must be loud enough to be heard." Leichtnam, 948 F.2d at 374 (approving an announcement made "slightly above conversational level") (internal quotations omitted); cf. United States v. Spriggs, 996 F.2d 320, 322-23 (D.C.Cir.) (holding that announcement was "sufficient to alert the residents of the apartment" where "reasonably audible" and "slightly above a normal tone of voice" and made at 7:45 a.m., when residents likely to "be awake and responsive") (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 938, 114 S.Ct. 359, 126 L.Ed.2d 323 (1993).
The showing required by the reasonable suspicion standard is "not high," and certainly requires less than probable causeRichards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997).
Deputy Shelnutt argues that an announcement of purpose should be excused as futile on the ground that Mr. Leaf was asleep. However, the futility exception to the knock and announce principle applies when the occupant of the premises to be entered most likely already knows why the officers are approachingSee, e.g., Miller, 357 U.S. at 310, 78 S.Ct. 1190 ("It may be that, without an express announcement of purpose, the facts known to officers would justify them in being virtually certain that the [occupant] already knows their purpose so that announcement would be a useless gesture."); United States v. Tracy, 835 F.2d 1267, 1270 (8th Cir.) ("[T]he officers could have justifiably believed defendants were anticipating their arrival and knew their purpose. Thus, announcing their purpose would have been a useless gesture."), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1014, 108 S.Ct. 1750, 100 L.Ed.2d 212 (1988). On the record in this case, we must conclude that the futility exception does not apply.
See, e.g., Ramirez, 523 U.S. at 71, 118 S.Ct. 992 (holding that police had a reasonable suspicion that "knocking and announcing their presence might be dangerous," justifying their unannounced entry to execute an arrest warrant, when a "confidential informant had notified the police" that a man "with a violent past who reportedly had access to a large supply of weapons" "might be inside respondent's home, and an officer had confirmed that possibility"). This court has excused compliance with the knock and announce principle in circumstances presenting danger to officers executing warrants. See, e.g., United States v. Sutton, 336 F.3d 550, 554 (7th Cir.2003) (excusing "less than full compliance" with knock and announce principle by officers executing search warrant when pit bulls had been seen on the property, individuals with weapons convictions had been seen entering the house and configuration of house "provided no cover"); United States v. Gambrell, 178 F.3d 927, 929 (7th Cir.) (holding that, when officer knew before entering that the occupant typically "answered the door wearing a .25 caliber gun in her front pocket; that she and her roommate regularly carried guns in the apartment; [and] that ... there were other guns... in the apartment," there was "a reasonable suspicion that an announced entry would have subjected the officers to a substantial risk of harm"), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 920, 120 S.Ct. 281, 145 L.Ed.2d 236 (1999); United States v. Buckley, 4 F.3d 552, 558 (7th Cir.1993) (determining that "exigent circumstances" excused knock and announce where "the officers knew that the defendants possessed a pit bull and firearms"), cert. denied sub nom. Herman v. United States, 510 U.S. 1124, 114 S.Ct. 1084, 127 L.Ed.2d 400 (1994); United States v. Howard, 961 F.2d 1265, 1267 (7th Cir.) (concluding that "exigent circumstances justified disregarding the knock and announce requirement" where officers executing search warrant "had specific knowledge that the [occupant] was in possession of a firearm, and that he had previously fired it in the hallway outside his apartment"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 882, 113 S.Ct. 236, 121 L.Ed.2d 171 (1992).
InHardy, the room's occupant was a murder suspect who knew that the police were pursuing him, had a history of committing crimes using guns and was known to be armed with a shotgun; also, women and children were known to be in the room with him. See United States v. Hardy, 52 F.3d 147, 149 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 877, 116 S.Ct. 207, 133 L.Ed.2d 140 (1995).
We note that our holding is based on the specific facts presented by this case and not on a general invocation of exigent circumstances. The Supreme Court has instructed that, when "exigent circumstances" might have justified officers' warrantless entry into a home without a knock, if the record does not reflect "any substantial basis for excusing the failure of the agents ... to announce their authority and purpose," the entry violates the Fourth AmendmentSabbath, 391 U.S. at 591, 88 S.Ct. 1755. When agents making a warrantless entry "ha[ve] no basis for assuming [the occupant is] armed or might resist arrest, or that [the undercover agent present is] in any danger," then compliance with the knock and announce principle will not be excused. Id. This guidance accords with the Court's later directive, made in Richards, that officers must have a "reasonable suspicion," based on the circumstances, that one or more of the exceptions to the knock and announce principle applies. Richards, 520 U.S. at 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416. There is no general rule permitting officers to enter a private residence without complying with the knock and announce principle whenever exigent circumstances are present; in fact, the Supreme Court in Richards forbade a blanket rule which would excuse compliance for an entire class of cases. Id. To hold that the knock and announce principle may be disregarded any time exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search would be to eviscerate Richards. Rather, in this case, the "countervailing law enforcement interests," Wilson, 514 U.S. at 934, 115 S.Ct. 1914, convince us that it was reasonable for the officers to protect their safety by complying less than fully with the knock and announce principle in a situation of questionable security.
Beyond the protective sweep doctrine, another line of cases recognizes that law enforcement officers may conduct a quick and limited search of a dwelling which they have entered based on "legitimate concerns" about the safety of the occupantsUnited States v. Brown, 64 F.3d 1083, 1086 (7th Cir.1995) ("[W]ith some (though far from strong) reason to fear for Bonds's safety, the agents could take some steps to protect her."); see also United States v. Arch, 7 F.3d 1300, 1303 (7th Cir.1993) (finding a limited search of dwelling place was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when police feared injured individuals were inside), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1139, 114 S.Ct. 1123, 127 L.Ed.2d 431 (1994).
This court has recognized that the logic of "Buie assumes that the police already are lawfully present in the home to arrest its occupant and that a sweep is necessary to avert any immediate danger posed by others on the premises." Arch, 7 F.3d at 1303 (citing Buie, 494 U.S. at 327, 333, 336, 110 S.Ct. 1093).
See also Martinez v. Nygaard, 831 F.2d 822, 826-27 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that man was not seized when officers grabbed him "to get his attention" and then released him); cf. United States v. Sokolow, 808 F.2d 1366, 1369 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that man was seized when officers grabbed him and moved him to a seat for questioning before releasing him), rev'd on other grounds, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (assuming, without deciding, that a seizure occurred).
HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series400 F.3d