Opinion ID: 8414561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ' Colbert’s Property Damage Claim

Text: This first issue stems from the combination of the regime of individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a reasonable but intrusive police practice to ensure safety during searches of homes: securing residents where they cannot interfere with, but also cannot see, the execution of the search. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). “Excessive or unnecessary destruetion of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search are not subject to suppression.” United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 71, 118 S.Ct. 992, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998); see also Johnson v. Manitowoc County, 635 F.3d 331, 335 (7th Cir. 2011); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689, 694-95 (7th Cir. 2005); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1349-50 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1997) (reversing summary judgment in part; searching officers left plaintiffs gun in dog’s water bowl and left cigar and cigarette ashes in his bedding). The problem is, if officers carry out a search in an unreasonable way, causing unnecessary or excessive destruction, how can the residents and ultimately courts hold accountable the individual officers responsible for the misconduct? The majority concludes that Colbert cannot reach a jury with his property damage allegations because he cannot identify who broke what. Colbert is unable to do this because the officers handcuffed him and prevented him from observing the search. Ante at 657. The majority emphasizes that Colbert did not sue every officer at the scene, noting that it is possible none of the named defendants are responsible for the damage. Ante at 658. Things might have been different, the majority says, if Colbert had alleged a “conspiracy of silence” in his complaint. While I am pleased that the majority offers a solution for the problem, its solution sets too high a bar for plaintiffs in Colbert’s situation. First, this is not a pleading deficiency. A plaintiff is not required to plead legal theories in his complaint. King v. Kramer, 763 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir. 2014) (“A complaint need not identify legal theories, and specifying an incorrect theory is not a fatal error.”), quoting Rabé v. United Air Lines, Inc., 636 F.3d 866, 872 (7th Cir. 2011). This rule makes sense, particularly in a case like this. When Colbert filed his original complaint, he did not know the officers would deny any recollection of breaking his. property. At that time there was no “conspiracy of silence” to allege. The majority notes that Colbert did not allege a conspiracy of silence in his second amended complaint, which he filed after learning that the officers denied responsibility. Ante at 658. That’s true but it shouldn’t matter. A plaintiff is not required to plead legal theories in his second amended complaint either. (In any event, if we are going to insist that these matters be in the pleadings, then district courts will need to be liberal in allowing amendments along these lines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 & 15(a)(2).) During their depositions, the officers claimed they did not remember many of the events from March 31, 2011. Since those depositions, Colbert has argued quite clearly in the district court, Dkt. No. 75 at 14-15, and in this court that the officers are conspiring to deny their wrongdoing. Colbert’s brief here argues: “For example, defendants Tweedle and Johnson will, if they testify in accordance with their deposition testimony, admit to having been present but will deny any recollection of the search of Colbert’s residence .... At trial, plaintiffs expect each defendant to deny wrongdoing; the jury should be permitted to assess the credibility of these claims.” It is unclear what else Colbert should have said to assert a “conspiracy of silence.” 2 Second, by dismissing Colbert’s claim because he did not sue enough officers, see ante at 658-59, the majority invites future plaintiffs to sue every officer on the scene and to sort out later the issues of individual liability. This will needlessly drag law enforcement officers into litigation where they had little or no involvement in the underlying conduct. Suppose Colbert had sued all ten officers and all ten denied participating in the specific acts of property destruction. Those denials, combined with evidence that the damage occurred and was inflicted in the course of the search, would be circumstantial evidence permitting a reasonable inference that there was a conspiracy of silence among the officers. In light of this decision, plaintiffs in similar cases will be well-advised to pursue that approach. There is at least one better approach in cases like this — cases where a plaintiff offers evidence that officers acted unreasonably in the search and took steps to prevent the plaintiff from identifying who caused the damage. It would be to shift the burden of production to the defendants on the issue of individual responsibility. The majority refers to this approach, ante at 658-59, and other circuits have used this method to varying degrees. When faced with a similar situation where officers masked- their identities, the Sixth Circuit permitted the district court to shift the burden of production on remand: “Although an officer’s mere presence at the scene of a search is insufficient to establish individual liability under § 1983, here the agents’ intent to conceal contributed to plaintiffs’ impaired ability to identify them.” Burley v. Gagacki, 729 F.3d 610, 622 (6th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606, 615 (6th Cir. 2016) (later appeal clarifying that even if burden of production is shifted to defendant, plaintiff still has burden of persuasion). The Ninth Circuit likewise has used burden-shifting in certain instances where plaintiffs cannot learn the identity of the officers involved. See, e.g., Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Although the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the issue of unlawful arrest, she can make a prima facie case simply by showing that the arrest was conducted without a valid warrant. At that point, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide some evidence that the arresting officers had probable cause for a warrantless arrest. The plaintiff still has the ultimate burden of proof, but the burden of production falls on the defendant.”); Johnson v. BART, 724 F.3d 1159, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that burden-shifting approach applies only where officers are required to show probable cause). Here, Colbert offers evidence that the officers carried out their search in an unreasonable way, causing a great deal of unnecessary damage. He cannot identify which officers broke which items because he was restrained. I am not criticizing the police practice of preventing residents from interfering with an otherwise lawful search. That will often make sense for everyone’s safety. But where the police, for these presumably legitimate reasons, made it impossible for the residents to know which individual officers carried out which actions, the burden of production should shift to these four defendants. If a defendant seeks summary judgment, he must present evidence that he is not personally liable for the unreasonable search, either by identifying who caused the damage or through some other means. Otherwise, the matter should proceed to trial so a jury can evaluate credibility. At trial, Colbert would still have the ultimate burden of persuasion. This burden-shifting approach would retain the regime of individual responsibility under § 1983 without resorting to what the majority calls “collective punishment.” See ante at 658-59. This approach is only a procedural adjustment, shifting the burden of production based on the defendants’ own actions when they act together. The burden of persuasion would still remain with the plaintiff. I would welcome better solutions to this problem, but a solution is needed. This burden-shifting approach would fit with the requirement of personal responsibility without interfering with officers’ ability to restrain occupants so they can conduct safe and effective searches. It would also prevent the unjust effect of allowing officers to sequester residents and then destroy a home with impunity.
Colbert also provided sufficient evidence to support liability for each of the four defendants for an unreasonable search on a theory of failure to intervene. It is well established that an officer may be liable if she witnesses another officer violating a civilian’s constitutional rights, has a reasonable opportunity to intervene, and fails to do so. See, e.g., Miller v. Smith, 220 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2000) (“An official satisfies the personal responsibility requirement of § 1983 if she acts or fails to act with a deliberate or reckless disregard of the plaintiffs constitutional rights.”), citing Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1005 (7th Cir. 1982) (emphasis .in original). Miller is instructive. A motorist sued under § 1983 for excessive use of force, among other claims. He alleged that state police officers beat him while he was handcuffed, face down on the ground. As we explained, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants “because Miller could neither identify the officer who allegedly attacked him, or otherwise support his claim with sufficient facts.” Id. at 493. We reversed. We noted that if one of the officers was beating Miller, “whichever officer was not directly responsible for the beating was idly standing by.” Id. at 495. We concluded: “If Miller can show at trial that an officer attacked him while another officer ignored a realistic opportunity to intervene, he can recover.” Id. We should take the same approach to Colbert’s claim for an unreasonable search. Colbert claims that, at minimum, the four officers failed to intervene when their fellow officers searched his home in an unreasonable manner. The majority notes that Colbert did not observe the officers failing to intervene. Ante at 659-60. But we did not require such evidence in Miller. Even though Miller did not observe the officers failing to intervene during his beating (he was face down), it was sufficient that the other officers were “nearby.” Miller, 220 F.3d at 495. The same is true here. The majority claims that Colbert has failed to “identify any officer ... who turned a blind eye to other officers’ allegedly illegal actions.” Ante at 660. But Colbert has identified four individual officers and provided evidence of their failure to act. As the officers, themselves testified, Colbert’s home was “a very small residence” with only a few rooms. According to testimony, the officers’ search was incredibly loud and disruptive, as one might expect when doors are torn from their hinges. The four defendants were necessarily close to any other officers in the home, and they failed to intervene. We required no more in Miller. We should require no more here. Defendants may argue, of course, that they did not notice their colleagues in the next room putting holes in the walls. The plausibility of that argument should be a jury issue.