Opinion ID: 34467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Finding of Negligent Conduct

Text: Maddux urges that the district court erred when, without reaching the issue of municipal liability, it found that Plaintiffs had failed “to establish that the defendants acted intentionally with respect to the constitutional rights that they [Plaintiffs] allege have been violated.” Maddux contends that the district court impermissibly weighed the evidence and determined the credibility of testifying witnesses at trial when it concluded that the officers, if they did in fact enter the Maddux residence, did so by accident, in the mistaken belief that they were supposed to be in that house and not the one next door. The district court characterized such a scenario as “negligence which is not cognizable as a claim in this case.” Maddux suggests why the officers reasonably believed that the subject of the arrest warrant might be found at the Maddux residence and, thus, why at least one officer intentionally entered the Maddox house looking for the subject of the felony arrest warrant. Maddux’s sons, Gary Maddux and Bryan Maddux,20 both testified that they heard police radio transmissions advising officers that they were at the “wrong house.” Maddux argues that this testimony, coupled with that of one officer who understood 20 Only Gary Maddux was present during the alleged entry. -16- that the subject of the arrest warrant could be found at either of the two houses on Goldenrod, or that of another officer who thought the subject was going to be found in the Maddux residence, supports the equally logical inference that the officers intended to enter both residences in an attempt to locate the subject, and that any reference to the “wrong house” could simply have meant that the subject had been located at the other of the two residences. Maddux thus insists that the officers had formed a belief that the subject was in one of the two residences, and that the ensuing radio transmissions informing the officers that they were in the “wrong house” served only to advise that the subject was in fact at 2635 Goldenrod and not the Maddux house. The district court deduced otherwise, concluding that the evidence only supported the finding that the officers were merely confused about where they were supposed to be. The transcript of the trial contains the district court’s observations pursuant to its ruling: Even ignoring all of what the defendant officers have to say about the facts as they occurred on that day and taken [sic] as true the statements that were made by the plaintiffs with respect to the actions of the officers, two of the plaintiffs testified that while the officer was in the home and one while he was outside of the home, that they heard evidence that the officers had not intentionally but accidentally gone to the wrong house, which the Court finds makes it difficult if -17- not impossible, for the plaintiffs to establish that the acts of the officers were committed intentionally.