Opinion ID: 1690879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Qualified Immunity Issue.

Text: The Supreme Court has explained the rationale of qualified immunity: When government officials abuse their offices, action[s] for damages may offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees. Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. [800], at 814, 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 102 S.Ct. 2727 [at 2736]. On the other hand, permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties. Ibid. Our cases have accommodated these conflicting concerns by generally providing governmental officials performing discretionary functions with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 529-30 (1987). In such case, [t]he relevant question ... is the objective (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [this officer's] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. [The officer's] subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant. Id. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3040, 97 L.Ed.2d at 532. Prior to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the test for qualified immunity included a subjective, as well as objective, test. Under the rule predating Harlow, immunity would not apply if (1) the officer knew or reasonably should have known his action would violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights, or (2) he took the action with the malicious intent to cause a deprivation of a constitutional right. See Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 322, 95 S.Ct. 992, 1001, 43 L.Ed.2d 214, 225 (1975). Harlow changed this rule because of the problems inherent in a subjective inquiry. Id. at 816-17, 102 S.Ct. at 2737-38, 73 L.Ed.2d at 409-10. The Court in Harlow adopted a purely objective test under which government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d at 410. Under this objective test, the Court speculated, the need for full trials on qualified immunity issues would be reduced, and many insubstantial claims could be resolved by summary judgment. Id. A summary judgment motion, as in this case, is therefore a viable means of evaluating a claim of qualified immunity under the objective test adopted in Harlow. The problem in the present case is that the court failed to require a showing that an officer could reasonably conclude he had both probable cause and exigent circumstances so as to excuse the lack of a warrant. The Court ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because they could reasonably have believed they had probable cause for the search based on the similarity of Leydens to the woman described in the warrant application and on Leydens' proximity to the kitchen, where the drugs were apparently kept. The plaintiff argues that this did not constitute probable cause, but even if it did, the defendants are not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because they do not even claim that they could reasonably believe there were exigent circumstances. The general rule is, of course, that the probable cause exception requires exigent circumstances as well. Emerson, 375 N.W.2d at 258; Eubanks, 355 N.W.2d at 58. Exigent circumstances include danger to the officers or others, the risk of escape, or the likelihood that evidence will be concealed or destroyed. State v. Holtz, 300 N.W.2d 888, 893 (Iowa 1981). The defendants argue that under a qualified immunity claim only an arguable case of probable cause need be established. In other words, even if probable cause did not actually exist, if an officer could reasonably believe it did, this is sufficient to immunize the officer from liability. Under this theory, defendants argue, it is not incumbent upon them to establish that they reasonably believed there were exigent circumstances as well. The district court agreed, relying on Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979). The district court stated, referring to Ybarra, that the case says nothing about requiring exigent circumstances, and presumably, exigency is not required due to the circumstances surrounding the police's presence in the place. Therefore, even if the plaintiff is correct, such a policy would be legal in this situation. Our reading of Ybarra suggests that it did not hold that probable cause was the only requirement for a warrantless search under these circumstances. In Ybarra, the question was whether the Court should extend the reasonable belief or suspicion standard for evidence gathering under the holding of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), to a general search of patrons on the premises. The Court in Ybarra declined to extend the Terry rule, noting that this exception is narrow in scope and does not permit a frisk for weapons on less than reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized narcotics search is taking place. Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 94, 100 S.Ct. at 343, 62 L.Ed.2d at 247. The Court refused to permit evidence searches of persons who, at the commencement of the search, are on compact premises subject to a search warrant, at least where the police have a reasonable belief that such persons are connected with drug trafficking and may be concealing or carrying away the contraband. Id. While, as the defendants point out, Ybarra did not mention the need for establishing exigent circumstances as the second element of a probable cause exception, we do not believe that Ybarra stands for the proposition that exigent circumstances are not required. It is, we believe, simply a matter that the Court found that no probable cause was established, making it unnecessary to consider exigent circumstances. That both a reasonable belief of probable cause and exigent circumstances are required is made clear in Anderson, which postdated Ybarra. The Court in Anderson said: We have recognized that it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present, and we have indicated that in such cases those officialslike other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawfulshould not be held personally liable. The same is true of their conclusions regarding exigent circumstances. 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039-40, 97 L.Ed.2d at 531 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The district court applied an erroneous rule of law in granting summary judgment on the qualified immunity theory. The test is whether the officer's actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated. Id. at 638, 107 S.Ct. at 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d at 530. An officer's actions could not reasonably have been thought to be consistent with the subjects' fourth amendment rights if no consideration was given to the exigent-circumstance requirement. The summary judgment record in the present case is silent on that matter. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Summary judgment was also entered for the defendant City of Des Moines whose written policies, it is argued, authorize searches on probable cause alone. Under the reasoning of the district court, this was sufficient. For the reasons already discussed, probable cause alone is not sufficient. We therefore believe the court applied an erroneous principle of law in dismissing the case against the City, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to the City as well.