Opinion ID: 29317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: The Supreme Court reiterated last term in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) that the threshold question to be answered when ruling upon the qualified immunity issue is: “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Thus, as a threshold matter, we must decide whether the alleged facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Estep, show that Estep’s constitutional rights were violated. The constitutional right at stake in this case is Estep’s right to be free from an unreasonable search of his vehicle. The constitutional principle applicable to this case is found in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). In Long, the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is conducted to protect the officer’s safety. Specifically, the Long court stated that the: search of the passenger compartment of an 7 automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts, which taken together with rationale inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of the weapon. Id. at 1049. Thus, for purposes of determining whether the Fourth Amendment was violated, the question is: was it reasonable for Officer Peace to think Estep was dangerous and might gain immediate control of a weapon based upon (1) Estep’s vehicle containing an NRA sticker; (2) Estep’s vehicle containing camoflauge gear; (3) Estep showing Peace that he had a key chain which contained mace; (4) Estep getting out of the car to hand Peace his identification; and (5) Estep’s manner in answering Peace’s questions? The answer to that question is no for several reasons. The presence of the NRA sticker in the vehicle should not have raised the inference that Estep was dangerous and that he might gain immediate control of a weapon. Regardless of whether there is some correlation between the display of an NRA sticker and gun possession, placing an NRA sticker in one’s vehicle is certainly legal and constitutes expression which is protected by the First Amendment. A police officer’s inference that danger is afoot because a citizen displays an NRA sticker in his vehicle presents disturbing First and Fourth Amendment implications. See United 8 States v. Ramon, 86 F. Supp. 2d 665, 677 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (holding that in the absence of other sufficiently strong factors supporting a stop, reliance upon the vehicular display of religious decals and symbols as indicative of criminal activity likely violates the First and Fourth Amendments). Although we do not definitively decide today whether the presence of an NRA sticker could ever contribute to a “reasonable suspicion” of danger calculus, we do find that Peace’s utilization of the NRA sticker in his “reasonable suspicion” of danger calculus was unwarranted when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Estep. The only remaining factors alleged to indicate that Estep posed a danger to Officer Peace is that Estep had a camoflauge jacket in his vehicle, Estep stepped out of his vehicle to greet Peace, Estep possessed a key chain with mace, and Estep was not cooperative in answering Peace’s questions. We address each alleged factor which remains in turn. First, as far as we know, there is no law which prevents a citizen from carrying a camoflauge jacket, carrying a key chain with mace, or displaying an NRA sticker in his vehicle. Indeed, if the presence of an NRA sticker and camoflauge gear in a vehicle could be used by an officer to conclude he was in danger, half the pickups in the state of Texas would be subject to a vehicle search. Second, Estep’s decision to get out of his vehicle to greet Peace 9 and hand Peace his identification does not create the type of individualized suspicion needed for an officer to conclude he is in danger. See United States v. Hunt, 253 F.3d 227, 232 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n individual’s decision to step out of his or her vehicle to greet a detaining officer does not create the individualized suspicion required for an automobile search”). Third, we cannot accept the notion that mere possession of a key chain with mace indicated that Estep posed a danger to Peace.4 Finally, Estep’s alleged uncooperativeness could not justify the vehicle search because, viewed in the light most favorable to Estep, it appears as though Peace, not Estep, was the individual being uncooperative in the situation.5 Under Estep’s version of the events, he cooperated until the search of his vehicle commenced. We realize that officers are called upon to make split-second judgments in oftentimes tense situations. Moreover, we recognize that the officer in the field is in a much better position than a judge in his office to determine whether a situation truly places the officer in danger. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 4 Although Peace avers that Estep “waved” the mace at him, Esteps avers that he only “showed” Peace that he had a key chain with mace. 5 Peace would not tell Estep why he was being stopped. 10 (1989)(noting that because police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in tense situations the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct should be judged from an on-scene perspective). However, the contention that a search must be done to protect a police officer must have some reasonable basis in fact. We cannot rubber-stamp a search of a vehicle based on an officer’s mere inchoate and unparticularized “hunch” that a citizen poses an immediate threat of danger.6 See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 332, 334 n.2 (1990). Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Estep, there were no specific articulable facts from which Officer Peace could have lawfully concluded that he was in danger. The contention that a citizen poses an immediate danger because he possesses a key chain containing mace, camoflauge gear, an NRA sticker, and does not answer questions in exactly the manner the 6 In the past, we have upheld warrantless searches of people and vehicles based upon the contention that the officer feared for his safety. See United States v. Maestas, 941 F.2d 273, 275 & 277 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Colin, 928 F.2d 676, 677 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 126, 131 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Baker, 47 F.3d 691, 693-95 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 842 (5th Cir. 1994). However, those cases involved a much greater degree of suspicious behavior than the instant case. In the cited cases, the individuals in question aroused suspicion because they were either intoxicated, already suspects of violent crimes, had made threatening statements, or had in plain view some evidence of a concealed weapon. 11 officer desires is not suspicious enough behavior to justify a Long “frisk” of a vehicle. Thus, the search violated the Fourth Amendment.7 B. Was the constitutional right clearly established? Our determination that the Fourth Amendment has been violated does not end our analysis, however. In some circumstances, an officer will be entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds even though the officer violated the citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Bigford v. Taylor, 896 F.2d 972, 975 (5th Cir. 1990) (“the analysis of whether a warrantless search was reasonable is not the equivalent of whether an officer participating in an unreasonable search is entitled to qualified immunity”). Consequently, the next step in our analysis is to ask whether the contours of the constitutional right in question were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a 7 We also note that Officer Peace’s contention that he was truly in fear for his safety is belied by the fact that he never searched Estep’s person for weapons. Moreover, assuming arguendo that Peace and Quillen did truly fear for their safety, the extension of the search to include closed containers located beneath the seat exceeded what would have been necessary to protect them from danger upon Estep’s reentry into the vehicle. 12 reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted”); Pierce v. Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 882 (5th Cir. 1997)(“For qualified immunity to be surrendered, pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable government agent that what the defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances”)(quoting from Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University, 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir. 1994). Although we have stated that the constitutional right at stake is Estep’s right to be free from a vehicle search unless an officer has a reasonable belief that he is in danger, we must further evaluate whether the contours of that right were “clearly established” in a more particularized way. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. As applied to this case, we must consider whether it is clearly established law that a reasonable officer could not conclude that he was in danger when faced with a citizen who exited the car prior to the approach of the officer, continuously asked why he had been stopped, showed the officer a key chain with mace, possessed camoflauge gear, and possessed an NRA sticker? There is no Fifth Circuit case which directly addresses whether a reasonable officer could conclude, based on these specific facts, that a citizen posed a danger and could gain 13 immediate control of a weapon.8 However, there does not have to be a case directly on point for the law to be “clearly established.” See Petta v. Rivera, 143 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1998)(noting that it is not necessary that prior cases have held the particular action in question unlawful so long as the unlawfulness of the action is apparent under pre-existing law). Our cases make clear that a Long “frisk” of a vehicle is only constitutional if there are specific, articulable facts from which a reasonable police officer could believe he was in danger. In our view, the constitutional violation in this case is clear-cut and obvious. No reasonable police officer could have really believed that a search was constitutional under the circumstances presented. C. Entitlement to Qualified Immunity on Other Grounds
The defendants argue that even if (1) the search was unlawful and (2) no reasonable police officer could have believed a search to be lawful, Officer Peace is entitled to qualified immunity because he was not personally involved in the search. The district court accepted this argument. We reject it. 8 Although no Fifth Circuit case addresses these exact facts, we reiterate that our Hunt decision clearly states that “[a]n individual’s decision to step out of his or her vehicle to greet a detaining officer does not create the individualized suspicion required for an automobile search.” Hunt, 253 F.3d at 232. 14 The district court’s determination that Officer Peace was not involved in the search relied upon Creamer v. Porter, 754 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1985)(affirming dismissal from suit of a deputy who was only a bystander to a search and seizure) and Watson v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co., 611 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1980)(holding that a sheriff without any personal involvement was properly dismissed from a § 1983 suit arising from an arrest and incarceration). However, those cases are inapposite. At the time of the incident, Officer Peace had 25 years of police experience. More importantly, he was the officer on the scene who had the information from which to determine whether Estep truly posed a danger. As such, he was responsible for deciding whether the search could be conducted lawfully or not. While the record does not show that Officer Peace directly ordered Quillen to search the vehicle, it is clear that Peace knew the search was transpiring (indeed, assuming arguendo that Peace did not know Quillen was going to search the vehicle prior to Quillen commencing the search, Estep informed him of that fact the moment the search began). As we see it, Peace decided to allow the search to go forward. Therefore, he is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
With respect to Officer Quillen, the defendants contend that even if (1) the search was unlawful and (2) no reasonable police 15 officer could have believed a search to be lawful, Officer Quillen is entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably relied upon Officer Peace’s conclusion that the officers were in danger. We also reject this argument. An officer can conduct a Long “frisk” of a vehicle based on information possessed by another officer. However, it is not reasonable for an officer to conclude that it is lawful to make such a search when his fellow officer does not provide him with any specific articulable facts from which a reasonable officer could think he was in danger. In the instant case, Peace told Quillen that he thought they were in danger, but he did not tell Quillen of any specific facts which would support that opinion. From the record evidence, the most we can say is that Peace told Quillen that (1) Estep had denied having a pistol; and (2) Estep had some mace. Based upon such flimsy evidence, it was unreasonable for Quillen to also conclude that they were in danger and that a search could be lawfully conducted. Thus, Quillen is not entitled to qualified immunity.
The evidence indicates that Officer Conley truly was a bystander in this matter. Thus, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Officer Conley.