Opinion ID: 6983251
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unlawful Seizure of Deborah Womack

Text: Deborah Womack alleges that the officers unreasonably seized her by placing her in handcuffs without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment bars even those “ ‘seizures’ of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Significantly, the district court dismissed Deborah Womack’s claim without findings. As a preliminary matter, it is clear Defendants “seized” Deborah Womack when they handcuffed her at 395 Stoddart, as she did not feel free to leave at that point. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 553, 100 S.Ct. 1870. Under the facts as Plaintiffs have alleged them, Deborah Womack, who is hearing and speech impaired and has been so disabled since the age of one, did not interfere with Defendants when she encountered them. Defendants’ own assertions indirectly support this claim. For example, Officer Moore testified that two women were pushing him, keeping their hands out to prevent him from getting through the living room, and screaming obscenities at him. As the police arrested two other women, Ingram and Collins, for obstruction and as Deborah Womack could not have been one of the women screaming obscenities at the officers, we believe a material question exists as to whether Deborah Womack did anything giving rise to reasonable suspicion that would warrant her seizure. Moreover, we observe that Deborah Womack possessed the same right that Ingram and Collins possessed to defend against the warrantless entry by Defendants into her house, the exercise of which could not provide justification for her handcuffing. We therefore conclude that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Deborah Womack’s claim of unlawful seizure in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.