Opinion ID: 170333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Immunity from the Seizure, Detention, and Contact Claims

Text: In granting summary judgment to the deputies, the district court held that the Bradfords' seizure, detention, and contact claims were barred by qualified immunity. In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court set forth a definitive test for review of summary judgment motions raising that defense. Under Saucier, we must consider whether [t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, . . . the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. If so, we must then determine whether the right was clearly established. Id. In order to answer the threshold question of Saucier, the court must decide whether, if the evidence is taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the alleged facts show that the deputies violated the Bradfords' Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. To establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment in a Section 1983 action, the claimant must demonstrate both that a `seizure' occurred and that the seizure was `unreasonable.' Childress v. City of Arapaho, 210 F.3d 1154, 1156 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 599, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989)). A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when a police officer restrains the liberty of an individual through physical force or show of authority. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 ]L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Assuming, without deciding, that the Bradfords were seized, to establish a Fourth Amendment violation, we must find that the seizure was unreasonable. Brower, 489 U.S. at 599, 109 S.Ct. 1378. In determining reasonableness, courts must look to the balancing of competing interests. Holland ex rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1185 (10th Cir.2001). The determination of reasonableness takes into account that officers are frequently forced to make split-second decisions under stressful and dangerous conditions. While there is no ready test, reasonableness. is determined by balancing the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion against the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-21, 88 S.Ct. 1868. In this case, the governmental interest at stake was the successful arrest of Michael Bradford. When the Bradfords rushed toward their son upon his arrest, it was reasonable of the officers to make the split-second decision that the Bradfords' actions could possibly interfere with the arrest. Therefore the brief seizure of the Bradfords was reasonable. While the Bradfords' concern for their son's wellbeing may be understandable  given how aggressively he was tackled  we hold that the deputies' actions were reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, and the circumstances were unquestionably escalated by Debra and Michael's behavior. Having concluded that any seizure that occurred was reasonable and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment, we need not address the second Saucier question to determine qualified immunity  whether the constitutional right was clearly established. See, e.g., Wilder v. Turner, 490 F.3d 810, 813 (10th Cir.2007) (If the officer's conduct did not violate a constitutional right, the inquiry ends and the officer is, entitled to qualified immunity.). The answer to the threshold inquiry  that a constitutional right was not violated  is enough to conclude that the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity from the seizure, detention, and contact claims.