Opinion ID: 7279
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brandenburg's Claims

Text: Brandenburg alleges that the defendants' conduct during the January 21, 1991 standoff amounted to an unlawful seizure and that the officers used excessive force in attempting to effect his arrest. 2 Both allegations implicate well-established rights under the Fourth Amendment and are thus sufficient to satisfy the first step of the qualified-immunity analysis. Our concern therefore is with whether, when viewed objectively, the facts and circumstances surrounding the standoff support as objectively reasonable the deputies' conduct with regard to Brandenburg. We find that they do. In order to make a warrantless arrest in a public place, the arresting officers must have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. See Harper v. Harris County, 21 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.1994). In this case, the victim of the alleged assault identified Brandenburg by name. The victim's identifying statement was corroborated by other patrons. The deputies also knew that Brandenburg was a convicted felon and that he lived nearby. Under these circumstances, the deputies had probable cause to believe that Brandenburg had committed a crime. See United States v. Dougall, 919 F.2d 932, 934 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1234, 111 S.Ct. 2860, 115 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1991) (probable cause may rest on victim's description of assailant). Brandenburg argues that the existence of probable cause did not authorize the deputies to arrest him when he was physically located on Fontenot's property. In support of his argument, Brandenburg relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Payton teaches that the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. Id. at 576, 100 S.Ct. at 1374-75; see also United States v. Richard, 994 F.2d 244, 247 (5th Cir.1993). The decision rests on the heightened interest of privacy associated with being free from intrusion in one's home or dwelling. Id. at 587-88, 100 S.Ct. at 1380-81. However, this Court has held that the expectation of privacy recognized in Payton does not exist when a felony suspect stands at the open door of his residence or is otherwise accessible to the public. See United States v. Carrion, 809 F.2d 1120, 1128 (5th Cir.1987) (doorway of hotel room); United States v. Holland, 755 F.2d 253, 255 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125, 105 S.Ct. 2657, 86 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985) (common hallway); United States v. Mason, 661 F.2d 45 (5th Cir.1981) (front door of home). The deputies made initial contact with Brandenburg when Brandenburg sat in his car on a public street in front of his home. The deputies rushed the car with guns drawn and ordered Brandenburg out of the vehicle. They announced their intention to detain him, and Brandenburg exited the vehicle with his hands up. When Brandenburg ascertained that the deputies did not have a warrant, he fled and was temporarily tackled by Deputy Guidry before he reached Fontenot's carport. In California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), the United States Supreme Court confirmed that a seizure occurs for Fourth Amendment purposes when, by physical force (however slight) or a show of authority, a law enforcement officer restrains the liberty of a citizen in some way. Here, Brandenburg submitted to a show of authority in a public street when he exited his vehicle with his hands up upon police orders. He was thereafter subjected to physical force in a publicly accessible area when Deputy Guidry attempted to subdue him as he fled across Fontenot's yard. Thus, contrary to plaintiff's arguments, the deputies' seizure of Brandenburg did not occur in a private place. Because Brandenburg did not have a protectable privacy interest in the public street or in Fontenot's yard, and the deputies had probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime, their seizure of Brandenburg was lawful. Brandenburg's subsequent escape to the safety of the carport does not change matters. Brandenburg had no expectation of privacy in the carport either. It was open to public view and accessible from the street. Moreover, even if Brandenburg had had an expectation of privacy when standing under the carport, a felony suspect cannot defeat a lawful arrest begun in a public place by escaping into a private place. See United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 43, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 2409-10, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976). The deputies were therefore well within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment when they detained Brandenburg while he stood under the carport. Brandenburg's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim merits little discussion. To prevail on his claim, Brandenburg was required to prove a significant injury, which resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and that the excessiveness of the need was objectively unreasonable. 3 See Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1989) (en banc ). Although the standoff between the deputies and Brandenburg lasted over half an hour, the only force actually used against Brandenburg was Deputy Guidry's effort to tackle him. Brandenburg suffered no significant injury from this attempt to subdue him. Moreover, Guidry's use of nondeadly force was objectively reasonable in light of Brandenburg's history of violence and what could reasonably have been viewed as an effort on Brandenburg's part to escape. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1871-72, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). In sum, we find that the seizure and force used in this case were reasonable under the circumstances. The deputies are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for their actions against Brandenburg. The magistrate judge's order is thus affirmed to the extent that it granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the deputies and against Brandenburg.