Opinion ID: 69353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deroche

Text: The district court held that, although Floyd “may have established a possible constitutional violation,” Deroche was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct “was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” The conduct to which the district court referred was that of Deroche’s entering Floyd’s backyard and viewing the supplies. This information was later used to support search and arrest warrants against Floyd. We start with an examination of the pleadings as to Deroche. The Defendants’ answer stated that an unnamed officer (the record indicates it was Deroche) and a National Guardsman responded to a burglar alarm at Floyd’s residence. It was “as a result of responding to the burglar alarm numerous items that appeared to have [been] misappropriated” were seen. The answer also stated that the search on the next day was based on probable cause set forth in a warrant. In his Schultea reply, Floyd had to engage the allegations that supported qualified immunity. Shultea, 47 F.3d at 1433-34. Floyd stated in the reply that Deroche was dispatched for the specific purpose of entering the property “in an effort to secure any means with which to embarrass Floyd, and then falsely assert[] in an affidavit submitted to a neutral magistrate that the entry had been in response to a burglar alarm.” Floyd alleges that the alarm company’s records “reflect that the type of alarm which sounded . . . is that which occurs when someone tests the door by jiggling the knob” and further contends that the alarm company’s records “reflect notification that police were on the scene within one minute of the initial record of the alarm.” 6 No. 08-30637 The reasonable inferences that can be drawn from these statements are that Deroche either intentionally set the alarm off after entering Floyd’s property in order to provide an excuse for being on the premises, or Deroche unintentionally set the alarm off while on the premises, then used it as subterfuge. The Schultea reply directly challenges the claim that the alarm created the probable cause for Deroche to go to Floyd’s residence. The Defendants move beyond the point and counterpoint of the pleadings and claim that Deroche’s conduct must “be examined against the backdrop of circumstances that have never before existed in this country and which hopefully will never come to pass again.” Even if Floyd’s allegations are accepted as true, the Defendants argue, Deroche’s actions must be considered in light of the exigent circumstances at play, particularly the “chaos and lawlessness that followed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the necessity of insuring that the vast amounts of donated goods reached those for whom [they were] intended, rather than being misappropriated for the individual profit of the undeserving.” We disagree. The complaint and the Schultea reply alleges that Deroche took advantage of chaotic times in a troubled city as a screen for going to Floyd’s residence to further the malicious schemes of a political antagonist. There may be no supportive evidence. But the claim exists. It is presented with sufficient clarity under our pleading rules to survive dismissal. Hurricane Katrina is an explanation for many events. It is not a justification for intentional acts of the sort that Floyd claims. We note that, even beyond the pleadings, an exhibit to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is the September 20 application for a search warrant. It asserts that a National Guardsman and Deroche claimed to have gone to Floyd’s residence in response to a burglar alarm. An affidavit by Detective Cunningham, made three days after the search, made the same assertion. Clearly, concerns about Floyd’s possible misappropriation of relief supplies were 7 No. 08-30637 not asserted as the reason for Deroche’s trip to Floyd’s residence. Instead, it was the burglar alarm. Floyd’s reply to the qualified immunity defense engages that explanation sufficiently. In Schultea, we adopted the rationale that, “in some cases, such as in search cases, probable cause and exigent circumstances will often turn on facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants. And if there are conflicts in the allegations regarding the actions taken by the police officers, discovery may be necessary.” Schultea, 47 F.3d at 1432 (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987)). Here, the Defendants ask us to accept that Deroche entered the property for the sole purpose of determining if relief items were present. At the time, Deroche alleged he entered because of the alarm. Floyd asserts that Deroche knew that Floyd was not misappropriating relief items; instead, the entry into the property was all about embarrassing Floyd because of his past run-ins with then-Chief of Police Congemi. This is the type of conflict that warrants discovery. The district court should not have dismissed the claim.