Legal Document

483 U.S. 635 107 S.Ct. 3034 97 L.Ed.2d 523 Russell ANDERSON, Petitionerv.Robert E. CREIGHTON, Jr., et ux., al. No. 85-1520. Argued Feb. 23, 1987. Decided June 25, Syllabus Petitioner, a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, participated with other law enforcement officers in warrantless search respondents' home. The was conducted because petitioner believed that one Dixon, who suspected bank robbery committed earlier day, might be found there, but he not. Respondents filed state-court action against petitioner, asserting claim for damages under the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner removed suit to District Court and then motion dismissal or summary judgment, arguing Amendment barred by his qualified immunity from civil liability. Before any discovery occurred, court granted judgment on ground lawful. Appeals reversed, holding search's lawfulness could not determined factual disputes precluded deciding as matter supported probable cause exigent circumstances. also held entitled grounds, since right allegedly violated—the persons protected searches their homes unless searching have there are circumstances—was clearly established. Held: 1. is grounds if can establish reasonable officer comported even though it actually did Whether an official may personally liable unlawful generally turns "objective legal reasonableness" action, assessed light rules were "clearly established" at time taken. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 800, 102 2727, 73 396. In order conclude which violated established," contours must sufficiently clear would understand what doing violates right. apparently considered only fact free one's home circumstances established—erred refusing consider argument established confronted constitute relevant question here objective whether petitioner's lawful, information possessed. Petitioner's subjective beliefs about irrelevant. Pp. 638-641. 2. There no merit inappropriate give officials alleged Amendment—and thus necessarily unreasonably searched seized—the protection intended protect action. Such foreclosed this has previously extended Also without suggestion Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 105 2806, 86 411, overruled never conduct searches. Nor contention should provided police innocent third parties' fugitives. 642-646. 766 F.2d 1269, vacated remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 647. Andrew J. Pincus, petitioner. John Patrick Sheehy, Minneapolis, Minn., pro hac vice, special leave respondents. Justice SCALIA Court. 1 presented federal participates money 2 * Anderson agent Investigation. On November 11, 1983, state respondents, Creighton family. Vadaain man there. He 3 Creightons later Minnesota court, among things Amendment, see Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, 29 619 (1971).1 After removing dismiss Anderson's See 396 (1982). took place, undisputed facts revealed had Creighton's failure obtain warrant justified presence App. Pet. Cert. 23a-25a. 4 appealed Eighth Circuit, reversed. St. Paul, 1269 (1985). issue properly decided unresolved made impossible determine been Id., 1272-1276. Ibid. 5 petition certiorari, erred We petition, 478 1003, 106 3292, 92 708 (1986), important question. II 6 When government abuse offices, "action[s] offer realistic avenue vindication constitutional guarantees." U.S., 814, S.Ct., 2736. hand, permitting suits entail substantial social costs, including risk fear personal monetary liability harassing litigation will unduly inhibit discharge duties. Our cases accommodated these conflicting concerns providing performing discretionary functions immunity, shielding them long actions reasonably thought consistent rights they violated. See, e.g., Malley Briggs, 475 335, 341, 1092, 1096, 89 271 (1986) (qualified protects "all plainly incompetent those knowingly violate law"); id., 344-345, 1097-1098 (police applying warrants immune support application); 528, 2816, 411 (1985) (officials "the proscribed actions" took); Davis Scherer, 468 183, 191, 104 3012, 3017, 82 139 (1984); 198, 3021 (BRENNAN, concurring part part); supra, 819, 2738. Cf., Procunier Navarette, 434 555, 562, 98 855, 859, 55 24 (1978). Somewhat more concretely, Harlow, 2739, taken, 818, 7 operation standard, however, depends substantially upon level generality "legal rule" identified. For example, due process quite Due Process Clause, sense Clause (no how unclear particular violation) Much same said statutory violation. But test law" applied generality, bear relationship touchstone Harlow. Plaintiffs able convert rule our into virtually unqualified simply alleging violation extremely abstract rights. transformed guarantee pleading. approach, sum, destroy balance strike between interests citizens' public officials' effective performance duties," making "reasonably [to] anticipate when rise damages." Davis, 195, 3019.2 It surprising, therefore, particularized, hence relevant, sense: This say very unlawful, Mitchell, 535, n. 12, 2820, 12; pre-existing unlawfulness apparent. Malley, 1097-1098; 2816; 3019. 8 contends misapplied principles. agree. Appeals' brief discussion consisted little than assertion general specifically refused previous make refusal erroneous. does follow immediately conclusion firmly objectively legally unreasonable. recognized inevitable some mistakenly present, we indicated such officials—like act ways believe lawful—should liable. 1097-1098. true conclusions regarding 9 follows determination given often require examination possessed officials. contrary Creightons' assertion, reintroduce analysis inquiry intent sought minimize. 815-820, 2736-2739. case, (albeit fact-specific) 10 principles reaffirm today permitted argue that, governing searches, could, law, lawful.3 III 11 addition relying reasoning Appeals, advance three alternative affirmance. All take form, i.e., usual just described, exception case. note outset heavy burden sustain successful. emphasized doctrine reflects struck "across board," 821, 2740 concurring). 340, 1096 (" 'For executive general, . represents norm.' " (quoting 807, 2732)).4 Although narrow absolute see, Nixon 731, 2690, 349 (1982), unwilling complicate scope extent turn precise nature various duties character An many variants modes types conscientious assurance object provide. With observation mind, arguments advanced Creightons. 12 First, most broadly, possible, is, "reasonably" acted unreasonably. short answer supra caused unconstitutional arrest); wiretaps). Even so, still find unpersuasive. Its surface appeal attributable circumstance Amendment's guarantees expressed terms "unreasonable" seizures. Had equally serviceable term, "undue" seizures employed, termed unreasonable" application available—just available Fifth term "reasonable employed regardless terminology used, content Constitution's civil-liberties rests assessment accommodation governmental need individual freedom reasonable, so objection, substance, applies generally. frequently observed, point amply demonstrate, difficulty determining comport 1096. Law whose judgments difficult determinations analogous areas law. 13 reasons, reject narrower overrule (extending wiretaps), 14 Finally, narrowest procrustean proposal: They rest proposal conducting strictly English common fugitive present. Entick Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 95 Eng.Rep. 807 (K.B.1765). observed "common-law tradition,"5 342, suggested slavishly derived arcane That notion contradicted where completely reformulated along all embodied replacing malice required reasonableness As noted before, understanding principle board." 15 approach introduce complexity rivaling daunting deter us tailoring 642-643. Just field arrests, cursory Restatement (Second) Torts suggests exceptions arrests pursuant outside jurisdiction issuing authority, §§ 122, 129(a), after lapsed, 130(a), warrant, § 121. Both unsuitability betrayed itself apply musty purportedly its justification instead dwellings, merely (as appears provided) unsuccessful dwellings. Moreover, sources cited corollary successful, lie, existed. (quite prudently illogically) urged selective use 16 provide ability Where applicable, know current American security utterly defeated unable entangling themselves vagaries Balkanize carving detail propose. therefore decline involving 17 reasons stated, vacate remand case further proceedings opinion.6 18 ordered. whom MARSHALL join, dissenting. 20 beguiling apparent simplicity. accordingly task clarification settled brought announces new agents forcible nighttime entries citizens cause, valid emergency search. stunningly restricts accountability creating false dichotomy entitlement every misstep, responding uncritical precedents developed different group high office holders, displaying remarkably fidelity countervailing liberty privacy infuse Amendment.1 I Court's appropriate identify Appeals. now correct vacating award discovery. 21 understood implemented shield exposure person known. Applying principle, "exigent circumstances" 1277 (CA8 1985). referring "extraordinary defense left open defendant "can prove neither knew nor known standard," 2738, unaware Thus, reviewing rejecting first Fitzgerald requires advances fact-specific position concedes A negative required, both provides measure acts challenged, cannot showing immunity. Second, apart requirements doctrine, full review raises approve double standard reasonableness—the already generous constitutionally reasonable. Because careful Harlow-related set questions helpful assessing continuing embrace reasonableness, begin 22 Accepting moment affirm correctly concluded satisfied hinges illustrates limitation reach defendants' claims stage (1985), bolstered two policy attenuated based One interest allowing devote energy press business distractions invariably accompany lawsuit. 816-817, 2737; 524, 2814. second underpinning unfairness associated charging knowledge yet recognized. 2738; 2820.2 plaintiff's predicated wrong, favor trial, equal importance, before time-consuming pretrial commenced. Concern depletion diversion energies led abolish deprived plaintiff malicious deprive Wood Strickland, 420 308, 322, 992, 1000, 43 214 (1975). 23 decision today, fails recognize Harlow's removal arrow arsenal preclude advancing good-faith trial evidence warranted strategy. contrast, focuses and, invoked, spending depositions, document review, conferences Consistently overriding concern avoid good faith officials," 816, 2737, allow until official's judgment. implicitly assumed issues parties exchanged answers interrogatories, admissions.3 considerations underlying formulation Executive Branch officials, distinct prior recognition founded Constitution. hardly acquires importance once created; "practical consequences remedy authorized essentially flowing immunity." 538, 2822 (STEVENS, judgment). Probing raised begin, rote recitation play instance. 25 student quickly learns, 397, 2005, (1971), "to recover injuries suffered result agents' [Fourth] Amendment." finding available, relied respondents position. Second Circuit passed ruling, it. 397-398, 2005. remand, Named Agents Narcotics, 456 1339, 1348 (1972), articulated dual reasonableness. initial matter, rejected Barr Matteo, 360 564, 79 1335, 1434 (1959), performs "discretionary levels concept duty encompasses sound exercise authority." 575, 1341. wisely "would sorry affairs 'discretion' enter dwelling 6:30 A.M., cause. ." F.2d, 1346. nevertheless demands manages escape toils criminal "right searches." 1347. According "must peril"; "need allege sense." 1348. Instead, prevail "not believed, faith, belief reasonable." affirmative trial.4 type5 foreclose my view, appropriate. strength specific would, course, vary challenged arrest.6 26 recognized, assuring discretion illegal advantageous society. While executives Attorney General United States senior assistant President latitude uncharted constant suits, proceedings, Today makes fundamental error assuming petitioner7 officials.8 doctrinal precedential sweep forgetfulness multiplied interchangeability 1983 restricting criticism four corners framework, errs treating denial satisfy tantamount ruling defendants exposed Amendment.9 Circuit's thesis complied lesser retain partial liability, although leads erroneous else none save itself.10 27 Part III, explain why latter now, assert limited proposition speak extent, any, insulation charged violating deeply etched jurisprudence, argues command. Judge she convinced absence words, substantive appealed, argued Constitution violated, defining home.11 setting aside granting essential matters sharply disputed version incident accepted, exigent-circumstances necessary try out 1277. probable-cause unquestionably correct. 28 qualified-immunity ought resolved taken place. 818-819, 2738.12 clear. persuasive ground—namely, requirement concerning relies, doubt entry always unlawful.13 shown trying notwithstanding warrant. assume established, either law—whether 1983. Rather, competent faced "probable cause" circumstances," own engaged within suffices predicate complaint, rather affidavits Obviously, opportunity accuracy completeness basis claim. Neither Court,14 petitioner,15 disagrees proposition. pellucidly record 30 departure view years ago authorizing wiretap domestic wiretapping added footnote: 31 "We do intend suggest explicitly identical legitimate exists, law." 12. 32 Of faces situation addition, officer's (by circumstances, case) analytically undertaken officer—the which, certainly facts, kind tentativeness nonexistence officer, accepted Mitchell. 33 appear in, by, citizen's By mean affords layers adverse consequence, suppression evidence. Having adopted exclusionary invalid Leon, 897, 3405, 677 (1984), seems prepared anxious remove obey entering private remain well hearing suppress evidence, "an seizure 'unreasonable' 'reasonable' time." 960, 3445-3446 dissenting). 34 "federal impunity ignore limitations controlling placed powers." Butz Economou, 438 478, 489, 2894, 2902, 57 895 effect (literally unwarranted) extension fear, allows impunity. name avoiding interference activities requirement, limits police's coercive form frees power strict Pierson Ray, 386 547, 87 1213, 288 (1967). 35 unreasonable, reasonable: vague unfair expect comply it;16 second, saddling burdens officers;17 third, nothing "we Amendment," ante, 643, finally, "unduly 638. None behalf me. 36 Unquestionably, been, uncertainty cases. survived England America. M. Hale, History Pleas Crown 150 (1847); Jolowicz & T. Lewis, Winfield Tort 579-580 (8th ed. 1967); Weber, Birth Probable Cause, Anglo-Am.L.Rev. 155, 166 Except relies magistrate issued reason newly minted certainty standard. Indeed, worth emphasizing recognizes fair leeway carrying dangerous work. leaves room mistakes, mistakes officer. W. LaFave, Search Seizure 567 (2d 1987). guidance statement Brinegar States, 338 160, 69 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), almost decades ago: 37 "These long-prevailing standards seek safeguard rash unreasonable interferences unfounded charges crime. enforcing community's protection. situations confront course executing less ambiguous, allowed part. men, acting leading sensibly probability. practical, nontechnical conception affording best compromise accommodating opposing interests. Requiring hamper enforcement. To law-abiding mercy officers' whim caprice." 176, 1311. 38 Cabinet aide compelling. Testifying routine job; her participation occasion nearly great disruption everyday official. political constraints Constitution18 slight, officers, lead more, less, vigorous activity. wrong justify broad officers. reasoned Scheuer Rhodes, 416 232, 245-247, 94 1683, 1691, 40 90 (1974): 39 "When evaluates relating arrest guideline 'good cause.' higher branch, far complex range decisions choices—whether policy, legislation, budgets, day-to-day decisions—is infinite. [S]ince options chief principal subordinates broader subtle responsibility, comparably broad." supports reference cases: involved wrong. evaluated reasonableness.19 Despite protestations contrary, today. encourage uncertain jurisprudence. house impracticable interpretation intrusion, citizens. 1218, 42 U.S.C. "if explained: "Under prevailing country peace someone innocence suspect proved. Restatement, 121 (1965); Harper James, 3.18, 277-278 (1956); Ward Fidelity Deposit Co. Maryland, 179 327 (CA 8th Cir.1950). policeman's lot unhappy choose being dereliction mulcted does." 41 intolerable subsequently mistaken. Today, counts twice20 individual's once. double-counting understandable sympathy plight unfettered ascribes Framers possible magnitude invasion illustrated case.21 family invaded several owner's consent, show force, blunt expressions disrespect members. comes us, intrusion Steagald 451 204, 211, 101 1642, 1647, 68 (1981). Proceeding assumption, family's accorded weight Government's unlawful.22 Arguably, Government considers discourage conduct, indemnity Preferably, furnish training entirely eliminate necessity distinguish deems reasonable.23 "Federal mere mistake 507, 2911. surely entire benefit hindsight, break equipped force arms IV faithful traditions embedded adoption Bill Rights wrote: 44 "The variety settings. zone defined bounded unambiguous physical dimensions home—a finds roots terms: 'The people secure y(3)27 houses shall violated.' language unequivocally establishes '[a]t core [of Amendment] stands retreat intrusion.' Silverman 365 505, 511 [81 679, 734, (1961)]. property persons, drawn firm line entrance house. Absent threshold crossed warrant." Payton New York, 445 573, 589-590, 100 1371, 1381-1382, 63 639 (1980).24 45 safeguards bedrock while bestowed permits him job doctrinally flawed unjustifiably unnecessarily upsets delicate respect servants enforce laws. 46 respectfully dissent. named defendants. Only remains however. dissent, seemingly adopt seeks (though 654, 661-662, accused 659-667) raise asserted proved trial. 653. modified (and fortunate modification applies) totally abandon concern—which driving behind reformulation principles—that "insubstantial claims" possible. passably clever envisioned dissent expanded governments programs through reimburse expenses incurred challenging capacities. extend beyond bounds subsequent cases, beside point. care serve, contend refer reimbursement certain reconsideration CFR 50.15(c) (1987) (permitting Department employees appropriate); F. Harper, O. Gray, 29.9, (2nd 1986) (listing programs). These demonstrate emptiness dissent's "[t]oday officials." Post, 654 (footnote omitted). last Term unanimously described (1986). holding. common-law tradition cf. 340-342, 1095-1097; considerably draconian English. 206 (1965) (officers privileged party's there). Noting renew whatever granted. think somewhat complicated. purposes "broad-ranging discovery" "peculiarly disruptive government." 817, 2737-2738 reason, earliest litigation. 526, 2815, If are, Cf. ibid. not, lawful), resolved. tailored provides: houses, papers, effects, seizures, Warrants issue, Oath affirmation, particularly describing place searched, seized." theme pervades pre-Harlow opinions construing Those causes directly Constitution, "it 'untenable draw distinction officials.' 30, 2783, 504, 2909, (1978)). Accord, 2, 1095, changes prescience escapes scholars, lawyers, judges, way awareness enumerated 247-248, 1692, (1974), existence formed coupled belief." 1001, (1975), "knowledge basic, unquestioned rights" students "imposes responsible requiring degree intelligence proper fulfillment duties, unwarranted value system." O'Connor Donaldson, 422 563, 2486, ruled was, part, hospital superintendent unconstitutionally confining patient patient's And 565, 861, (1978), "Because expected aware declared, petitioners disregard 'cannot characterized faith.' 322 [95 1001]." norm. change rule. field, unsupported "If developments, fairly 'know' forbade identified unlawful." Logically, command responds narrowly category dispute fits category. Gomez Toledo, 446 635, 640, 1920, 1923, 64 572 (1980) (defendant pleading defense). "Reliance measured excessive permit resolution insubstantial judge appropriately determine, currently applicable occurred. unlawful. Until resolved, allowed. ordinarily fail, conduct." 2738 (footnotes hazards predict agree constituted numerous dissents, concurrences reversals, especially decade, indicate learned experienced jurists govern tries thicket, peril." (CA2 1972) (citations "Is inferable [to ] ventilate privilege sustained, immunity?" P. Bator, Mishkin, D. Shapiro, H. Wechsler, Hart Wechsler's Courts System 1421 1973). asserts assumption 1095. 642, 4. magistrate. declined accept invitation expand 1097. warrant" "ample mistaken judgments." 343, carefully avoided comment "qualified immunity" "But 'clearly law' [p]laintiffs Ante, 639. possibility depend dispute. but, despite intimation prevent jury resolving thereafter concluding Memorandum Points Authorities 29, Record A-52. precludes defeat defense. adopting purely inapplicable least first, culpable mind Allen Scribner, 812 426, 436 (CA9 1987); Note, Qualified Immunity Officials: Problem Unconstitutional Purpose Civil Litigation, Yale L.J. 126, 136-137 susceptible regulated entrenched norm, brand planned ascertained Reardon Wroan, 811 1025 (CA7 1987) denied viewed favorable plaintiffs); Jasinski Adams, 781 843 (CA11 (per curiam) (federal genuine cause); Deary Three Unnamed Police Officers, 746 185 (CA3 1984) cause). reveals little, complaint attention hypothetical drafted "passably plaintiff" "violation rights." 3039, am concerned average citizen forced concrete 646—647, 6. Brief 33-34, 18. 644. "Law "Intense scrutiny, people, press, Congress, traditional method deterring violations Branch. Unless Congress authorizes remedies, presumably intends retributions decide incremental deterrence outweighs decisionmaking. However struck, national enabling responsibilities area perform sensitive decisiveness potentially ruinous hesitation." 541, 2823, signal unwillingness effect. suggested, exception, turning practice. prosecution expenditure judicial 924, 3421, (1984). them, instructed passage quoted earlier. go instruct exonerated erroneously) confuse bites apple." Llaguno Mingey, 763 1560, 1569 1985) (Posner, J.) (en banc). detail. reads, follows: dismissed inferences favor. Adickes Kress Co., 398 144, 158-59 [90 1598, 1608-09, 142] (1970). night Sarisse Robert young daughters quiet evening spotlight suddenly flashed front window. Mr. opened door uniformed plain clothes brandishing shotguns. white; black. responded asked wanted. account verified Paul report), told 'keep hands sight' rushed door. him, 'We don't [and] [one]; you watch too much TV.' "Mr. put guns away children frightened, refused. Mrs. awoke shrieking children, pointed shotgun her. She yelling 'sit damn asses down stop screaming.' 'What hell going on?' her, 'Why your kids sit couch shut up.' "One red silver car. downstairs garage, maroon Oldsmobile parked, punched face, knocking ground, causing bleed mouth forehead. alleges attempting move past garage panicked hit him. attempted grab shotgun, crime contraband person. Shaunda, ten-year-old daughter, witnessed assault screamed mother come help. "Mrs. phoned mother, kicked grabbed phone 'hang up phone.' run neighbor's safety. ran chased them. neighbor Shaunda shoulders shook 'Can't she's shock; alone get house.' Children's Hospital arm injury rough handling. "During melee, members friends began arriving embarrassed treatment suspects major At time, again replied, 'I warrantwhen I'm looking fugitive.' discover unspecified 'fugitive' whatsoever type Nonetheless, arrested handcuffed obstruction justice station jailed overnight, released charged." 1270-1271 citation involves Government, Jackson's pertinent. wrote, part: [Fourth rights], protest, second-class belong catalog indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations rights, cowing population, crushing spirit putting terror heart. Uncontrolled weapons arbitrary 180, 1313. difficulties creation Leon reliance "Suppose, challenge FBI agent. shows of, fully fourth amendment Would agent's lived apprised law? Or enough met lower well-trained officer? th[e] individualized motions greater devoted protecting interests." Wasserstrom Mertens, Exclusionary Rule Scaffold: Was Fair Trial?, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 85, 120 (1984) "It axiomatic 'physical evil wording directed.' Welsh Wisconsin, 466 740, 748, 2091, 2096, 80 732 407 297, 313, 2125, 2134, 752 (1972)).

Classification Label: 7