Court Opinion

ID: 9473573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:33:17.338543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:36.353497
License: Public Domain

COFFEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.1
I concur with the majority’s analysis that the forty-two hour detention of James David Llaguno, without a determination of probable cause, violates the constitutional standards of the Fourth Amendment as set forth in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114, 95 S.Ct. 854, 863, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). I also concur with the majority’s result, though not its reasoning, that the presence of exigent circumstances and probable cause to enter the Llaguno home without a warrant were factual matters to be resolved by the jury. I strongly dissent, however, from the majority’s erroneous conclusion that the district court committed trial errors sufficient to remand this case for a new trial.
According to the evidence introduced at trial, on January 7, 1980, at approximately 6:45 p.m., Detective James Troken and Officer Joseph Fallon, of the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”), received a police radio call that gun shots had been fired near the intersection of Wabansia Avenue and Whipple Avenue, in the City of Chicago, Illinois. The officers immediately proceeded to that location and, upon arrival, Detec*1571tive Troken was directed to a corner grocery store where he observed three people lying on the ground, all of whom had been shot in the face and brutally murdered. According to Detective Troken, “[d]ue to the massive head wounds to the face area, it was impossible to tell how many [wounds] or what type of wound it was.” Officer Fallon remained outside the store and began questioning bystanders concerning the shootings. Three male Hispanics stated that they had seen “a light-colored, four-door Ford, [with] primer on the door, and ... on the trunk.” The car “pullfed] up to the corner of Wabansia and Whipple. Two [Latino] men got out [and] went into the grocery store. One man stayed in the car.” According to the three eyewitnesses, “they heard shots fired, and the two male Latinos who were going to the grocery store ... got in the car and left the scene.” Following receipt of this information, Officers Troken and Fallon immediately began to search the surrounding area for the suspected murderers’ automobile.
At approximately 8:00 p.m., while still conducting their search for the suspected murderers’ vehicle, the officers heard a police radio broadcast that another armed robbery was in progress at 1858 West Wabansia Avenue. The officers, who were already “in the area,” sped to the tavern located at that address and, upon arrival, questioned a female bartender. She explained that “two Puerto Ricans, male Puerto Ricans entered her tavern, ordered two bottles of Old Style, ... announced a stick-up and started firing with their weapons.” The officers discovered that the bartender had been wounded in the hip and that another woman had been shot in the face and violently murdered. In addition, Officer Fallon interviewed an eyewitness who stated that he had “seen a light-colored Ford with two male Latinos go up to the corner of Wolcott and Wabansia, and they exited the car and went into the tavern.” According to the eyewitness, the two male Latinos left “the bar after [he] had heard shots, ... with a young ten- or twelve-year-old female, girl, white girl____” The eyewitness added that the suspects’ automobile was a “light-colored Ford, four-door with primer on the door and the trunk.” Officers Fallon and Troken received a partial license plate identification number of the vehicle from another eyewitness and then returned to police headquarters where they informed a Sergeant Mingey of the information they had obtained. Following this meeting with their sergeant, Officers Fallon and Troken began a search of the CPD’s license plate and vehicle registration files in an attempt to determine the owner of the automobile in question.
At approximately 9:15 p.m., Sergeant Mingey radioed Officers Troken and Fallon to join him at the intersection of North Avenue and Oakley Avenue. Upon their arrival, the officers observed “a school bus parked on Oakley just north of North Avenue, with one of the windows apparently shot out, a squad car with one of the windows shot out, and ... a light-colored, four-door Ford with primer on the trunk and primer on the door.” Mingey informed Officer Troken that:
“another police vehicle had spotted the car because it was simulcast that we were looking for a Ford, four-door with primer marks, possibly with a female white youth in the back seat. There was allegedly a chase and there were shots fired. A police officer was wounded. One of the passengers — or one of the occupants of the vehicle wanted was wounded and other people had escaped.”
The officers agreed that the vehicle “involved in this particular incident was the one used in ... the other two homicide-robberies.” A check of the license plate number revealed that the light-colored Ford automobile was not reported stolen and was, in fact, registered to “[a] person by the name of Llaguno, 3852 West Wabansia,” an address within the “proximity” of the four murders, the two armed robberies, the child kidnapping, the high-speed auto chase, and the police shoot-out.
The foregoing facts reveal that within a two-and-one-half-hour period, two young male Hispanics, one operating and one a *1572passenger in a light-colored Ford registered to a Llaguno at 3852 West Wabansia, shot and violently murdered four people, shot and wounded at least two others (including a police officer), committed two armed robberies, kidnapped a female child, attempted to flee police officers in a high-speed chase through the streets of west Chicago, engaged in a shoot-out with police officers within the “proximity” of the Llaguno residence, and fled from the scene of the shoot-out on foot. According to the facts then and there available to the police officers, the light-colored Ford auto, with primer on the trunk and door and a partial license identification, fit the description of the suspected murderers’ vehicle; the vehicle was not reported stolen; the fleeing suspects were young Hispanics; and the vehicle was registered to a Llaguno (an Hispanic surname) at 3852 West Wabansia Avenue. Furthermore, the four murders, the two armed robberies, the child kidnapping, the high-speed auto chase, and the police shoot-out occurred within the “proximity” of the Llaguno residence; the suspects fled from the scene of the shoot-out on foot; and the CPD officers were well aware of the fact that fleeing felons often retreat to the sanctuary of their own home. Sergeant Mingey made a well-reasoned judgment that because of the gravity of the underlying offenses and the fact that the crazed murderers were still at large, he could not afford to wait the “[approximately three hours” it takes to obtain a search warrant or the “[approximately two hours, give or take another hour” it takes to obtain an arrest warrant. Mingey stated that “[t]here were too many people that were already killed and wounded and I had to put an end to it. We had to stop it.” Thus, Sergeant Mingey proceeded to the Llaguno residence without first securing a search or arrest warrant, not only endangering his own life but also the lives of his fellow officers, in order to protect the public from the murderers at large. Sergeant Mingey immediately entered his squad car and traveled with Officers William Connors and Joseph Sparks to police headquarters, obtained a sledge-hammer and shotgun, and returned to the Llaguno residence at 3852 West Wabansia where he met Officers Fallon and Troken. Mingey, Connors, and Sparks approached the front door of the Llaguno household while Fallon and Troken positioned themselves at the rear of the residence. Sergeant Mingey banged on the door stating, “Police. Open or we will break it down.” Gloria Llaguno opened the front door and the CPD officers, armed with guns, entered the home, searching the main floor, upstairs, and basement levels for “a male Latin [sic] in his twenties by the the name of Llaguno.”
The issue before this court is whether we will approve the jury’s finding that the CPD officers had probable cause and were presented with sufficient exigent circumstances to enter the Llaguno home without a warrant. The parties agree that the applicable law in this case is the Supreme Court's holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“Payton”), that the warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a home to effect an arrest, in the absence of exigent circumstances, violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In effect, the Court in Payton decided that “warrant-less felony arrests in the home are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2097 (1984). According to this court’s reasoning in United States v. Acevedo, 627 F.2d 68 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1021, 101 S.Ct. 587, 66 L.Ed.2d 482 (1980), exigent circumstances are present when “the exceedingly strong privacy interest in one’s residence is outweighed by the risk that delay will engender injury, destruction of evidence, or escape.” 627 F.2d at 70. I further note that “an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being made.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 104 S.Ct. at 2099 (emphasis added).
In the present case, the suspected felons, within a two-and-one-half-hour time span, *1573violently murdered four people, wounded at least two others, committed two armed robberies, kidnapped a female child, attempted to flee police officers in a high-speed auto chase through the streets of west Chicago, engaged in a shoot-out with those same police officers, and then fled from the scene of the shoot-out on foot in near “proximity” to the Llaguno residence. Sergeant Mingey testified that it would have taken three hours to obtain a search warrant and anywhere between one and three hours to obtain an arrest warrant. Common sense, logic, and the past experiences of well-trained law enforcement officers dictate that a delay of this magnitude, given the fact that the murderers were armed and still at large, would have exposed members of the public, as well as police officers in the area, to a greater threat of severe injury, danger, and possible death. Moreover, if the officers had surrounded the Llaguno residence in a stake-out and waited to obtain a warrant before entering the home, this inactivity would have allowed the suspected murderers to rearm and reestablish themselves in preparation for a possible second shoot-out with police. The element of surprise is of the utmost importance when dealing with a highly volatile arrest situation of this nature. Sergeant Mingey had no time to engage in the mental gymnastics suggested by the majority, speculating as to the risk of delay and the severity of the harm that would occur if such a risk materialized. Indeed, an academic analysis of this nature would be desirable, if possible, but in the everyday world of law enforcement, officers are all too frequently assaulted, maimed, and killed in the line of duty. For example, in 1983, eighty law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty and another 62,324 were assaulted. U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Reports: Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted 3, 39 (1983). The legal analysis suggested by the majority is impossible in the split-second determinations that a law enforcement officer is called upon to make in a life-threatening situation. It takes days, weeks, and sometimes even months for judges to reach a proper conclusion on the issue of exigent circumstances, thus we cannot require a “cop in the heat of battle” to completely withdraw himself from a life-threatening situation in order to ponder and weigh all of the variables involved. In light of the egregious facts presented in this case, it was certainly proper for the jury to find that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry into the Llaguno home.
The next issue is whether the CPD officers had probable cause, combined with the exigent circumstances then and there existing, to enter the Llaguno home without a warrant. The officers’ clear intent in entering the household at 3852 West Wabansia was to arrest a young male Hispanic in his twenties by the name of Llaguno, the prime suspect in four violent murders, two armed robberies, a child kidnapping, a high-speed auto chase, and a police shoot-out that had occurred within the “proximity” of the Llaguno home. According to the Supreme Court in Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964), probable cause to make a warrantless arrest exists if “the facts and circumstances within [the policemen’s] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.” 379 U.S. at 91, 85 S.Ct. at 225-26 (citing Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168,171,4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76,69 S.Ct. 1302,1310-11, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)). See also Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200,208 n. 9,99 S.Ct. 2248,2254 n. 9, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Probable cause “is a fluid concept — turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts— not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328-29, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Thus, “[i]n dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These *1574are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. at 175, 69 S.Ct. at 1310. See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 231, 103 S.Ct. at 2328; Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. at 121, 95 S.Ct. at 866-867; United States v. Covelli, 738 F.2d 847, 853 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 211, 83 L.Ed.2d 141 (1984); United States v. Watson, 587 F.2d 365, 368 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1132, 99 S.Ct. 1055, 59 L.Ed.2d 95 (1979). In making a determination of probable cause, “the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty,’ but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 244 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 n. 13.
In the present case, it was reasonable for the well-trained and experienced CPD officers to believe, based upon the available facts, circumstances, and information, that the armed and dangerous fleeing felon was a young Hispanic in his twenties by the name of Llaguno, residing at 3852 West Wabansia. The officers knew that the light-colored Ford automobile, with two distinct primer spots and a partial license identification, was registered to a Llaguno at this very address. The officers further knew, after checking their registration files, that the vehicle had not been reported stolen. Thus, it was reasonable to believe that Llaguno was operating the automobile. The officers were aware of the fact that Llaguno is an Hispanic surname, thereby corroborating the eyewitness descriptions of the fleeing felons as Hispanics. The officers also had knowledge of the fact that the four violent murders, the two armed robberies, the child kidnapping, the automobile chase, and the police shootout occurred within the “proximity” of the Llaguno residence and that the armed suspects had fled on foot. The well-trained and experienced officers agreed that fleeing felons often retreat to the familiar confines of their own home, especially when fleeing on foot and the home is within the nearby vicinity. Based upon these facts and circumstances, the police officers certainly had “reason to believe the suspect [was] within” the premises of the Llaguno home at 3852 West Wabansia Avenue. Payton, 445 U.S. at 603, 100 S.Ct. at 1388-1389. Moreover, the CPD officers had sufficient facts “to warrant a prudent man in believing” that a male Hispanic in his twenties by the name of Llaguno, residing at 3852 West Wabansia Avenue, had committed a crime. Thus, unlike four members of this court, I am convinced that the CPD officers had sufficient facts to obtain an arrest warrant from a neutral magistrate, if time had permitted. See, e.g., Powe v. City of Chicago, 664 F.2d 639, 647 (7th Cir.1981) (suspect’s nickname and address sufficient to obtain arrest warrant). Accordingly, the jury was entitled to find, as it did, that the CPD officers had probable cause to enter the Llaguno home without a warrant.
Rather than end the analysis at this point, and allow the jury verdict to stand, the majority erroneously asserts that the plaintiffs (except James David Llaguno) “are entitled to a new trial, because of cumulatively serious trial errors.” I strongly disagree with the majority’s needless venture into the valley of speculation. The majority initially claims that language from the probable cause jury instruction— “reasonable belief depends on the facts and circumstances within a defendant’s knowledge” — is improper because it “deflects the reader (or hearer) from a central question: the reasonableness of the police in acting so hastily on the basis of their very limited knowledge, without investigating further.” The majority errs for two reasons. First, this instruction states verbatim the well-settled standard of probable cause needed for a warrantless arrest, as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. at 91, 85 S.Ct. at 225-226. Secondly, the majority confuses the issue of exigent circumstances with the issue of probable cause. The necessity for immediate police action in this case stems solely from the fact that officers were presented with an extremely dangerous, highly vola*1575tile, and life-threatening situation. Within a two-and-one-half-hour period, two armed suspects had violently murdered four people, wounded two others, committed two armed robberies, kidnapped a female child, and engaged in a shoot-out with police. The officers could not afford the risk of another shoot-out and the loss of additional innocent lives while waiting to obtain a warrant. In view of this crisis, the CPD officers properly decided to make an immediate entry into the Llaguno home without securing a warrant or waiting to obtain additional information. The officers’ decision to act immediately is an issue completely separate and apart from the question of probable cause — whether the CPD officers, at the time they entered the Llaguno home, had reason to believe, based upon the facts and circumstances within their knowledge, that a male Hispanic in his twenties by the name of Llaguno, residing at 3852 West Wabansia, had committed a crime. In considering this issue of probable cause, the jury was not to speculate as to how the police officers may have acted differently in a routine arrest situation, rather the jury was required to determine whether the officers, under the factual circumstances then and there existing, had probable cause to enter the Llaguno home. Thus, the district court properly instructed the jury that they need only consider the facts and circumstances available to the police officers, at the time they decided to enter the Llaguno household, in order to resolve the issue of probable cause.
The majority further asserts that the district court erred in instructing the jury that:
“The law allows a defendant to defend a charge of unconstitutional entry by claiming a good faith belief that, under the circumstances, it was reasonable to enter the Llaguno house without a warrant.”
According to this good faith immunity instruction, even if the jury found that the defendants entered the Llaguno home without probable cause and exigent circumstances, the jury could still find for the defendants if the officers reasonably believed, in good faith, that the entry was lawful. This instruction complies with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (“Pierson ”), that if the jury in a section 1983 lawsuit finds “the officers reasonably believed in good faith that the arrest was constitutional, then a verdict for the officers would follow even though the arrest was in fact unconstitutional.” 386 U.S. at 557, 87 S.Ct. at 1219. See also Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 245, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1691, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pier-son, it is settled law that police officers are entitled to a “qualified immunity from liability [under section 1983] for acts done on the basis of an objectively reasonable belief that those acts were lawful.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 639, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). See also Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 561, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978).
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (“Harlow ”), the Supreme Court clarified the “objective reasonableness” test, stating that:
“qualified immunity would be defeated if an official ‘knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury____’ ”
457 U.S. at 815, 102 S.Ct. at 2737 (emphasis original) (quoting Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 322, 95 S.Ct. 992,1001, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975)). The Court added that:
“On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘know’ that the law forbade conduct not *1576previously identified as unlawful____ If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors.”
457 U.S. at 818-19, 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 (footnote omitted). Based upon the foregoing language in Harlow, the majority erroneously asserts that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “is not an issue for the jury, other than in exceptional circumstances not presented here.”
In the present case, the parties agree as to the applicable law — a warrantless felony arrest in a home is violative of the Fourth Amendment, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances. In view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Payton, this rule of warrantless arrests is “clearly established law,” however, the related concept of probable cause is, at best, amorphous. Indeed, this case vividly demonstrates the differing legal views of probable cause. The original panel, as well as four judges on the en banc panel, believe that the CPD officers lacked probable cause to enter the Llaguno home, as a matter of law, see Llaguno v. Mingey, 739 F.2d 1186, 1190-94 (7th Cir.1984), but the majority now holds that there are sufficient facts “to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the police had probable cause to enter the house.” Despite this clear difference of opinion, the majority asserts that under Harlow, the affirmative defense of good faith immunity is a question of law for the district court to decide, not a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. I find the majority’s position to be unsound. The distinguished members of this court cannot even agree on the existence of probable cause in this case, yet the majority instructs the district court to decide, for purposes of this section 1983 lawsuit, whether the law of probable cause was clearly established at the time the police officers entered the Llaguno home and, if so, whether the officers knew or reasonably should have known of that law. From my vantage point, this is an improper burden to place upon the district court.
The majority acknowledges that the issue of probable cause in this section 1983 lawsuit is a question of fact for the jury because “there is room for a difference of opinion.” So too, there is room for a difference of opinion on the issue of whether the actions of the CPD officers conformed to the standard of “objective reasonableness” as set forth by the Supreme Court in Harlow. Thus, the issue of good faith immunity in this case is a question of fact for the jury to decide. See, e.g., Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc., 754 F.2d 1336, 1347-48 (7th Cir.1985) (opinion of Coffey, J.); Bledsoe v. Garcia, 742 F.2d 1237, 1239-40 (10th Cir.1984); Bilbrey by Bilbrey v. Brown, 738 F.2d 1462, 1466-67 (9th Cir.1984); B.C.R. Transport Co. v. Fontaine, 727 F.2d 7, 10-11 (1st Cir.1984). But see Trejo v. Perez, 693 F.2d 482, 486-88 (5th Cir.1982). The majority asserts that a jury instruction on the issue of good faith immunity will “give the defendants two bites at the apple.” I believe that this is the intent of the immunity instruction— to protect law enforcement officers who act in a reasonably objective manner while, at the same time, safeguarding the constitutional rights of our citizens to be free from unwarranted intrusions into their homes. After all, police officers are often called upon to make split-second judgments, when reacting to dangerous criminals’ all too frequent fatal assaults. The job of a police officer in protecting members of the public is an extremely difficult task which will be made far more burdensome by the threatened imposition of liability for mistakes in instantaneous judgments that we as judges often take days, weeks, and even months to ponder. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of Narc., 456 F.2d 1339, 1349 (2d Cir.1972), on remand, see 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (Lumbard, J., concurring). Ac*1577cordingly, I am convinced that it was proper to instruct the jury on the CPD officers’ good faith immunity defense.
The majority next claims that it was error to instruct the jury:
“Now ladies and gentlemen, in a sense, we are here in the neutrality and in the detachment of the courtroom. However, what you must do in the jury room is not use 20/20 hindsight, but put yourselves in the position of these plaintiffs and these defendants at the time that the incidents occurred, and that takes the combined efforts of all of you.”
The record reveals that this directive was an informal summary instruction given to the jury before a formal recitation of the written instructions. The instruction accurately informs the jury that it is to consider the actions of the plaintiffs and the defendants at the time the incident occurred. Indeed, the standard is what a well-trained law enforcement officer of ordinary intelligence, prudence, and judgment would have done in the position of the defendant officers under the facts and circumstances then and their existing at the time of the entry into the house without a warrant. See, e.g., Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. at 91, 85 S.Ct. at 225-26; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. at 175-76, 69 S.Ct. at 1310-11; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. at 162, 45 S.Ct. at 288. I disagree with the majority that the district court judge’s prefatory remarks were in any way “gratuitous and prejudicial.”
The majority further claims that the district court erred in instructing the jury that:
“Probable cause to arrest James David Llaguno existed if, based on the objective facts and circumstances of this case, a person would have reasonably believed that the plaintiff was committing or had committed a criminal act. An assessment of the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct in making the arrest should consider the responsibility of the police to prevent crime, apprehend criminals, and to safeguard persons and property from criminal actions.”
The facts of this case reveal that James David Llaguno was a young male Hispanic in his twenties who was present at the Llaguno home when the police entered. Based upon the fact that James admitted to the police that he owned the light-colored, four-door Ford registered to a Llaguno at 3852 West Wabansia Avenue and the fact that he fit the description of a young male Hispanic in his twenties by the name of Llaguno, residing at 3852 West Wabansia Avenue, the police arrested James. The record further reveals that no charges were ever brought against James for the events that transpired in the “proximity” of the Llaguno home on the evening of January 7, 1980. Thus, the section 1983 lawsuit included a claim that the CPD officers unlawfully arrested James.
The district court judge properly instructed the jury members that when considering James’ claim of unlawful arrest, they should review the facts available to the CPD officers at the time of the arrest, not the facts that occurred subsequent to that arrest (i.e. James’ release without charge). According to the facts presented to the CPD officers, within a two-and-one-half-hour period, two young male Hispanics about twenty years of age, in a light-colored Ford registered to a Llaguno at 3852 West Wabansia, violently murdered four people, wounded two others, committed two armed robberies, kidnapped a female child, attempted to flee police in a high-speed auto chase, engaged in a shoot-out with police within the “proximity” of the Llaguno home, and fled from the shootout scene on foot. The police officers were faced with a volatile and dangerous situation that called for immediate action in order to prevent more needless deaths and serious injury to innocent members of the public and the police force. The jury was required to consider the very real threat to members of the public as well as the CPD officers’ duty to respond immediately to the grave situation at hand. I fail to understand how the district court judge’s accurate instruction is analogous, to placing a “thumb on the balance in favor of [the] ... *1578defendants,” and I believe the majority’s comment to that effect is completely uncalled for in light of the evidence in this record.
The majority finally asserts that the district court erred in allowing the defendants to “dwell in obsessive detail on the crimes that the police were investigating when they entered the Llagunos’ home.” On this point, the majority fails to adequately review the record. The plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to “bar evidence regarding the details of the crimes that the defendants were investigating.” The judge ruled that the defendants could “go into objective facts, but not ... editorialize or characterize the facts.” The judge added that “I will let you prove [the officers’] state of mind based on objective facts.” During trial, the judge informed the jury that “an issue in a case such as this is the state of mind of the investigating officers. For that purpose, I permit a description of the objective facts.” A thorough review of the record reveals that the district court judge meticulously held the defendants to this standard and when they crossed the line, the judge admonished the jury. For example, the judge stated on one occasion:
“The last comment by the officer that this was the most heinous crime he had ever seen should be disregarded by you. That is not an objective fact. You are required to listen to the objective facts, not to any characterization of those facts.”
It is well-settled that “the balancing of probative value and prejudice is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and we are obligated to give great deference to the evidentiary ruling of the trial court.” United States v. Baskes, 649 F.2d 471, 481 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1000, 101 S.Ct. 1706, 68 L.Ed.2d 201 (1981). See also United States v. Taylor, 728 F.2d 864, 871 (7th Cir.1984). The district court judge was in the best position to determine the prejudicial impact of the officers’ crime scene descriptions and the judge’s admission of objective facts, when viewed in the context of the trial as a whole, does not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion.
In accord with the foregoing analysis, I would affirm the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant police officers and hold that under the facts and circumstances known to the officers, they had probable cause and were presented with sufficient exigent circumstances to enter the Llaguno household without a warrant.

. As I understand the disposition of this case, five judges (Bauer, Eschbach, Posner, Coffey, and Pell) agree that the presence of exigent circumstances and probable cause to enter the Llaguno home without a warrant were factual matters, to be resolved by the jury. Another five judges (Cummings, Bauer, Eschbach, Posner, and Pell), agree that the plaintiffs are endtled to a new trial. For the sake of clarity, because Judge Posner’s opinion has a majority with my vote of approval, which is limited to the result that the issues of probable cause and exigent circumstances were proper jury questions, I will refer to Judge Posner’s opinion as the majority.