Court Opinion

ID: 9486723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:57:29.561187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:53.420650
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Part II A of Judge Ryan’s opinion, which found the warrantless use of probes violated O’Brien’s fourth amendment rights, and in Part III of Judge Joiner’s opinion, which found the City of Grand Rapids hable for violating O’Brien’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Because I disagree with the majority’s analysis of qualified immunity with respect to the officers, I respectfully dissent as to Part II B of Judge Ryan’s opinion and Part II of Judge Joiner’s opinion.
*1006Reasonable officers realize a warrantless search absent an exceptional situation, such as exigent circumstances, violates the fourth amendment. Reasonable officers would agree in this situation no exigency existed. Describing the unacceptable and outrageous actions taken by officers in this case as “reasonable” offends the competency and professionalism practiced by the overwhelming majority of officers across the nation. Recognizing O’Brien presented “no overt, hostile threat” and there was no probable cause to believe he committed any crime, only unreasonable and overzealous officers would harass and persecute O’Brien by surrounding his home and breaking its windows. In this case, the officers’ refusal to obtain a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate, despite the passing of several hours, resembles the self-righteous arrogance of a lynch mob. Unfortunately, the officers’ overactive imaginations, irrational paranoia and aggressive conduct incited a scenario which left O’Brien paralyzed. It is precisely this type of situation the fourth amendment is intended to prevent. I would therefore AFFIRM the district court’s finding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.