AKL v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE TROOP K- DELAWARE COUNTY, 2:16-cv-01096

On June 28, 2015 Donika Plyku (daughter-in-law) and Donald Prifti went to Troop K to seek help retrieving Plyku’s belongings from the Garnet Valley home she shared with plaintiff’s son.
Plyku produced a marriage certificate, canceled checks showing monthly payments, Amtrak passes, medical bills addressed to the house, keys, and a post‑nuptial agreement; troopers Gibson and Wright and Cpl. Michaels advised her to attempt entry and to call police if there was trouble.
Plyku and Prifti returned to the house, found the locks changed, and Prifti broke the rear sliding glass door with a tire iron to gain entry; the alarm activated and the troopers performed a brief walkthrough to verify no one was home, then remained outside while Plyku removed belongings.
Plaintiff later claimed the officers broke into her home, participated in removing a large quantity of personal property, and brought § 1983 claims for unlawful search/seizure and failure to protect property; Plyku and Prifti were sued for conversion.
The court previously dismissed certain claims; the remaining claims against troopers were for Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment search/seizure under § 1983.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no constitutional violation and, alternatively, qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether troopers conducted an unlawful search or seizure of the home	Troopers entered the home and permitted/remove property, violating Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments	Troopers only briefly entered with Plyku’s apparent consent, conducted a cursory check for occupants, did not seize plaintiff’s property	Court: No Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violation; summary judgment for defendants
Whether officers are liable for property taken during entry	Plaintiff says officers failed to protect her property from unlawful seizure	Officers contend they did not seize property and were present only to ensure safety after Plyku lawfully entered	Court: No evidence officers seized property; no constitutional seizure found
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity	N/A: Plaintiff argues rights were violated so immunity should not apply	Officers argue they reasonably relied on Plyku’s indicia of residence and acted lawfully; law was not clearly established that their conduct was unlawful	Court: Even if rights were violated, officers are entitled to qualified immunity; judgment for defendants

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden rules)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (home privacy as core of Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass/search distinction)
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (meaningful interference with possessory interests)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (definition of seizure)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law requirement)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (immunity is immunity from suit)
Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (Third Circuit on permissible inferences at summary judgment)
Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (materiality and summary judgment standard)
Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (Third Circuit discussion of qualified immunity)