Antoinette Wonsey v. City of Chicago
940 F.3d 394
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- June 4, 2016: an Airbnb guest reported items stolen after a seizure; Sgt. Antonio Valentin went to Wonsey’s home, used a guest‑provided gate code, rang the doorbell, and two men admitted him inside. Security footage corroborates entry. Wonsey refused officers’ request to see the guest; officers left without arresting or searching the house.
- June 9, 2016: city buildings inspectors, at police request, visited the house with five officers; inspectors gained entry, inspected the interior with Wonsey’s permission, found 32 code violations and ordered immediate evacuation. Officers entered to assist evacuation; Wonsey refused to leave and says officers “surrounded” her.
- Wonsey sued the City of Chicago and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure for both encounters.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; defendants argued consent for June 4 entry and qualified immunity for June 9 actions.
- On appeal Wonsey’s brief largely failed to address Fourth Amendment elements, lifted text from a law‑review article without attribution, and omitted the district court’s formal judgment from the appendix (Circuit Rule 30 issue). The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether June 4 entry into home was an unconstitutional search | Wonsey contends officers entered unlawfully (claims Fourth Amendment violation) | Valentin had consent to enter: guest gave gate code and two men at the door admitted officer | Entry was lawful: defendants showed third‑party consent and Wonsey did not rebut it |
| Whether June 4 encounter was a seizure | Wonsey alleges seizure occurred (no clear articulation on appeal) | Officers did not restrain or arrest her and left when she asked; no termination of freedom | No seizure: no evidence officers terminated her freedom of movement |
| Whether June 9 officers’ presence/entry violated Fourth Amendment (search/seizure) and whether qualified immunity applies | Wonsey asserts officers unlawfully entered, surrounded, and seized her during evacuation | Officers entered at inspectors’ request to assist an emergency evacuation based on inspectors’ lawful presence and findings; qualified immunity shields reasonable conduct | Qualified immunity applies: a reasonable officer could rely on inspectors’ safety determination; no clearly established constitutional violation shown |
| Appellate briefing & procedural compliance | Wonsey raised sparse, largely unelaborated arguments on appeal and copied academic material; failed to include the district court judgment in appendix | Defendants argued procedural defects and supported summary judgment | Court admonished counsel for deficient briefing and Rule 30(d) misstatement; noted arguments poorly developed (potential forfeiture) but ruled on the merits and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (establishes that warrantless home entries are presumptively unreasonable)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (third‑party consent and common authority doctrine)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard focused on objective reasonableness)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity requires law to be clearly established)
- City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (Supreme Court reaffirmation of qualified immunity principles)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (definition of a seizure as termination of freedom of movement)
- United States v. Terry, 915 F.3d 1141 (7th Cir.) (risk assumed when third party has authority over premises)
- Valance v. Wisel, 110 F.3d 1269 (7th Cir.) (burden shifts to plaintiff to show lack of consent after defendant produces consent evidence)