Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith
798 F.3d 1252
10th Cir.2015Background
- On Aug. 25, 2012, Deputy Kenneth Cherry (a Seminole County drug-court compliance officer) forced open the front door of 1931 Killingsworth Ave., entered, and shot Aaron Palmer, who died; Cherry claimed he saw someone he believed to be Aaron’s father, Randall, run from the garage into the house. Randall was not found on the premises.
- Cherry had a year-old bench warrant for Randall for failure to appear/noncompliance with a drug-court performance contract; Cherry had earlier seen someone he thought was Randall in the garage but did not arrest him then and returned with other officers to execute the warrant.
- Cherry testified he ran to the door with gun drawn, announced “police,” pushed the door open, and shot Aaron within seconds, alleging Aaron held a knife; a knife was later found in the foyer.
- Aaron’s widow sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Cherry unlawfully entered the home and used excessive force (Fourth Amendment), and that Sheriff Shannon Smith (who commissioned Cherry) failed to train/supervise him.
- The district court denied qualified-immunity summary judgment for both defendants; on appeal the Tenth Circuit reviews whether the facts identified by the district court suffice to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
- The court affirmed: Cherry not protected by qualified immunity for unlawful entry because hot-pursuit did not apply; Smith not entitled to qualified immunity on the preserved supervisory arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cherry’s entry was lawful under the hot-pursuit doctrine | Entry was unlawful; Cherry was not in immediate/continuous pursuit of a fleeing felon | Cherry claims he saw Randall run into the house and thus was in hot pursuit (so entry was lawful) | Denied qualified immunity: hot pursuit did not apply (pursuit was not immediate/continuous; belief must be objectively reasonable) |
| Whether Cherry is entitled to qualified immunity for the shooting based on perceived knife threat | Unlawful entry proximately caused death; force need not be resolved at this stage | Cherry argues use of force was reasonable because Aaron held a knife | Court declined to decide excessiveness of force because unlawful entry sufficed to deny immunity (jury could find entry caused death) |
| Whether Sheriff Smith is liable for failure to train/supervise (qualified immunity) | Smith knew compliance officers would serve warrants; his failure to ensure training/supervision showed deliberate indifference and foreseeably caused the violation | Smith argued no personal involvement; below he argued Cherry was not his employee and thus not liable; on appeal he seeks qualified immunity | Denied qualified immunity: Smith’s preserved arguments on appeal were inadequate to reverse; district court’s finding that Cherry was Smith’s employee stands for purposes of appeal |
| Jurisdictional/qualified-immunity review scope | Appellate review limited to whether facts identified by district court show a violation of clearly established law | Defendants contested interlocutory review | Court exercises collateral-order jurisdiction to decide qualified-immunity legal questions and affirms denial of immunity where law was clearly established |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity balancing and two-step test)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (hot pursuit requires immediate or continuous pursuit from the scene)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (hot pursuit from public place into home where retreat was immediate)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (hot pursuit doctrine principles)
- Stanton v. Sims, 134 S. Ct. 3 (clarifies limits of hot pursuit and distinguishes Welsh)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (knock-and-announce and related entry limitations)
- Martinez v. Carson, 697 F.3d 1252 (proximate-cause consideration where earlier unlawful seizure led to later harm)
- Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220 (limits on using an arrest warrant as authorization to enter a third party’s residence)