Bogan v. City of Chicago, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13667

Sharon Bogan sued Officers Breen and Langley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for entering and searching her home without a warrant during a pursuit related to a domestic-violence incident at Evans's apartment.
Officers responded to Evans's call, found her on a roof, and learned Pearson, Evans's boyfriend, might be inside the building.
Officers entered Evans's apartment through an open window and then proceeded to the rear of the building, believing Pearson had fled there due to a flash indicating a black male on the rear porch.
Ms. Bogan opened her door to twelve officers already inside; the officers searched her apartment but did not locate Pearson.
District court instructed the jury on hot-p pursuit exigent-circumstances and that Bogan bore the ultimate burden to show the officers did not reasonably believe Pearson was in her home.
Jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the district court denied JNOV; Bogan appeals challenging the instruction and evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears the burden on exigent circumstances in §1983 warrants case?	Bogan argues Valance requires the plaintiff to bear the ultimate burden.	Breen/Langley argue the burden follows Valance’s framework.	Valance governs; plaintiff carries the ultimate burden of persuasion on reasonableness.
Was the officer's subjective belief testimony properly admitted?	Subjective beliefs are irrelevant to Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness.	Testimony aids understanding of officer conduct under exigent circumstances.	Testimony about the officer's deductions during the search was admissible to assess objective reasonableness.
Was there substantial evidence to sustain the jury verdict against JML challenge?	Officers' testimony was unbelievable and should have nullified the verdict.	Evidence supported that officers reasonably believed a suspect behind the door.	No reversible error; the verdict stands.

Valance v. Wisel, 110 F.3d 1269 (7th Cir. 1997) (presumption of unreasonableness does not shift burden in civil §1983 cases; burden on plaintiff to meet ultimate persuasion after some evidence)
Ruggiero v. Krzeminski, 928 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1991) (presumption may require defendant to present consent evidence; burden remains on plaintiff to persuade)
McBride v. Grice, 576 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2009) (arrest-without-probable-cause; burden of showing absence of probable cause on plaintiff)
United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (exigent circumstances doctrine requires objective, not subjective, assessment)
United States v. Andrews, 442 F.3d 996 (7th Cir. 2006) (examines whether reasonable officer believed there was a compelling need to act with no time for warrant)
Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2000) (pleading and burden in police-search context; distinguishes civil-trial burden from pleading stage)