Cary King v. Louisiana Tax Commission
821 F.3d 650
5th Cir.2016Background
- Cary and Melba King owned two adjacent LaSalle Parish, LA properties assessed in 2010 for large ad valorem tax increases; Kings appealed administrative determinations.
- While the tax appeal was pending, Tax Commission appraisers Bill Johnson and Lloyd Handorf visited the Kings’ properties for an appraisal; Melba answered the door, identified them, and consented to an appraisal and offered to accompany them.
- Appraisers walked the property for about an hour, measured structures (including a workshop), did not enter the house, and allegedly peered through windows; Melba later saw a pool house door ajar and inferred it had been opened.
- Kings sued claiming violation of Fourth Amendment rights (among other claims); defendants removed the case and moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity for Handorf.
- District court denied Handorf qualified immunity, finding he exceeded consent by entering the curtilage, peering into windows, and opening the pool house door. Handorf appealed.
- Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Handorf violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right and concluded qualified immunity applied, reversing and rendering for Handorf.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appraiser exceeded scope of consent and conducted a Fourth Amendment search | Kings: appraiser exceeded consent by entering curtilage, peering into windows, and opening pool house door, so search occurred | Handorf: Melba consented to an appraisal; observations were consistent with appraisal and not an unreasonable search | Held: No clearly established Fourth Amendment violation; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether any alleged search was clearly established law at the time | Kings: prior law made such intrusions clearly unreasonable | Handorf: controlling and persuasive precedent did not clearly prohibit these appraisal methods | Held: Law not clearly established—no robust consensus showing Handorf had fair warning |
| Whether factual disputes (e.g., opening pool house door) preclude immunity on summary judgment | Kings: disputed facts create material issues | Handorf: even accepting facts assumed by district court, legal error existed in denying immunity | Held: Court accepts district court’s assumed facts for review but determines legal conclusion (qualified immunity) in favor of Handorf |
| Relevance of consent and curtilage protection | Kings: curtilage and window peering are protected, consent limited | Handorf: consent and objective-reasonableness of scope permit conduct | Held: Consent to appraisal and analogizing cases support reasonableness of conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (Fourth Amendment protects curtilage)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent can render search reasonable)
- Widgren v. Maple Grove Twp., 429 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2005) (curtilage entry and naked-eye observations during assessment did not constitute a search)
- Taylor v. Michigan Dep’t of Nat. Res., 502 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (peering into windows and rattling doorknobs for protective/administrative purposes not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cty., 777 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2015) (tax assessor’s conduct constituted a search where assessor ignored no-trespassing signs and physically entered home)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established right requires robust consensus of persuasive authority)