Cox v. Cache County
664 F. App'x 703
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Darren Cox, a Utah beekeeper, sued county bee inspector Martin James under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a warrantless Fourth Amendment "inspection" of Cox’s hives located on land owned by Milton Williams.
- James, the contracted bee inspector for Cache and Box Elder Counties, had previously agreed not to inspect Cox’s apiaries; Cox alleged this contract and the Utah Bee Inspection Act limited James’s authority.
- In May 2007 James approached hives on Williams’s property to identify the owner and warn of nearby pesticide spraying; he spent 2–3 minutes and left when bees became aggressive. Cox later claimed James opened the hives.
- The district court granted James qualified immunity on Cox’s Fourth Amendment claim and denied Cox’s motion for reconsideration; Cox appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether (1) James acted within discretionary authority and (2) Cox showed a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, and affirmed qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James acted within his discretionary authority as a bee inspector when approaching/inspecting the hives | Cox: James exceeded his contractual and statutory authority (had agreed not to inspect Cox’s apiaries) | James: Identifying hive ownership to warn of pesticide was within inspector duties and he lacked knowledge hives belonged to Cox | Held: James acted within discretionary authority; not clearly established that his actions were outside authority |
| Whether opening/looking into movable beehives on an open field without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Cox: Warrantless search of apiaries is presumptively unreasonable; relied on Allinder to show expectation of privacy in hives | James: Context (open field, movable structure, owner on site, limited purpose to identify owner/warn) undermines claim of a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation | Held: Court declined to decide Fourth Amendment boundaries but concluded Cox failed to show a clearly established right was violated; qualified immunity upheld |
| Whether Allinder (Sixth Circuit) clearly established Fourth Amendment protection for apiaries in Tenth Circuit | Cox: Allinder supplies controlling precedent showing protection for apiaries | James: Allinder is an out-of-circuit, older decision and does not clearly establish law in Tenth Circuit | Held: Allinder is insufficient to clearly establish the law in this circuit |
| Whether district court abused discretion procedurally (conversion to summary judgment; denial of surreply; denial of reconsideration) | Cox: Court failed to notify conversion to summary judgment; should have allowed surreply and granted reconsideration | James: Cox used extrinsic evidence, so conversion was proper; no specific surreply request; reconsideration reargued same points | Held: No procedural abuse; Cox had notice; no surreply requested; reconsideration denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open-fields doctrine)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide prong order in qualified immunity analysis)
- Culver v. Armstrong, 832 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (burden-shifting in qualified immunity analysis)
- Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 816 F.3d 645 (10th Cir.) (standard for clearly established law)
- Elwell v. Byers, 699 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.) (discretionary authority analysis)
- Allinder v. Ohio, 808 F.2d 1180 (6th Cir. 1987) (apiaries characterized as personal effects for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Mimics, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire, 394 F.3d 836 (10th Cir.) (warrantless search of commercial property rule)
- United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531 (10th Cir.) (Fourth Amendment analysis regarding searches of industrial/commercial premises)