Dalcour v. City of Lakewood, 492 F. App'x 924

Dalcour and Avril filed §1983 claims against Buddy and Officers arising from a welfare check that led to the children’s removal and Avril’s arrest.
State court orders limited Dalcour’s contact with the home; protective supervision and no-contact provisions were issued, later contested as invalid.
Buddy requested the welfare check and communicated with Gillespie about the no-contact order and custody arrangements.
Gillespie entered the home with others after a confrontation at the door, and Griffith ordered forced entry during a struggle.
Avril was eventually arrested for resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer; children were placed in protective custody by Buddy.
District court granted several immunity and dismissal rulings, with one remaining §1983 claim against Gillespie for initial entry, which the panel partially reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Policy or custom required for Buddy’s violations	Dalcour argues a city policy/custom moved the violations.	Buddy argues no specific policy/custom identified.	Official-capacity claims against Buddy were properly dismissed.
Exigent circumstances justified initial entry into the home	Gillespie acted under exigent circumstances due to no-contact order and danger.	District court correctly found exigent circumstances existed.	Exigent circumstances did not justify the initial entry by Gillespie; district court erred on that point.
Right to familial association was clearly established	Plaintiffs contend the right to familial association was violated under the circumstances.	Defendants argue the right was not clearly established in these facts.	Court upheld qualified immunity on familial-association claims.
Spoliation of evidence instructions at trial	Ask for adverse inference or presumption of three taser uses due to spoliation.	City’s destruction was not shown in bad faith; lesser sanction appropriate.	District court’s spoliation sanction was not an abuse of discretion; no presumption instructed.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (entry into a home generally requires a warrant absent exigent circumstances)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (any physical invasion of the home is an entry; warrant required absent exceptions)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (established law can apply to novel circumstances; notice for rights violation)
Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910 (10th Cir. 2006) (general constitutional rule can apply to conduct even without prior identical case)