122 F.4th 326
8th Cir.2024Background
- Little Rock police obtained and executed a no-knock search warrant at Derrick A. Davis's residence following a controlled buy using a confidential informant (CI) thought to have purchased cocaine from Davis.
- The warrant was based on Detective Bell’s affidavit, information from neighbors, and the controlled buy. Bell requested a no-knock entry citing officer safety.
- The SWAT team executed the warrant, deployed a flash-bang, and found marijuana in the home.
- Davis sued the City, Chief of Police, and detectives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, Davis challenged summary judgment, raising issues about the execution of the no-knock warrant, truthfulness in the warrant affidavit, a conspiracy claim, and evidentiary rulings concerning affidavits and expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for detectives re: SWAT execution of warrant | Detectives were responsible for unconstitutional use of SWAT team in executing no-knock warrant | Law was not clearly established that using SWAT for no-knock warrant was unconstitutional | Detectives entitled to qualified immunity; right not clearly established |
| Misrepresentations in warrant affidavit (Franks claim) | Bell's affidavit falsely claimed no-knock entry ensures safety, CI was reliable, and CI was properly searched | Affidavit statements believed reasonable; no evidence of detective’s serious doubts or recklessness | No Franks violation; Bell’s statements were reasonably believed or supported |
| Conspiracy under § 1983 | Detectives conspired to violate Davis’s Fourth Amendment rights | No constitutional violation found, so no conspiracy | No underlying violation; conspiracy claim fails |
| Treatment of evidence in summary judgment | Court improperly relied on hearsay and ignored Davis's expert opinions | No timely objection to hearsay; expert opinions were legal conclusions, not facts | Court properly relied on available evidence; expert reports properly disregarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard—facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment—what constitutes a genuine dispute of material fact)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (setting standard for challenging false statements in warrant affidavits)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity standard—clearly established rights)
- White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2017) (individual liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement)
- Kingsley v. Lawrence County, 964 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2020) (qualified immunity where no evidence of individual officer involvement)