234 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- On June 7, 2013 MPD executed a search warrant at 4701 Alabama Ave. SW, Apt. 31 for Burberry purses stolen from a Virginia store; no purses were found.
- Officer William Dempster prepared the affidavit based largely on: (1) a BMW’s registration linking co-owner Francis Taylor to Apt. 31, and (2) his “training and experience” that thieves stash stolen goods at home; the affidavit also sought authority to seize electronic devices via boilerplate language.
- Officers forced entry without announcing, detained and handcuffed most occupants (including Nika Dorsey, her husband, grandmother, a 16-year-old, and a frightened 3-year-old whose mother remained handcuffed), and seized phones and a laptop; the search lasted about two hours.
- Plaintiffs allege the affidavit contained false/omitted material facts, that the warrant lacked probable cause for electronics seizures, that officers used excessive force and no-knock entry, and that MPD has a pattern/practice of training officers to rely on generic “training and experience” affidavits.
- Motions to dismiss were filed by the District and the executing officers; Dempster had not been served. The court granted dismissal in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affidavit contained knowingly/recklessly false statements or omissions (Franks claim) | Dempster omitted material facts (alternative Taylor residence, statistics showing "training and experience" warrants usually fail) and relied on boilerplate to justify electronics seizures | D.C.: affiant need not include every fact; "training and experience" may support probable cause; statistics irrelevant | Court: Probable cause existed to search Apt. 31 for purses/clothing, but boilerplate seizure language for electronics is suspect; Franks-style challenge survives against Dempster and supports limited Monell claim as to training-based affidavit language |
| Reliance on the warrant / Qualified immunity for executing officers (whether warrant was so lacking that officers couldn’t reasonably rely) | Plaintiffs: warrant so deficient no reasonable officer could rely on it | Officers: entitled to qualified immunity; reasonable to rely on a magistrate-signed warrant; "training and experience" warrants are recognized in D.C. Circuit in certain contexts | Court: Dismissed this claim as to executing officers; officers entitled to qualified immunity for reliance on warrant signed by judicial officer |
| No-knock entry (knock-and-announce) | Plaintiffs: officers breached door without announcing presence | Defendants: not fully litigated; District withdrew argument to dismiss no-knock claim | Court: Claim survives against Dempster and executing officers; will proceed |
| Handcuffing, detention, scope of search, seizures of electronics, and Terry search of 16-year-old | Plaintiffs: handcuffing for entire search and seizure of devices excessive; search of 16-year-old improper; electronics seizure exceeded scope | Officers: detention and handcuffing permissible incident to search (Muehler/Mena); seizure of electronics authorized by warrant; Terry frisk lawful for officer safety; qualified immunity applies | Court: Detention for duration lawful; handcuffing throughout presents a fact question (survives as to handcuff duration); search of 16-year-old and seizure of electronics (facially authorized by warrant) dismissed as unconstitutional claims against executing officers; Fifth Amendment due-process claim dismissed |
| Municipal liability (Monell) for failure to train/pattern and practice | Plaintiffs: statistics and widespread use of training-based affidavits show a policy/custom causing constitutional violations | District: single incident insufficient; no predicate constitutional violation | Court: Monell claim survives only to the extent it challenges the affidavit language relying on MPD "training and experience" (i.e., municipal liability for training that produced boilerplate, case-unspecific affidavits). Monell claims tied to no-knock entry or handcuff duration were not plausibly pled against the District |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (affidavit knowingly or recklessly containing false statements or omissions can invalidate probable cause)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (categorical authority to detain occupants during search; handcuffing may be justified depending on circumstances)
- United States v. Thomas, 989 F.2d 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (observations of illegal activity away from residence can support probable cause to search residence when reasonably related to nature of crime)
- United States v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (officer's training and experience can support probable cause in drug investigations)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (officer who prepared affidavit cannot hide behind magistrate's approval when warrant is defective)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith reliance on a magistrate's warrant may entitle officers to qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (an officer loses immunity where warrant application is so lacking in probable cause that belief in its existence is unreasonable)
- Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (warrants not facially invalid generally confer qualified immunity on executing officers)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (limits on searching persons present at premises not named in warrant)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)