Dzevad Hurem v. Nickolas Tavares
793 F.3d 742
7th Cir.2015Background
- In October 2010 Nasreen Quadri bought a Chicago apartment; in January 2011 she and a property agent discovered Dzevad Hurem occupying the unit.
- On Jan. 5 officers responded after a 911 call; Hurem said he had keys and paid rent to Nasreen’s husband Moshim, but provided no paperwork; no arrest then.
- On Jan. 7 Quadri returned with agent and locksmith; Hurem remained, produced only a paper with Moshim’s phone number, and refused to leave; officers arrested him without a warrant; no charges were ultimately filed.
- Hurem sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, deprivation of property, and excessive force against the Quadris, five officers, and the City; Quadris and City were dismissed/settled; summary judgment granted for four officers; remaining excessive-force claim was later voluntarily dismissed.
- On appeal Hurem challenged the denial of his false-arrest and due-process claims; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding probable cause supported the warrantless arrest and that any due-process property claim was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had probable cause for warrantless arrest (false arrest claim) | Hurem: officers lacked probable cause because he had a verbal rental agreement and prior events (Jan. 5) supported his right to occupy | Officers: conflicting accounts at scene, Quadris had ownership proof, Hurem had no lease/mail/witness; reasonable officer could believe trespass | Court: Probable cause existed; arrest lawful under Fourth Amendment |
| Whether officers violated Illinois Forcible Entry & Detainer Act such that arrest was unreasonable under Fourth Amendment | Hurem: state statute required judicial eviction proceedings, so police eviction/arrest was unlawful | Officers: Fourth Amendment reasonableness controls; state procedural requirements do not negate probable cause | Court: State-law eviction procedure does not change Fourth Amendment analysis; Gordon controls—officers need only probable cause |
| Whether Soldal requires different result for seizure of occupant/property | Hurem: Soldal supports that forcible dispossession implicates Fourth Amendment protections | Officers: Soldal addressed seizure/removal of mobile home; does not control factual arrest analysis here | Court: Soldal not controlling; arrest was seizure but reasonable given probable cause |
| Whether due process claim for seizure of property (eviction) is preserved | Hurem: Fifth Amendment due process violated by eviction without hearing | Officers: Plaintiff did not present federal due-process claim in district court | Court: Claim waived on appeal; district record lacks federal due-process argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs v. Lomas, 755 F.3d 529 (7th Cir.) (probable cause standard for false arrest under § 1983)
- Venson v. Altamirano, 749 F.3d 641 (7th Cir.) (definition of probable cause based on officer's knowledge)
- Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432 (7th Cir.) (officers may rely on reasonably credible victim/witness statements)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (state-law restrictions do not alter Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
- Jackson v. Parker, 627 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.) (state law does not control Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Gordon v. Degelmann, 29 F.3d 295 (7th Cir.) (Illinois forcible-entry requirements do not bar a § 1983 false-arrest claim when criminal trespass existed)
- Soldal v. Cook Cnty., 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (seizure of residence implicates Fourth Amendment; court distinguished its facts from Gordon)
- Frey Corp. v. City of Peoria, 735 F.3d 505 (7th Cir.) (appellate waiver principles for issues not raised below)