Elvan Moore v. Kevin Pederson
806 F.3d 1036
11th Cir.2015Background
- In Nov. 2008 Deputy Kevin Pederson responded to a noise/disturbance call and knocked on Elvan Moore’s apartment door; Moore opened the door wearing a towel and two women were visible inside.
- Pederson questioned Moore about a parking-lot dispute; Moore refused to give his name/ID.
- Pederson took out handcuffs, ordered Moore to turn and put his hands behind his back while Moore stood inside the doorway; Pederson reached into the apartment, handcuffed and arrested Moore.
- Moore was charged with resisting/obstructing without violence; charges were later dropped.
- Moore sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (unlawful arrest) and under Florida law for intentional infliction of emotional distress; the district court granted summary judgment to Pederson on qualified immunity and dismissed the state claim.
- The Eleventh Circuit held Pederson violated the Fourth Amendment (warrantless in-home seizure without probable cause, exigency, or consent) but affirmed summary judgment because the law was not clearly established at the time; it also affirmed dismissal of the IIED claim for lack of proof of severe emotional distress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer may conduct a Terry-style investigatory stop inside a home absent exigent circumstances | Moore: Terry stop cannot be lawfully done inside the home; he could refuse to answer and not be seized | Pederson: He had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop at the doorway | Court: A Terry-like stop inside the home without exigency is unlawful, but this rule was not clearly established in this Circuit in 2008 (qualified immunity granted) |
| Whether Pederson had probable cause to arrest Moore for refusing to identify himself | Moore: Refusal to answer during a voluntary door interaction is not obstruction; no probable cause | Pederson: Refusal during an investigative stop justified arrest under Fla. Stat. § 843.02 | Court: No probable cause because a lawful Terry stop in the home was not established here; arrest violated Fourth Amendment, but law not clearly established then |
| Whether Moore’s turning and presenting his hands in response to officer commands constituted voluntary consent ("surrender") to entry and arrest | Moore: Compliance was mere acquiescence to authority, not voluntary consent | Pederson: Moore’s actions amounted to surrender/consent permitting entry to complete the arrest | Court: Following officer commands while remaining inside the home is not voluntary consent; but prior precedent (McClish/Berkowitz) left reasonable officers without clear notice, so qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Moore stated a viable IIED claim under Florida law | Moore: Being arrested naked/partially naked and ordered to remain so was outrageous and caused severe distress | Pederson: Conduct not extreme as required; no proof of severe emotional distress | Court: IIED dismissed—Moore failed to present evidence of severe emotional distress |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless in-home arrest barred absent probable cause plus consent or exigent circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes brief investigative stops on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.) (officer may not reach into home to arrest without warrant, exigency, or consent)
- Bashir v. Rockdale Cty., 445 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.) (warrantless in-home arrest requires probable cause plus exigency or consent)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (physical entry into home is the chief Fourth Amendment evil)
- Berkowitz, United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir.) (discusses "surrender" and acquiescence to arrest announced outside the home)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (occupant who opens door and speaks to officers may refuse entry and questions)