Fatima Vangel v. Nicholas Szopko, 672 F. App'x 543

Background

Officers Szopko and Franckowiak responded to a 911 call from James Vangel reporting his mother, Fatima Vangel, had just attacked him, ripped his clothing, thrown glass, and that a relative had pulled her off him.
Dispatch informed officers that the female suspect had a gun in her closet and might be screaming or acting erratically; caller said he was scared but did not think the suspect would be violent toward police.
At the scene officers found James with visible signs of injury; they then approached the house where they and a relative saw Fatima in the front hallway; Fatima either retreated toward the back of the house or exited a bathroom into the hall (disputed).
Officers entered the home without a warrant and arrested Fatima for domestic violence; she later pled no contest to the charge.
Fatima sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court granted summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds, finding exigent circumstances.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding that even if the officers erred, their belief that exigent circumstances existed was not objectively unreasonable under clearly established law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ warrantless entry into Vangel’s home violated the Fourth Amendment	Entry was nonconsensual and warrantless, so presumptively unreasonable under Payton	Exigent circumstances from a domestic-violence call, injured victim, reports of a gun, and suspect’s erratic behavior justified immediate entry	Entry was reasonable under exigent-circumstances analysis; officers entitled to qualified immunity
Whether law was clearly established such that officers should have known entry was unlawful	Existing precedent did not clearly allow entry here given disputed facts (suspect possibly alone, gun presence alone insufficient)	Reasonable officers could rely on domestic-violence danger, visible injury, reports of a gun, and possible retreat into the home	Court: law not clearly established in this particular context; qualified immunity applies
Weight of suspect’s alleged possession of a gun in exigency analysis	Mere presence of a gun is insufficient without evidence suspect likely to use it	Reports of a gun plus erratic behavior and access to interior created real risk justifying prompt action	Court: combined facts supported reasonable belief of imminent danger; gun report relevant in totality
How officers’ perception of retreat into the house affects exigency	If suspect was retreating and home contained only suspect, exigency is weaker	Retreat increased risk officer delay would permit access to weapon or harm to others	Court: retreat plus other facts supported objectively reasonable belief of imminent danger

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Fourth Amendment bars warrantless, nonconsensual home arrests absent exigency)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (warrantless entry reasonable when exigent circumstances present to prevent imminent harm)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework; courts may address either prong first)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established law requires officer to understand conduct violates the Constitution)
Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (exigency requires belief that postponing to get a warrant would cause real, immediate, serious consequences)
Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff’s belligerency is relevant to exigency calculus)
United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir.) (presence of a weapon creates exigency only if suspect likely to use it)
United States v. Arch, 7 F.3d 1300 (7th Cir.) (irrational or agitated behavior contributes to exigency determination)