267 P.3d 1022
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Feis arrested March 31, 2007 for domestic violence assault after deputies responded to 911 reports; witnesses alleged Feis assaulted Joshua and fled to Feis's home; officers removed firearms from the residence following Joshua’s request for removal; four firearms were found in the home (one hallway closet, three in a bedroom); Feis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations and other claims; the trial court granted qualified immunity to officers and dismissed federal claims; state-law immunity under RCW 10.99.070 was also addressed and ultimately applied to dismiss the state claims; on appeal, the court upheld immunity and affirmed dismissal of all claims.
- The challenged entry/search occurred after Feis’s arrest when deputies entered the home to seize firearms in response to Joshua’s request and to ensure safety; there was corroborating testimony from multiple family members and physical scene evidence (car tire marks, facial redness) supporting an assault narrative; Joshua, Hope, and Edward provided accounts consistent with an ongoing domestic-violence context.
- A domestic violence supplemental form was used to collect information from Joshua, including his home address and phone number, and to determine if firearms should be removed; Joshua accompanied Deputy McCutchen into the home during the firearms search.
- The court eventually dismissed Feis’s federal claims on immunity grounds and held that the search was not clearly established as unlawful under the law in 2007; the court also held that RCW 10.99.070 immunized the officers from civil liability for conduct arising from a domestic violence incident.
- Feis’s trial focused on whether the community caretaking doctrine or a warrantless home search was lawful; the court found that the right at issue was not clearly established nationwide in 2007, and thus qualified immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the right at issue was clearly established. | Feis argues a clearly established Fourth Amendment right against warrantless home entry to seize firearms. | The Department argues no clearly established right barred warrantless entry given community caretaking and evolving doctrine. | Right not clearly established; immunity applies. |
| Whether Feis framed a sufficiently particularized right. | Feis framed a broad Fourth Amendment claim rather than a particularized right. | Court requires a sufficiently particularized right. | Plaintiff failed to allege a sufficiently particularized right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework; if either prong fails, immunity applies)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (necessity of clearly established right with specific contours)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (immunity to officials unless right clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (court may decide on second prong to avoid addressing first)