15 F.4th 116
1st Cir.2021Background
- Feb 18–19, 2016: After a domestic dispute, Orono officers served French a Cease Harassment Notice (CHN) for contacting Samantha Nardone; French sent numerous messages that same day and was arrested that night for harassment; charges later dropped.
- Sept 14, 2016: Nardone reported a break‑in and that her phone was missing; officers went to French’s multi‑tenant residence, observed lights and evasive behavior, and conducted multiple entries onto the curtilage to perform repeated “knock‑and‑talks,” including knocking on a bedroom window and shining lights.
- French came to the door after several re‑entries and was arrested for burglary; state later dismissed charges.
- French sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (inter alia) unconstitutional warrantless arrest (Feb) and unlawful search/seizure (Sept).
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts; on appeal the First Circuit affirmed as to the February arrest (probable cause/qualified immunity) and reversed as to the September curtilage/knock‑and‑talk claim, holding Jardines clearly established the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for Feb 2016 arrest (harassment) | French: messages were lawful or innocuous; officers misread CHN and lacked probable cause | Drost/Merrill: cumulative messages, victim’s sworn statement, and reports he was looking for her constituted probable cause | Affirmed: totality supported probable cause; even if debatable, qualified immunity applies |
| Sept 2016 curtilage entries / knock‑and‑talk — Fourth Amendment & qualified immunity | French: repeated re‑entries, knocking on window, shining lights and yelling exceeded implied license and coerced him, so officers conducted an unlawful search/seizure | Morse/Gray: conduct was a permissible knock‑and‑talk given exigent facts (victim safety, risk of evidence destruction), multi‑tenant context, and Walker/Carroll ambiguity; not clearly established by Jardines | Reversed summary judgment: majority held officers violated Fourth Amendment by exceeding implied license and Jardines clearly established unlawfulness, so qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (curtilage intrusion beyond the implied license for a knock‑and‑talk—warrantless physical intrusion to gather evidence—violates the Fourth Amendment)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (probable cause assessed by objective facts known to officers at arrest)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances inquiry)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (knock‑and‑talk is generally permissible; exigent‑circumstances principles may allow warrantless entries)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (clearly established law requires controlling authority or a robust consensus; unlawfulness must be beyond debate)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established inquiry cannot be at a high level of generality)
- Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2004) (officers’ field inferences about intent may support probable cause)
- United States v. Walker, 799 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2015) (post‑Jardines decision finding repeated knock‑and‑talks and non‑front‑door approaches may be reasonable in context)