Harold Fish v. Tim Brown
838 F.3d 1153
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Fish (plaintiff) had a final Florida domestic-violence injunction prohibiting him from possessing firearms and ammunition.
- His former lover, Riesco, went to Fish’s rural home to retrieve belongings and asked the Holmes County Sheriff’s Office for an escort, saying she feared for her safety.
- Deputies Harrison (uniformed) and Loucks (plain clothes with badge visible) accompanied Riesco, followed her through an unlocked glass sunroom door, and entered the house after Riesco announced herself; Fish responded verbally and directed them toward the bedroom.
- In the bedroom Harrison observed a revolver hanging on a bedpost, ammunition in an urn, and other guns (some under the bed); Harrison had been told of the injunction and believed possession would violate it.
- Deputies arrested Fish for violating the injunction (possession of firearms/ammunition) and for resisting arrest; criminal charges were later dismissed.
- Fish sued under § 1983 alleging unlawful entry/search and false arrest; district court granted summary judgment to deputies on qualified immunity grounds and remanded state-law claims; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of entry into sunroom | Deputies entered sunroom without consent or warrant | Deputies followed Riesco (who used sunroom as entry); entry was objectively reasonable and covered by consent-once-removed or implied access | Qualified immunity — entry not clearly unlawful; officers entitled to immunity |
| Lawfulness of entry from sunroom into interior/home | Fish did not consent to officers entering home | Fish verbally assented when he said “All right” after Riesco introduced officers; no show of authority coerced consent | Held deputies had consent; qualified immunity applies |
| Seizure of firearms (plain view) | Guns under bed not visible; seizure unlawful | Revolver, ammunition, and other guns were in plain view once inside bedroom and incriminating nature was apparent given injunction | Held seizure lawful under plain-view doctrine |
| Arrest (probable cause) | Arrest lacked probable cause because injunction not independently verified | Deputies had knowledge of injunction and observed firearms/ammunition in home; at least arguable probable cause existed | Held there was arguable probable cause; qualified immunity protects deputies |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may address clearly established prong first; officers may rely on emerging doctrines from other circuits)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clarifies how ‘‘fair warning’’ and clearly established law are assessed)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clarifies requirement that unlawfulness be apparent in light of pre-existing law)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (requires that precedent place constitutional question beyond debate to deny immunity)
- Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2002) (discusses categories of precedent for clearly established law and when factual distinctions matter)