Harte v. Board Comm'rs Cnty of Johnson
864 F.3d 1154
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In April 2012 Johnson County deputies obtained a warrant to search the Harte family home based principally on (a) a trooper’s months‑old observation of Mr. Harte leaving a gardening store and (b) two field‑test “positives” from vegetation taken in three trash pulls; the vegetation later proved to be loose‑leaf tea.
- Deputies executed an early‑morning, armed, seven‑officer, SWAT‑style entry while the Hartes’ two children were home; the family was detained under armed guard for about 2½ hours; the search yielded tomato/vegetable hydroponics but no marijuana.
- The Hartes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Franks/invalid‑warrant, unlawful seizure, excessive force, Monell) and asserted related Kansas tort claims; the district court granted defendants summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
- The Tenth Circuit panel (per curiam with separate opinions): affirmed summary judgment as to Trooper Wingo, affirmed dismissal of excessive‑force and Monell claims in part, but reversed summary judgment on Franks/unlawful search and seizure claims against the remaining deputies and on four state‑law claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Central factual disputes for trial: whether the deputies actually performed the field tests and/or knowingly lied about positive results (Franks), and whether probable cause dissipated early in the search such that the continued search and detention were unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrant (Franks challenge) | Burns/Blake lied or recklessly omitted material facts about field tests; without the alleged positives no probable cause | Deputies actually obtained presumptive field positives and reasonably relied on KN reagent tests permitted by Kansas law | Reversed summary judgment as to Franks: genuine dispute whether deputies lied about field tests; Franks claim (limited to allegation of false field‑test results) may proceed to trial |
| Unlawful seizure / continued detention | Probable cause dissipated once search revealed only a tomato hydroponic setup; continued 2.5‑hour detention and housewide rummaging were unreasonable | Warrant authorized search for marijuana; deputies had arguable probable cause and Summers permits detention during a lawful search | Reversed summary judgment on unlawful seizure: triable issue whether probable cause dissipated and whether continued search/detention was reasonable |
| Excessive force / SWAT‑style entry | Deployment of seven armored officers, battering ram, weapons, and detaining children under armed guard was unreasonable here | Execution tactics were justified by serving a felony narcotics warrant and concerns for officer safety; reliance on Holland and Summers | Affirmed summary judgment for some defendants on excessive‑force (majority view); separate opinion (Lucero) concluded use of force unreasonable but panel split on clearly established law; mixed outcome and factual issues remain for some claims |
| Monell / municipal liability | JCSO policy to conduct 4/20 publicity raids and to rely on unreliable field tests caused constitutional violations (deliberate indifference) | Policies were lawful (field tests permitted by statute/regulation); no proof of deliberate indifference causing the alleged lies or execution misconduct | Reversed in part as to Monell where connected to Franks / state‑law claims; overall Monell liability disputed and tied to outcomes on the individual constitutional claims; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (warrant affidavit may be attacked for deliberate falsehoods or reckless omissions; if set aside probable cause must fail)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom showing and deliberate indifference causally linked to constitutional violation)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (the home occupies special status under the Fourth Amendment)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (occupants may be detained during execution of a lawful search warrant)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework for use of force)
- Holland ex rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (deployment/pointing firearms at children in execution of a warrant can be unreasonable; use‑of‑force analysis for tactical entries)
- Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2014) (arguable probable cause standard; failure to investigate does not alone prove reckless disregard)
- Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 1997) (officers not shielded from § 1983 liability simply because a magistrate issued a warrant)
- Eaton v. Lexington‑Fayette Urban Cty. Gov’t, 811 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2016) (utterly unreliable testing procedures might violate the Fourth Amendment; reliability matters to reasonableness)