Hawkins v. Mitchell
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163183
C.D. Ill.2012Background
- May 31, 2008: Sarah called METCAD reporting a domestic dispute at Hawkins' home; both were intoxicated.
- Officers Mitchell and Bowersock responded to a Priority 1 domestic call and spoke with Sarah outside the residence.
- Defendants entered Hawkins' home without a warrant to question him about the incident and retrieve information about the keys.
- Hawkins resisted the officers’ attempts to identify him and talk, and he was eventually arrested for resisting/obstructing a peace officer and for domestic violence.
- Hawkins alleges illegal entry, false arrest, and excessive force, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and related state-law claims.
- Court granted summary judgment to defendants on false-arrest claims while denying it on excessive-force issues, and denied Hawkins’ summary-judgment motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entry and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment | Hawkins | Mitchell/Bowersock | Entr[y] not unlawful; probable cause supported arrest |
| Whether the use of force in arrest was excessive under Fourth Amendment | Hawkins claims excessive force | Defendants acted reasonably | Genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment on excessive-force claim |
| Whether Hawkins’ First Amendment rights were retaliated against | Arrest in retaliation for speech | No protected activity link; no retaliation | Summary judgment denied for retaliation claim due to factual dispute |
| Whether state-law battery/willful and wanton conduct claims survive immunity | Defendants liable for battery willful/wanton conduct | Immunity Act bars unless willful and wanton | Claims read with battery theory; issues of fact remain on willfulness |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (entry into home requires probable cause or exigent circumstances)
- Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields, 266 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2001) (knock-and-enter does not eliminate privacy rights)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to enter cannot be coerced)
- United States v. Jenkins, 329 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2003) (exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency/need to address risk of danger; warrantless entry allowed in exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Kempf, 400 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2005) (911 calls fit exigent circumstances; assistance to person in danger)
- Padula v. Leimbach, 656 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2011) (probable cause standard for arrest; objective reasonableness)
- McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment burden; credibility not weighed at this stage)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness under Fourth Amendment in use of force)