James Denby v. David Engstrom, 20-16319

Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Casa Grande/Pinal officers and a SWAT team executed a search of plaintiffs’ home seeking Ochoa, a domestic-violence suspect.
Before obtaining a warrant, a Bearcat vehicle driven by an officer drove through an exterior fence and into the side of the house; movement under a tarp had been noticed earlier.
After a warrant, defendants deployed robots, a public-address system, and large quantities of tear gas/pepper spray (allegedly ~22× what was needed); every window and many fixtures were broken.
Plaintiffs allege extensive, unnecessary destruction of property (furniture too small to hide a person smashed, torn cushions, destroyed toilets, artwork, plumbing damage, flooding).
District court initially denied qualified immunity for all individual officers pending development; on remand it granted immunity to eight officers but denied it for five (Engstrom, Skedel, Lapre, Gragg, Robinson).
This interlocutory appeal concerns only denial of qualified immunity for those five on (1) unreasonable search/seizure and (2) failure-to-intervene claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unreasonable search and seizure	Search was disproportionately destructive and exceeded the scope of a protective sweep; officers destroyed areas too small to hide Ochoa and used excessive chemical munitions	Conduct was reasonable under the circumstances of an arrest attempt and officers are entitled to qualified immunity	Denied — complaint plausibly alleges unreasonably destructive search; right to be free of unnecessarily destructive searches was clearly established
Failure to intervene	Each named officer had a realistic opportunity to stop colleagues from violating plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights	Officers lacked a realistic opportunity or acted reasonably under the circumstances	Denied — at 12(b)(6) allegations suffice that each had a realistic opportunity to intercede

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (establishes qualified-immunity two-step)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (limits protective sweeps to spaces where a person may be found)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (actions unrelated to authorized intrusion can violate the Fourth Amendment)
Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965 (unnecessarily destructive behavior beyond execution needs violates the Fourth Amendment)
Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 226 F.3d 1031 (officers not entitled to immunity for unnecessarily destructive searches)
West v. City of Caldwell, 931 F.3d 978 (distinguishable: involved a barricaded, violent, armed suspect)
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (Fourth Amendment balancing of governmental and private interests)