James White v. Tammie Stanley, 745 F.3d 237

Deputies entered White's home without a warrant after smelling burning marijuana outside; White was arrested for resisting/obstructing a peace officer.
Deputies were at Hille’s residence investigating a stolen license sticker; White, not Hille, answered the door and refused entry.
The door was blocked and the deputies entered the split-level home and tackled White on the stairs; White alleges a shoulder injury.
District court ruled no exigency and found waiver of qualified immunity; deputies’ appeal argued waiver was improper.
The Seventh Circuit held waiver did not apply and addressed whether the odor-created exigency and qualified-immunity defense were properly analyzed, ultimately reversing on the qualified-immunity ruling.
Court concluded that, while odor alone does not always create an exigency, the right was not clearly established in 2010 that odor alone could never justify entry; thus deputies are entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a waiver of qualified immunity	White argues deputies waived, since raised in answer and summary judgment	Deputies contend waiver does not apply	Waiver not appropriate; qualified immunity addressed on merits
Did the smell of burning marijuana alone justify warrantless entry	White contends no exigency from odor alone	Deputies contend odor alone can create exigency	Odor alone did not establish an exigency; but not clearly established that it never could
Whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity given the state of law in 2010	Right clear that odor could not justify entry	Case law was fractured; some circuits allowed, some did not	Not clearly established in 2010 that odor alone barred exigency; deputies entitled to qualified immunity

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (Supreme Court 1948) (odor of burning opium outside hotel room did not justify warrantless entry)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (Supreme Court 1984) (minor offense, home entry to prevent destruction of evidence received narrow exigencies)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 2009) (establishes dual-prong test for qualified immunity)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (Supreme Court 1987) (warns against overly broad constitutional-right definitions in qualified immunity)
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (Supreme Court 2011) (requires clearly established rights to be defined with specificity)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (Supreme Court 2011) (exigency doctrine for entering a home without a warrant)