Janet Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2524
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- In August 2006 a Miami Beach PD informant tipped of possible drug dealing at Feliciano’s apartment with children present.
- Narcotics officers Acosta, Dohler, Dozier, and Nash approached Feliciano’s apartment at ~9:00 p.m. and asked to search without a warrant, citing a fire hazard argument
- Feliciano refused consent; officers entered anyway and restrained Feliciano and her partner, then removed their daughter from the room
- Officers handcuffed Feliciano’s partner after a brief struggle and conducted a search of the apartment—finding and not testing claimed marijuana evidence
- Feliciano suffered a miscarriage the next day; arrest reports later claimed marijuana odor and Gonzaga holding a joint, though Feliciano and Gonzaga disputed these observations
- District court denied qualified immunity to officers, accepting contested evidence as undisputed; this appeal follows for de novo review on qualified immunity and Fourth Amendment scope
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had qualified immunity for warrantless entry/search | Feliciano argues no arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances | Officers contend arguable probable cause and exigent circumstances justified entry | Not entitled to qualified immunity; record shows no arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances |
| Whether Feliciano's sworn statements create genuine issue on pre-entry observations | Feliciano’s sworn statements contradict officers’ pre-entry observations | Court may credit officers’ observations as undisputed | Sworn statements create genuine dispute; credibility issues preclude summary judgment on immunity |
| Whether Nash’s lack of personal participation affects immunity ruling | Feliciano asserts Nash participated in entry and searches | Nash argues no personal involvement in the search of certain areas | Affirm denial of Nash’s immunity; all officers entered the home and are liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warm warrantless entry into home barred absent probable cause and exigent circumstances)
- Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1991) (exigent circumstances may justify entry to prevent destruction of evidence)
- Burgos, United States v. Burgos, 720 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1983) (defines exigent circumstances in context of warrantless action)
- Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995) (arguable probable cause supports qualified immunity analysis)
- Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2006) (credibility not decided at summary judgment; sworn testimony may create factual dispute)