Kerns v. Bader
663 F.3d 1173
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Summer 2005 helicopter downing; Kerns identified as a suspect; police entered Kerns’s home briefly without a warrant; shell casing found in trash and fresh; investigators tied defendant FN rifle to helicopter; VA records were sought without a warrant or exigent circumstances; ballistics expert Haag later contradicted some findings; charges ultimately dismissed; district court denied qualified-immunity; appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officers Bader, Thompson, and Carter violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the home. | Kerns argues entry without warrant or exigent justification violated Fourth Amendment rights. | Officers claim exigent circumstances and reasonable fear justified entry. | Remanded; district court to address clearly established law prong on remand. |
| Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the first prong (constitutional violation) for the home entry. | District court should find no clearly established right; entry unlawful. | There were exigent circumstances; potential hostage scenario; consent issue later. | Remanded; court reserves decision on both prongs pending district court’s analysis. |
| Whether Sheriff White violated the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment by requesting VA medical records without warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. | Obtaining medical records without a warrant or consent violated privacy rights; rights clearly established. | Question whether third-party medical records were protected; law uncertain in 2005. | Reverse in White; grant summary judgment in his favor due to lack of clearly established right as of 2005. |
| Whether Deputies Lindley and Koren and Haag are entitled to qualified immunity given probable cause for arrest and whether false statements/omissions vitiated probable cause. | Arrest lacked probable cause; officers misled or omitted material facts. | After removing false/omitted material, sufficient probable cause remained; qualified immunity applicable. | Probable cause supported; qualified immunity affirmed for Lindley, Koren, and Haag. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry protections; importance of warrants and exceptions)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (remedies for qualified immunity; approach to prongs)
- Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020 (2011) (exception to addressing both qualified immunity prongs)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established law standard; not high-level generalities)
- Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097 (2005) (privacy in medical records; third-party disclosure issues)
- Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836 (1986) (medical records privacy protection; long-standing rule)
- A.L.A. v. West Valley City, 26 F.3d 989 (1994) (privacy in medical records; protected information)
- Lankford v. City of Hobart, 27 F.3d 477 (1994) (privacy in medical records; seizure/review protected)