Krysta Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8774

Sutterfield was detained after her physician reported suicidal intent; police prepared a Section 51.15 detention statement for mental health evaluation.
Officers located Sutterfield after hours of search, obtained entry forcibly when she refused access, and conducted a protective sweep.
A locked compact disc case found in the kitchen was opened; a handgun and concealed-carry licenses were seized.
The court assumed the gun Search/Seizure violated the Fourth Amendment but held officers entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court and panel analyzed community caretaker, emergency aid, and exigent circumstances doctrines, ultimately favoring exigent circumstances/ emergency aid as justification for entry.
The appellate court concluded the officers were protected by qualified immunity and affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.	Sutterfield argues nine hours’ delay broke exigency; no ongoing emergency.	Officers reasonably believed ongoing risk and acted to aid, consistent with 51.15.	Yes; entry justified under exigent circumstances / emergency aid.
Whether the search of the locked case and seizure of the gun violated the Fourth Amendment.	Opening the locked case was unlawful; it violated Fourth Amendment privacy.	Emergency context allowed protective measures; Wisconsin doctrine supports broader search.	Qualified immunity applies; search/seizure affirmed as reasonable under circumstances.
Whether seizure of the gun and licenses violated the Second Amendment.	Seizure of a lawfully possessed gun infringes Second Amendment rights.	Temporary seizure for safety does not necessarily violate Second Amendment; no ban on return of gun.	Not addressed on merits; no clear ruling; qualified immunity article reserved.
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claims.	Rights clearly established; officers knowingly violated rights.	Wisconsin precedent supports community caretaking and emergency aid; law unclear.	Yes; officers entitled to qualified immunity for entry, search, and seizure.

Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (emergency to prevent imminent injury justifies entry without a warrant)
Fitzgerald v. Santoro, 707 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2013) (emergency aid within exigent circumstances framework)
U.S. v. Patino, 830 F.2d 1413 (7th Cir. 1987) (exigency analysis considering time to obtain warrants)
U.S. v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204 (7th Cir. 1982) (community caretaking limited to automobile context (not home))
Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2008) (temporary seizure of gun for safety; public safety interest)
State v. Horngren, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (Wisconsin community caretaking doctrine applied to home entry)
Pinkard, 327 Wis.2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592 (Wis. 2010) (community caretaking doctrine to justify warrantless home entry and sweep)
Camara v. Muni. Ct. of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967) (administrative inspection warrant requirement; community caretaking context)
Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (home entry context evolving from automobile precedent)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (home privacy; reasonableness standard)