Mascorro v. Billings, 656 F.3d 1198

Mascorros allege unlawful entry, excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution by Billings, Watkins, and Simpson.
Billings, pursuing Joshua for a taillight violation, allegedly entered the Mascorro home unlawfully after Joshua fled there.
Pepper spray was deployed at the front door; Christina and Jose Mascorro were sprayed and taken outside; Joshua was taken into custody in the bathroom.
Charges against the Mascorros were dismissed by the state court for lack of exigent circumstances; the Mascorros incurred property disruption in the home.
The district court denied summary judgment on most claims, but dismissed some claims against defendants in their official capacities; the issue on appeal is qualified immunity regarding unlawful entry.
The panel treats the unlawful-entry issue as the only properly reviewable issue on qualified immunity, given the conflicting versions of events.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the home entry justified by hot pursuit and exigent circumstances?	Mascorro claims hot pursuit and probable cause did not justify warrantless entry.	Billings asserts probable cause plus exigent pursuit justified entry.	Exigency did not justify warrantless entry; the minor traffic offense and lack of imminent danger negate exigency.
Are the officers entitled to qualified immunity given the clearly established law?	Mascorro rights were clearly established to prohibit warrantless home entry for a minor traffic offense.	Defendants argue the law was not clearly established to bar the entry under hot-pursuit circumstances.	No clearly established authority supported warrantless entry for a minor offense; qualified immunity not available.
Is there appellate jurisdiction to review other qualified-immunity arguments tied to disputed facts?	Mascorros contend factual disputes preclude summary judgment on other claims.	Appellate review limited to legal questions; facts disputed, cannot review other claims.	Court declines review of other claims; only the legal issue on unlawful entry is addressed.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (entry to arrest in a home generally requires warrant or exigent circumstances)
Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit can justify warrantless entry to prevent destruction of evidence)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (severity of offense limits exigent-circumstances justification for home entry)
Bledsoe v. Garcia, 742 F.2d 1237 (10th Cir.1984) (AWOL offense considered serious; exigency justified warrantless entry in certain contexts)
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (entry into third party's home requires warrant absent special justification)
Howard v. Dickerson, 34 F.3d 978 (10th Cir.1994) (cannot enter home for routine felony arrest without warrant or exigent circumstances)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (emphasizes gravity of underlying offense in exigency analysis)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (reasonableness in qualified-immunity analysis depends on law at time of conduct)
United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) (footnote discussion on Welsh; not controlling for hot-pursuit scenarios)