McInerney v. King, 791 F.3d 1224

McInerney sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging warrantless entry into her home violated the Fourth Amendment.
Officer King served a summons on McInerney for harassment off campus; observed a damaged door, open windows, and a disordered interior but made no contact or phone attempt.
Deputy McLaughlin arrived, and after brief discussion, the pair entered the home with guns drawn to perform a welfare check, about 3 minutes inside.
The entry occurred without a warrant or consent and no clearly established exigent circumstances were proven; the municipal court later dismissed the harassment case as unwarranted.
King sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the district court denied or partially denied, finding disputed facts on participation and exigency.
This appeal centers on whether King personally participated, whether exigent circumstances justified the entry, and whether the law was clearly established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did King personally participate in the unlawful entry?	McInerney: King himself entered the home with McLaughlin.	King: he did not direct the entry and merely followed McLaughlin.	Yes; the entry was personal participation and could violate rights.
Were exigent circumstances present to justify a warrantless entry?	Exigent circumstances existed based on emergency welfare needs.	No exigency; no immediate danger or need identified.	No; no exigent circumstances supported the intrusion.
Was the back-up/offsier safety rationale a valid basis to enter the home?	King needed to back up McLaughlin to ensure safety.	Emergencies cannot be created by officers and back-up cannot validate unlawful entry.	Not valid; cannot create an exigency to justify entry.
Was the right to be free from warrantless home entry clearly established for this context?	The conduct violated clearly established rights given the lack of exigency.	No clearly established precedent on this exact fact pattern.	It was clearly established the conduct violated the Fourth Amendment; King had fair notice.

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (emergency aid exception; entering to render aid or prevent harm)
United States v. Gambino-Zavala, 539 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2008) (exigent circumstances; reasonableness of search in emergency context)
United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2006) (emergency aid and exigent circumstances; open questions on immediacy)
Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. en banc 2007) (two-part test for exigent circumstances; objective reasonableness)
United States v. Martinez, 643 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (exigency burden; reasonableness under emergency framework)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (S. Ct. 2002) (clearly established standard; notice on constitutional rights)
Novitsky v. City of Aurora, 491 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (mere presence at scene; personal participation standard)
Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988 (10th Cir. 1996) (premises entry with valid warrant; limits of mere presence theory)
West v. Keefe, 479 F.3d 757 (10th Cir. 2007) (911 context and emergencies; separation of private danger)