Mlodzinski Ex Rel. J.M. v. Lewis
648 F.3d 24
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- This § 1983 action challenges the use of force during execution of warrants on Aug 2, 2006 by Bristol police and CNHSOU in Rothman case.
- Warrants for Rothman’s arrest and residence search issued by Plymouth District Court around 9:30 p.m. on Aug 1, 2006; designated as high-risk.
- CNHSOU assisted with the raid; officers wore camouflage, carried assault rifles, and used a battering ram.
- Rothman was arrested; his sister Jessica and parents Tina and Thomas were detained in the apartment during the search.
- Plaintiffs allege Fourth Amendment violations for their detentions and state-law assault/battery; district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity.
- Court grants interlocutory review on immunity issues; outcome affirms in part and reverses in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol officers and Cormier are entitled to qualified immunity for detaining occupants. | Mlodzinski contends no reasonable basis to detain for duration. | Detention was reasonable to ensure safety and search integrity. | Qualified immunity granted for Bristol/Cormier on handcuffing duration. |
| Whether CNHSOU officers are entitled to qualified immunity for detaining Jessica and Tina in bedrooms. | Force and prolonged gunpoint detention violated clearly established rights. | Officers acted within reasonable judgment given circumstances. | Not entitled to immunity; claims survive for excessive force analysis. |
| Whether CNHSOU officers violated the Fourth Amendment by excessive force against Jessica. | Shoving, handcuffing, and gun to head caused serious injury; excessive. | Actions were reasonable under circumstances or debatable. | Excessive force shown; no immunity for CNHSOU officers. |
| Whether Tina’s detention with a rifle at her head violated clearly established rights. | Detention unreasonably prolonged; risk to safety minimal as she wasn’t suspect. | Split-second decisions allowed; detention reasonable. | Detention at head of Tina deemed objectively unreasonable; immunity denied. |
| Whether CNHSOU officers are shielded by official immunity on state-law claims. | Official immunity should not apply given Fourth Amendment violations. | Official immunity should bar personal liability. | Official immunity not applicable; state-law claims viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court 2005) (detention in handcuffs during a weapons search may be justified by safety and search needs)
- Summers v. Michigan, 452 U.S. 692 (Supreme Court 1981) (detention of occupants during a lawful search to minimize risk and interference)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (reasonableness of force judged from on-scene perspective; objective standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 2009) (two-prong test for qualified immunity; clearly established right analysis)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (Supreme Court 1987) (unlawfulness must be apparent in light of pre-existing law; objective reasonableness)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court 1986) (immunity if reasonable officers could disagree on legality of conduct)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2001) (framework for evaluating qualified immunity (note altered by Pearson))