Morse v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Department of State Police
123 F. Supp. 3d 179
D. Mass.2015Background
- On Aug. 16, 2009, two teenagers reported that Charles Morse threw rocks, used racial slurs, and threatened to kill them with a gun; officers began searching and requested State Police K-9 assistance.
- About an hour later officers went to Morse’s home; Morse answered an inner door, kept the outer screen door closed and locked, and refused to come outside without a warrant while visible through the screen.
- Officers (Cloutier, Fortier, Bateman, Obuchowski, and Trooper Maher) forcibly entered by kicking through the screen and inner door, seized Morse at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and briefly handcuffed his wife Lesa during a protective sweep; charges were later dismissed.
- Trooper Frechette and Sergeant LaVallee did not enter the home; plaintiffs do not dispute their nonparticipation in the forced entry.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment unreasonable search/seizure), the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), and for intentional infliction of emotional distress; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court denied summary judgment for the entering/arresting officers on warrantless entry claims, granted immunity on excessive-force claims, and dismissed claims against Frechette and LaVallee for nonparticipation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry/arrest into home | Morse’s arrest and forced entry without a warrant or exigent circumstances violated Fourth Amendment | Probable cause and exigent circumstances (danger, pursuit, weapons) justified entry; qualified immunity applies | Genuine dispute on exigency; probable cause existed but no exigency shown; entry/arrest claims survive vs Cloutier, Fortier, Bateman, Obuchowski, Maher; LaVallee and Frechette dismissed |
| Qualified immunity for entry/arrest | Officers should not be shielded; Payton established warrant requirement for home entries | Joyce and doctrine uncertainty mean officers lacked fair warning | Right to be free from warrantless arrest inside one’s own home was clearly established; officers who entered are not entitled to qualified immunity |
| Excessive force (guns aimed; handcuffing Lesa) | Use of guns at close range and handcuffing an innocent occupant was unreasonable | Force was reasonable for officer safety given alleged threats and crimes; qualified immunity applies | Triable issue on reasonableness exists, but qualified immunity applies because law was not clearly established for the specific force used; excessive-force claims dismissed on qualified immunity grounds |
| MCRA and IIED claims | Officers used threats, intimidation, coercion (announced forced entry) and conduct was extreme/outrageous causing severe distress | Conduct was ordinary law enforcement activity and not extreme; immunity arguments apply | MCRA and IIED claims survive against the entering/arresting officers (same subset); claims dismissed as to LaVallee and Frechette |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (strong protection for the home under the Fourth Amendment)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry to effect an arrest in a home presumptively unlawful absent exigent circumstances)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (warrantless entries are presumptively unreasonable except for recognized exceptions)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent-circumstances exception and limits on police-created exigencies)
- Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, 112 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1997) (qualified immunity in doorway-arrest context; court emphasized unsettled law)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clarifies need for clearly established law for qualified immunity)
- Tower v. Leslie-Brown, 326 F.3d 290 (1st Cir. 2003) (warrantless home arrest unlawfulness clearly established)
- Raiche v. Pietroski, 623 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2010) (excessive-force test balancing three factors)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (permissibility of detaining occupants during execution of a search warrant)