Paul Burritt v. Lisa Ditlefsen
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20760
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 23, 2011, Paul Burritt, a Handi‑Lift driver, transported an 11‑year‑old (SMH) from a counseling center toward her home; SMH later alleged Burritt deviated, took her to a rural property, let his dogs out, and sexually assaulted her. SMH provided drawings and repeated detailed accounts to multiple interviewers.
- Investigators (Hayward PD then Polk County) reviewed the transport log (odometer showed 121 miles but total listed as 21), SMH’s interviews, family statements, and a counselor’s notes; early investigative mapping (MapQuest/Yahoo) suggested routes and timings that investigators believed were consistent with SMH’s story.
- Polk County investigator Lisa Ditlefsen obtained search warrants for Burritt’s van GPS and phone records, interviewed witnesses, and consulted her supervisor and the Polk County District Attorney, Daniel Steffen, who independently concluded there was probable cause and directed arrest.
- Ditlefsen arrested Burritt without an arrest warrant after he consented to officers entering his home to retrieve the GPS; post‑arrest GPS and phone data later showed Burritt’s route and timestamps contradicted SMH’s allegations; SMH recanted and charges were dismissed.
- Burritt sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest/false imprisonment) and state tort claims. The district court granted summary judgment for Ditlefsen and Polk County (qualified immunity; no Monell liability) and dismissed state claims without prejudice; Rule 59(e) motion was denied. The Seventh Circuit majority affirmed; Judge Posner dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless home entry/consent | Entry/arrest in home without arrest warrant violated Fourth Amendment | Burritt consented to officers entering and retrieving the GPS; consent negates warrant requirement | Entry was consensual; no Fourth Amendment violation on entry |
| Probable cause / qualified immunity for arrest | Ditlefsen lacked probable cause and ignored exculpatory evidence (timing, gas receipt, likely routes) | Investigator had arguable probable cause based on SMH’s consistent statements, corroborating family statements, transport log anomalies, and mapping; consulted DA and supervisor | Ditlefsen entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have (mistakenly) believed probable cause existed; summary judgment affirmed |
| Municipal (Monell) liability | Polk County liable for policies/practices or failure to follow guidelines/training | No evidence of an express policy causing deprivation, nor that DA was final policymaker; no proof of deliberate indifference in training | No Monell liability; summary judgment for Polk County affirmed |
| Supplemental state claims / Rule 59(e) motion | District court should have retained or otherwise erred in granting summary judgment; new evidence/manifest error | No newly discovered evidence or manifest legal error shown | District court did not abuse discretion; state claims dismissed without prejudice and Rule 59(e) denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mustafa v. City of Chicago, 442 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2006) (probable cause is defense to § 1983 wrongful‑arrest claims; qualified immunity standard)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violations)
- Fleming v. Livingston County, 674 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2012) (arguable probable cause and qualified immunity analysis)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or final policymaker causation)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (failure‑to‑train Monell claims require deliberate indifference)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrant requirement and limits on warrantless, nonconsensual home arrests)
- Watson v. United States, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976) (historical background on warrantless arrests and public‑safety considerations)
- Sabo v. United States, 724 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2013) (consent exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Harney v. City of Chicago, 702 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry upheld where occupant allowed officers in)