Roberts v. Spielman, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11995

Roberts sued Deputy Spielman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming an unlawful search/seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Spielman responded to a 911 welfare-check call about a possible suicide at Roberts's home and spoke with Tracey Huckabee prior to approaching Roberts.
Roberts ignored knocking; Spielman opened a back door slightly, observed inside, and identified himself; Roberts demanded he leave and used profane, abusive language.
Spielman grabbed Roberts's right arm and escorted her outside after a confrontation; he briefly removed her from the home and spoke with her on the back steps to assess her mental state.
Spielman later left the residence after determining there was no ongoing threat; district court denied qualified immunity; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for judgment in Spielman's favor on the § 1983 claim.
The court analyzed whether Spielman acted within his discretionary authority and whether Roberts' rights were clearly established, applying the qualified-immunity framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Spielman act within his discretionary authority?	Roberts contends he exceeded his authority by remaining on property after learning she was alive.	Spielman intervened to perform a welfare check to protect life and acted within official duties.	Yes; acted within discretionary authority.
Was there a Fourth Amendment violation given the welfare-check context and exigent circumstances?	Roberts argues the welfare check and seizure were unlawful once the danger appeared to subside.	Exigent circumstances and reasonable belief of danger justified continued presence and temporary seizure.	No, no Fourth Amendment violation under the circumstances.
Was the right at issue clearly established such that qualified immunity applied?	Roberts contends the conduct violated clearly established rights.	No clearly established authority held that probable cause and exigent circumstances evaporate once a subject is alive.	Right not clearly established; qualified immunity applies.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity from civil damages for discretionary acts)
Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1988) (scope of discretionary authority includes acts within official duties)
Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1994) (definition of discretionary authority for public officials)
Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004) (officer intervening in apparent welfare/mental health context within discretionary authority)
Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d 1395 (11th Cir. 1998) (distinguishing acts outside official duties from permissible welfare-check interventions)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigent circumstances and scope of warrantless searches)
Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 1997) (probable cause standard in welfare/mental health context)
Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-step test for clearly established rights in qualified-immunity analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified-immunity framework; may address either prong first)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (constitutional rights not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity)
United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2002) (exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement; life safety emphasis)