Roger Trent v. Steven Wade
776 F.3d 368
5th Cir.2015Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. Officer Steven Wade chased an ATV driven by Richard Trent onto the Trent family property; Richard ran into the house and Wade followed seconds later without knocking or announcing. Backup arrived and entered similarly; Richard was found and arrested inside.
- Wade searched the ATV parked under the porte cochere, removed panels, and ultimately had it towed and impounded. A grand jury later no-billed Richard on related charges.
- The Trents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (a) unlawful no-knock entry/search of the home, (b) unlawful seizures of Richard and the ATV, and (c) First Amendment retaliation; they sued Chief Matthew Walling in his official (Monell) capacity for municipal policymaking/supervision failures.
- The district court denied qualified-immunity summary judgment to Wade on the no-knock entry and ATV seizure (but granted on the warrantless search and on Richard’s seizure); it stayed discovery on municipal liability. Wade and Walling appealed the qualified-immunity denial.
- The Fifth Circuit (Elrod, J.) held: (1) hot pursuit is not a per se exception to the knock-and-announce rule; genuine fact issues about whether knocking would have been futile preclude qualified-immunity on the no-knock claim (affirmed); (2) seizure of the ATV did not violate clearly established law given Carroll/White/plain-view doctrines, so Wade is entitled to qualified immunity on the ATV claim (reversed and rendered); (3) appeal as to Walling dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Monell official-capacity claims do not implicate qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hot pursuit automatically excuses knock-and-announce | Trent: No blanket exception; occupants’ privacy interests require knock unless specific justification exists | Wade: Hot pursuit made announcing futile; pursuit justified immediate entry | Held: Hot pursuit alone is not a per se excuse; futility requires reasonable suspicion that occupants already knew officers’ presence; material fact dispute precludes qualified immunity |
| Whether Wade had reasonable suspicion that announcing would be futile | Trent: Other occupants were likely asleep and unaware; Wade lacked reasonable suspicion occupants knew of his presence | Wade: Observed suspect flee in front of house and heard movement upstairs; announcing would be useless | Held: Fact issues about whether occupants were aware are material; cannot resolve on interlocutory appeal; denial of qualified immunity as to no-knock entry affirmed |
| Whether seizure/impound of ATV violated Fourth Amendment | Trent: ATV seizure was unreasonable; prior exterior search negated evidentiary value; impound not justified | Wade: ATV was instrumentality of felony; White/Carroll and plain-view support warrantless seizure from where officers lawfully were | Held: Seizure did not violate clearly established law; Wade entitled to qualified immunity on ATV seizure (district court reversed) |
| Whether Walling’s appeal of summary denial is reviewable on qualified immunity grounds | Trent: Walling sued only in official capacity (Monell) so municipal liability, not individual immunity | Walling: Sought appeal of denial of summary judgment (arguing immunity/final policymaker) | Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as qualified immunity is not implicated in Monell official-capacity claims; collateral-order jurisdiction lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (Sup. Ct.) (knock-and-announce is part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (Sup. Ct.) (no-knock entry requires reasonable suspicion that announcing would be dangerous, futile, or inhibit investigation)
- Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (hot pursuit can justify warrantless entry to arrest a fleeing felon)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (Sup. Ct.) (automobile exception permits warrantless search/seizure of vehicles containing contraband)
- Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (Sup. Ct.) (Carroll permits seizure when vehicle itself is contraband; emphasized mobility and public-place considerations)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (Sup. Ct.) (discusses knock-and-announce rule and its exceptions)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-view doctrine: officers lawfully located may seize evidence whose incriminating nature is immediately apparent)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (Sup. Ct.) (hot pursuit may permit seizure of evidence observed during lawful entry)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (Sup. Ct.) (municipal entities liable under § 1983 for unconstitutional policies; official-capacity suits implicate Monell, not qualified immunity)