883 F.3d 865
9th Cir.2018Background
- Police responded to a domestic-disturbance call at Ryan Bonivert’s home; Bonivert remained inside while his girlfriend Jessie Ausman and their infant were outside and safe.
- Officers knocked, identified themselves, and Bonivert locked a side door and later attempted to close a back door when officers approached; he did not verbally consent to entry.
- Ausman consented to officers entering the house, but did not state she intended to reenter or ask police to accompany her inside.
- Officers shattered a back-door window, unlocked the door, deployed tasers (dart mode then multiple drive-stuns), shoved Bonivert across the room, handcuffed and arrested him.
- Bonivert sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful warrantless entry and excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on qualified immunity grounds.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (on de novo review) that no warrant‑requirement exception justified entry and that genuine factual disputes precluded qualified immunity on excessive-force claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry — consent exception | Bonivert: his locking the side door and trying to close the back door was an express, present refusal of consent, so Ausman's consent did not permit entry. | City/County: Ausman consented; Bonivert’s silence or nonverbal acts didn't constitute the Randolph-type express refusal. | Held: Consent invalid as to Bonivert under Georgia v. Randolph; his locking/attempting to close door was an express refusal; no qualified immunity. |
| Warrantless entry — emergency aid exception | Bonivert: no objectively reasonable basis to believe imminent harm existed inside; Ausman and child were safely outside and officers had a Code 4. | Officers: domestic-violence context is volatile; concern for safety justified entry to assess Bonivert’s state. | Held: Emergency-aid exception did not apply objectively; triable issues exist and qualified immunity denied. |
| Warrantless entry — exigent circumstances (including hot pursuit) | Bonivert: no probable cause to believe evidence/contraband was inside; victim had left, so exigency inapplicable. | Defendants: entry necessary to investigate and prevent harm/escape. | Held: Exigency inapplicable—no probable cause that evidence was inside and victim was already outside; no qualified immunity. |
| Excessive force — taser drive‑stun use | Bonivert: multiple drive‑stuns after he was inside, not posing an immediate threat, constituted excessive force. | Officers: chaotic scene, perceived threat or resistance justified taser and takedown for officer safety. | Held: Right clearly established (Mattos); disputed facts about threat/resistance preclude summary judgment for officers — qualified immunity denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (a physically present occupant’s express refusal of consent defeats co-occupant’s consent to entry)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable; home receives special Fourth Amendment protection)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (use of a taser in drive‑stun mode can be excessive force when the subject is not an immediate threat)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency-aid exception permits warrantless entry to render aid or prevent imminent injury under objective circumstances)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (limits on exigent‑circumstances doctrine when police create the exigency)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third‑party consent to search valid when co‑occupant with common authority is absent)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two‑step framework: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity prongs in either order)
- Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. 469 (2012) (domestic‑violence context does not automatically establish exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Martinez, 406 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2005) (exigency inapplicable where victim left premises and no probable cause evidence remained inside)