Simmons v. Loose
13 A.3d 366
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Armatrue and John Simmons owned a multi-unit dwelling at 33 Lockwood Ave, Freehold, operating as a licensed rooming house with several tenants.
- A no-knock warrant was issued for 33 and adjoining 35 Lockwood Ave based on Patrolman Otlowski’s affidavit detailing CDS activity and informant corroboration.
- Tyler (resident at 33) and Brown (resident at 35) were CDS offenders with violent histories; Stewart was a CDS supplier tied to the target locations.
- State Police TEAMS unit and local Joint Investigation Team executed the no-knock entry on March 3, 2004 using a ram and flash bang, then searched Tyler’s room and surrounding areas.
- Damages from the execution were stipulated at $4,312.16 to plaintiffs’ property; plaintiffs continued renting rooms post-entry.
- Plaintiffs asserted TCA and 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for damages and sought takings relief under the Fifth and New Jersey takings Clauses; the trial court and appellate rulings addressed immunity and the takings claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Otlowski’s actions in issuing the no-knock warrant were protected by qualified immunity | Simmons argues no qualified immunity for issuance | Otlowski acted with objective reasonableness based on totality of circumstances | Otlowski entitled to qualified immunity for issuance |
| Whether the no-knock execution of a valid warrant can give rise to §1983/ TCA liability for property damage | damages under §1983 should be recoverable as a taking | damages do not constitute a constitutional taking; immunity applies to officers | Damages during execution were not a taking; immunity applicable to officers; no liability under TCA/§1983 for taking claim |
| Whether the damage to innocent third parties’ property from a lawful warrant constitutes a taking under the federal/state constitutions | innocent third parties are entitled to just compensation | police action is a police power or incidental takings not requiring compensation | Not a taking under federal/state constitutions; remedy lies with legislative action |
| Whether the scope of the warrant extending to the entire multi-unit dwelling was proper based on the affidavit and totality of circumstances | scope exceeded Tyler’s room | scope supported by informant info, layout, lookouts, and ongoing drug activity; no bad faith | Warrant scope properly supported; no fatal omissions despite some omissions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (2009) (Fourth Amendment search-and-entry principles; no-knock analysis sensitivity)
- Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375 (2000) (objective reasonable standard for qualified immunity in §1983 actions)
- State v. Johnson, 168 N.J. 608 (2001) (no-knock entry justified by reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical taking framework; distinguishing permanent intrusion from regulatory takings)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (temporary physical limitations require balancing; not per se takings)