37 F.4th 1110
6th Cir.2022Background
- Hopkinses owned a Marshall County, TN farm with a herd of cattle; neighbors complained of animal neglect.
- Marshall County Detective Anthony Nichols (wearing gun and badge) and Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture vet Jill Johnson inspected the property on July 2, 2018; Johnson completed a Livestock Welfare Examination finding cattle in poor health and probable cause for animal cruelty.
- Nichols returned multiple times; on July 12 Johnson documented continued poor conditions and skeletal remains in a sinkhole; on July 13 Nichols and Sheriff William Lamb re-entered the farm and seized the cattle without a warrant.
- Criminal charges against Mr. Hopkins were later dismissed on condition of payment from sale proceeds; the cattle had been sold while cases were pending.
- The Hopkinses sued Nichols and Lamb under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure/search; the district court denied qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims and the officers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mrs. Hopkins was "seized" when Nichols demanded she escort him to the cattle and refused her requests to wait | Nichols’s badge, gun, and two explicit refusals turned a purportedly consensual encounter into a seizure; she was not free to leave | Mrs. Hopkins consented; no show of authority produced a seizure | Viewing facts most favorably to Hopkins, a reasonable person could have believed she was not free to leave; seizure found possible and the right was clearly established — qualified immunity denied |
| Whether the warrantless seizure of the cattle was lawful under plain view/open-fields or exigent-circumstances doctrines | Seizure without a warrant was unlawful because officers had probable cause but no exigency and had time to obtain a warrant | Open-fields/ plain view allowed officers to view and seize the animals because their incriminating character was immediately apparent | Open-fields permits lawful viewing but does not authorize warrantless seizure; no exigency existed (officers had opportunity to get a warrant) — seizure may have violated clearly established law and qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (language or tone indicating compliance may be compelled can indicate a seizure)
- United States v. Saari, 272 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2001) (officers summoning person to exit home with show of authority can constitute a seizure)
- United States v. McLevain, 310 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2002) (officer must obtain a warrant when evidence is not at risk of disappearing; plain view insufficient absent exigency)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (no amount of probable cause justifies warrantless seizure absent exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (property seizure is per se unreasonable absent warrant or an applicable exception)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open-fields doctrine allows searches of unoccupied/undeveloped areas outside curtilage)
- INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (consensual encounters can become seizures when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established-law standard for qualified immunity)