Storey v. Garcia
696 F.3d 987
10th Cir.2012Background
- Police responded to anonymous report of a loud domestic argument at Storey’s home; by arrival, no argument was ongoing.
- Storey admitted there had been an argument; wife alleged to have left and later returned during questioning.
- Officer Taylor ordered Storey to exit the house; Storey refused, and custody was taken outside the home.
- Storey was handcuffed and arrested for resisting/obstructing an officer; district court granted summary judgment on wrongful and retaliatory arrest claims but allowed excessive force claim to proceed.
- Court reverses district court, holding no probable cause or exigent circumstances and that community caretaking does not apply; remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest was justified by probable cause | Storey lacked probable cause for arrest. | Taylor had probable cause to arrest for disobeying a lawful order. | Arrest unlawful; no probable cause. |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless arrest | Exigent circumstances existed due to potential danger. | Exigent circumstances supported immediate action. | No exigent circumstances shown. |
| Whether community caretaking exception applies | Detention was for safety under caretaking. | Caretaking justified the seizure. | Caretaker exception not applicable. |
| Qualified immunity | Law was clearly established against the arrest. | Law not clearly established. | Taylor not entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether retaliatory arrest claim survives | Arrest was in retaliation for exercising rights. | If arrest lawful, no but-for causation for retaliation. | Remanded to assess but-for causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundstrom v. Romero, 616 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2010) (unlawful seizure when exiting home; require probable cause and no improper detention)
- Armijo ex rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir. 2010) (exigent circumstances required for home entry/arrest)
- United States v. Carter, 360 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2004) (home entry requires consent or exigent circumstances)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (sanctity of the home and protection from unreasonable entry)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (searches and seizures require exigent basis for entry)
- United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2006) (exigency assessment in domestic-dispute contexts)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (observed ongoing violence may justify entry to help or stop harm)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (retaliation claims require but-for causation when arrest lawful)