Tamara Brand v. Kevin Casal
877 F.3d 1253
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Deputies Casal and Pardinas went to 4179 Valley Brook Road shortly after 11:00 p.m. to serve an arrest warrant for Wesley Brand (booking sheet listed that address).
- Wesley (then 17, presenting as female) answered the door; Mrs. Brand blocked entry and a physical struggle with Deputy Casal tore her shirt, exposing her chest.
- Deputy Pardinas then entered, ordered Mrs. Brand to drop a phone she was using to call 911, and tased her without warning; Mrs. Brand fell and was restrained while pregnant.
- Additional officers performed a post-arrest “protective sweep” of the house; plaintiffs allege officers searched extensively (including drawers).
- Mrs. Brand repeatedly requested a covering shirt; deputies refused, leaving her exposed for about an hour and during transport to booking; she was later acquitted of state charges.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and parallel Georgia law; district court denied summary judgment on unlawful entry (as to Casal), excessive force (as to Pardinas), unlawful protective sweep, and bodily-privacy claims; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful entry (Payton) | Casal lacked reasonable belief Wesley lived there or was inside, so entry without a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Officers relied on jail booking address and on-the-scene indicia (occupant responses, car registered to same family) making entry reasonable | Reversed as to Casal: entry was reasonable under Payton (address + nighttime visit supported belief suspect lived there and was inside); qualified immunity for Casal granted |
| Excessive force (tasing) | Pardinas tased a nonviolent, nonresisting Mrs. Brand who posed no threat while she attempted to call 911 | Force was justified to control scene / resist obstruction | Affirmed denial of qualified immunity for Pardinas: tasing was excessive under Graham; law was clearly established (Fils and circuit precedent) |
| Protective sweep scope | Sweep exceeded Buie limits; officers searched whole house and drawers | Initial sweep was justified; Casal did not direct or know of subordinate overbroad searches so no causal link | Reversed as to Casal: limited sweep adjacent to foyer was justified; no record showing Casal directed or knew of unlawful extensive searches, so no supervisory liability |
| Bodily-privacy (refusing covering) | Deputies violated Fourth Amendment by leaving Mrs. Brand exposed for prolonged period without safety justification | Rely on Rettele and argue case law focused on genital exposure; conduct not clearly established as unlawful | Affirmed denial of qualified immunity for both deputies: prolonged forced exposure (breasts) violated bodily-privacy and was clearly established by Rettele and circuit law |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (officer may enter home to execute arrest warrant if reasonably believes suspect lives there and is inside)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep allowed for specific, articulable facts indicating danger)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Los Angeles Cty. v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (prolonged forced exposure beyond what is necessary to protect officer safety can violate Fourth Amendment)
- Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272 (tasing nonviolent, nonresisting suspect is excessive; qualified immunity denied)
- United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530 (application of Payton two-part test in Eleventh Circuit)
- Padgett v. Donald, 401 F.3d 1273 (recognizing protected privacy interest against forced exposure)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (qualified-immunity fair-warning standard)