Tiffanie Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook
931 F.3d 307
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- On May 9, 2015, WV State Troopers Seth Cook and Sean Michael responded to a neighbor dispute about a dog (Buddy). Trooper Cook pulled his gun after seeing the dog; Tiffanie Hupp ran toward him and within seconds Cook grabbed her arm, threw her to the ground, and handcuffed her. Hupp was later acquitted of obstruction charges.
- Ryan Hupp recorded the encounter on a cell phone from inside the house. Upon learning of the recording, Trooper Cook entered Myers’s home without a warrant or consent and seized three cell phones and a tablet; the devices were held for about a month.
- Appellants (Tiffanie Hupp, Clifford Myers, and Hupp’s minor son) sued Trooper Cook and Colonel Smithers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, unlawful entry, and unlawful seizure of electronic devices (claims against the State and officers in official capacity were dismissed).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the officers (finding qualified immunity and exigent circumstances) and denied Appellants’ partial summary judgment motion; Appellants appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it held genuine disputes of material fact exist on false arrest, excessive force, §1983 and common-law malicious prosecution, and unlawful entry/seizure of devices (denying qualified immunity and reversing summary judgment); it affirmed denial of Appellants’ motion on the search/seizure issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (obstruction under W.Va. §61-5-17(a)) | Hupp says she ran to control the dog and did not disobey orders or use profanities; video and testimony create disputes about whether probable cause existed. | Cook contends Hupp approached aggressively, ignored orders to step back, cursed, and thereby obstructed him—probable cause for arrest existed. | Reversed summary judgment for Cook; factual disputes (orders, words, compliance) preclude qualified immunity—case to go to jury. |
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Force was unreasonable: minor injuries, Hupp small/unarmed, grabbed and thrown after seconds without threat; disputed facts on resistance. | Cook contends he used force reasonably to protect himself and holster weapon because Hupp adopted fighting stance and impeded him. | Reversed summary judgment for Cook; on disputed facts a reasonable officer might not have believed force was justified—qualified immunity denied. |
| Malicious prosecution (§1983 & common law) | Probable cause was lacking; magistrate’s finding relied on Cook’s complaint which contained disputed/false statements; prosecution terminated favorably. | Cook relies on magistrate’s probable-cause finding and procedural steps to argue immunity. | Reversed summary judgment; magistrate’s finding does not bar claim where it may rest on disputed or false officer statements—questions for jury; state-law malicious prosecution likewise survives. |
| Unlawful entry and seizure of electronic devices (exigent-circumstances exception) | Warrantless entry/seizure unlawful because Cook knew husband was glad to have the video and there was no reason to believe it would be destroyed; Cook’s routine practice to seize recordings is insufficient. | Cook contends exigent circumstances justified immediate entry/seizure because devices/evidence could be deleted or concealed. | Reversed summary judgment as to qualified immunity on search/seizure claims; existence of exigency is fact-specific and must be decided by a jury (court declines to adopt broad rule permitting routine warrantless seizure of recordings). |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework) (2009) (establishes two-step qualified immunity analysis)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence standard on summary judgment) (2007) (courts may adopt clear video depiction but not when it does not blatantly contradict)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force reasonableness factors) (1989) (sets multi-factor test for force)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911 (Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution theory) (2017) (process leading to pretrial detention implicates Fourth Amendment)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry presumption) (1980) (home entries presumptively unreasonable absent exception)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment seizure principles) (1985) (reasonableness standard for seizures)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (warrantless seizure of property exigency) (1983) (allows seizure when exigencies demand)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (exigency doctrine limits) (2011) (police may rely on exigency when they do not create the exigent circumstance)
- Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520 (4th Cir.) (excessive force analysis)
- Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202 (4th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir.) (malicious prosecution §1983 elements)