Timothy Harney v. City of Chicago
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25170
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Harney and Muldoon are a married couple living in a Chicago condo; DeVarela is a neighboring resident who reported property damage and later alleged tire damage and car scratching by Harney/Muldoon.
- Midona, a City of Chicago police officer, led investigations into DeVarela's complaints and obtained video footage and repair estimates.
- DeVarela provided video clips and a repair estimate; police arrested Harney and Muldoon after an investigation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Midona and Chicago on all federal claims, finding qualified immunity for Midona and proper entry/consent theories.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviews the evidentiary handling of videotapes, the probable-cause standard for false arrest, and the lawfulness of warrantless entry, as well as costs awards.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying qualified immunity and public-area curtilage principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause for false arrest | Mucha Standard; no probable cause given contested video | There was probable cause based on DeVarela’s complaint and video | Probable cause existed; summary judgment affirmed on different basis. |
| Whether the videotapes were properly considered at summary judgment | Midona viewed the tapes; compilations created; admissibility concerns | Evidence content supports probable cause; format not dispositive | District court did not abuse discretion; tapes properly considered. |
| Whether Harney's arrest occurred in curtilage requiring a warrant | Arrest within condominium curtilage violated Fourth Amendment | Area lacked reasonable expectation of privacy; no warrant needed | Arrest outside the curtilage; even if inside, not clearly established violation; affirmed. |
| Whether Muldoon’s entry into the condo required a warrant or consent | Consent was not valid; entry unlawful | Implicit consent by acquiescence and Harney’s invitation; they did not object | Consent found; entry not unlawful; qualified immunity upheld. |
| Whether costs awards were proper under local rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 | Excessive appearance fees beyond per-page transcription rate | Fees fall within allowed categories or proper discretion | Costs award affirmed; issue deemed waived regarding appearance fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mucha v. Village of Oak Brook, 650 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2011) (probable cause standard; deadline to assess facts at arrest time)
- Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields, 266 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2001) (curtilage and consent concepts for warrantless entry)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor test for curtilage)
- Gerald M. v. Conneely, 858 F.2d 378 (7th Cir. 1988) (consent implied by movement into the home; no false-entry liability)
- Walls, 225 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2000) (consent may be non-verbal; entry following consent)