Waldron v. Roark
292 Neb. 889
| Neb. | 2016Background
- On Feb. 22, 2012, two plainclothes Lancaster County deputy sheriffs (Roark and May) in an unmarked vehicle went to Marilyn Waldron’s home to serve an arrest warrant for her grandson, Steven Copple (misdemeanor failure to appear); Copple lived with Waldron.
- Deputies rang the doorbell; Waldron opened the door cautiously; Roark forced the door, entered without displaying a badge or producing the warrant, announced he was a deputy, and drew his weapon.
- Deputies chased to the basement; Waldron followed despite orders to stay; deputies subdued and handcuffed her after she resisted, causing bruises and an alleged torn rotator cuff; uniformed officers later arrived and arrested Copple.
- Waldron was charged (obstructing/resisting) but the charges were dismissed after diversion; she sued Roark under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful entry (Fourth Amendment) and excessive force.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Roark, finding entry justified by the arrest warrant and exigent circumstances and that force used was objectively reasonable; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of forced entry / knock-and-announce compliance | Waldron: deputies failed to properly announce identity/authority, did not display badge or warrant, so entry was unreasonable | Roark: had warrant for Copple and observed Copple in the house; his verbal ID was sufficient and Payton permits entry when suspect is believed present | There is a material factual dispute whether deputies properly announced identity/authority; Payton permits entry to arrest a resident but does not override knock-and-announce rule; summary judgment reversed on this issue |
| Exigent circumstances exception to knock-and-announce | Waldron: no facts show exigency (not hot pursuit, no evidence destruction, no particularized threat) | Roark: seeing Copple and possible weapons/prior contacts justified immediate entry as exigent | Material dispute exists whether exigent circumstances justified bypassing knock-and-announce; question for factfinder; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Excessive force in arresting Waldron | Waldron: force used (throwing to ground, knee in back, forceful cuffing of elderly/surgically-recent shoulder) was unreasonable given she was unarmed and acting from uncertainty about deputies’ identity | Roark: Waldron was uncooperative, disobeyed commands, resisted cuffing and distracted deputies pursuing Copple, justifying force | There are genuine factual disputes about the reasonableness of the force (viewed in plaintiff’s favor); summary judgment reversed and remanded for factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1979) (arrest warrant for resident gives limited authority to enter dwelling when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside)
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) (knock-and-announce principle is part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (articulates interests served by knock-and-announce and exceptions when announcement would be dangerous, futile, or risk evidence destruction)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (manner of warrant execution is subject to later judicial review for reasonableness)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)