Waldron v. Roark
902 N.W.2d 204
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On Feb 22, 2012, Deputies Roark and May (in plain clothes) entered Marilyn Waldron’s home to serve an arrest warrant for her grandson, Steven Copple; Waldron says the deputies forced entry and announced their authority only after entry.
- Waldron claims the deputies failed to knock-and-announce, unlawfully arrested her (no probable cause), and used excessive force while handcuffing her; she also sued Lancaster County claiming a policy or custom caused the injury.
- District court initially granted summary judgment for Roark; Nebraska Supreme Court in Waldron I reversed on factual issues and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand the district court again granted summary judgment to Roark based on qualified immunity; this appeal challenges that grant.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court analyzed the claims under the two-prong qualified immunity framework and, exercising discretion to address the clearly-established prong first, held Roark entitled to qualified immunity on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knock-and-announce (no-knock entry) | Waldron: deputies entered without announcing; Fourth Amendment violated | Roark: exigent circumstances (danger/futility/destruction of evidence) justified no-knock entry; reasonable officer could believe entry lawful | Roark entitled to qualified immunity — right not clearly established in these circumstances |
| Unlawful arrest (probable cause) | Waldron: no warrant for her, no probable cause to arrest her for obstructing | Roark: probable cause to arrest for obstructing government operations given she impeded deputies and could have known they were officers | Roark entitled to qualified immunity — law not clearly established that no probable cause existed |
| Excessive force | Waldron: handcuffing caused falls, injuries; force excessive given her age/shoulder surgery | Roark: Waldron actively resisted, officers faced uncertain/dangerous situation; force could be reasonable | Roark entitled to qualified immunity — contours of excessive-force rule not clearly established here |
| Municipal liability / official-capacity claim | Waldron: county custom permitted such conduct despite written policies | Roark/County: no evidence of policy or custom causing injury; standard operating procedures forbid conduct | No genuine issue of material fact for custom/policy; municipal/official-capacity claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) (knock-and-announce is a factor in Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) (no-knock entries justified where reasonable suspicion of exigency exists)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (the showing needed to avoid knock-and-announce is not high)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity requires that the right be clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it would not be entirely unreasonable to believe conduct lawful)
- Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010) (excessive-force analysis may create fact questions; cited by plaintiff but facts differ)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (reiteration that clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)