Waldron v. Roark
298 Neb. 26
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 22, 2012, Deputies James Roark and Amanda May (plainclothes) entered Marilyn Waldron’s home to serve an arrest warrant for her grandson Steven Copple; Waldron says they did not knock or properly identify themselves before forcing entry.
- Waldron claims the deputies announced their authority only after entering; she attempted to keep the door closed and later resisted instructions inside the home, pushed past a deputy on stairs, and shouted at a person in her basement.
- Roark handcuffed Waldron; she alleges excessive force (knee to back, falls, broken glasses, shoulder injuries) and that there was no probable cause to arrest her for obstructing government operations.
- Waldron sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations (knock‑and‑announce, unlawful arrest, excessive force) and alleged a municipal policy/custom; district court granted summary judgment for Roark; the Nebraska Supreme Court remanded (Waldron I) for factual issues and then addressed qualified immunity on remand.
- On remand the district court again granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the Nebraska Supreme Court in this opinion affirms, holding Waldron failed to show the violated rights were clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knock‑and‑announce/no‑knock entry | Roark entered without announcing; violated Fourth Amendment and Nebraska knock‑and‑announce statute | Entry was justified by exigent circumstances (safety risk from Copple, potential destruction of evidence); reasonable for officer to enter unannounced | Roark entitled to qualified immunity — plaintiff failed to show the no‑knock rule was clearly established under these specific facts |
| Probable cause for arrest (obstructing government ops) | No probable cause because Waldron did not know deputies were officers; she was defending home | Officer could reasonably conclude Waldron knew they were deputies (verbally identified, badge dispute notwithstanding); evidence of obstruction | Roark entitled to qualified immunity — law not clearly established that arrest lacked probable cause in these circumstances |
| Excessive force in handcuffing/arrest | Force used (knee to back, falls, injuries) was unreasonable given Waldron’s age and shoulder surgery | Use of force was reasonable because Waldron was actively resisting, shouting, and deputies were assessing a potentially dangerous situation | Roark entitled to qualified immunity — reasonable officer could have believed force was lawful given split‑second, tense circumstances |
| Municipal liability (policy/custom) | Lancaster County had an unofficial custom enabling such conduct | Sheriff’s office policies do not authorize alleged acts; no evidence linking conduct to official policy | No evidence of county policy/custom causing injury; summary judgment for county proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clarifies the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide qualified immunity prongs in either order)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (reasonableness for qualified immunity evaluated in context; not "entirely unreasonable")
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (knock‑and‑announce principle under Fourth Amendment)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (exigent‑circumstances exception to knock‑and‑announce)
- United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (no‑knock entry when reasonable suspicion of exigency exists)
- Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875 (Eighth Circuit excessive‑force context cited by plaintiff)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (recent Supreme Court emphasis on particularized clearly established law in qualified immunity analysis)