Waldron v. Roark, 298 Neb. 26

Waldron filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment violations by Lancaster County Deputy Roark for entry into Waldron's home to serve a warrant on Copple.
Following Waldron I, the district court again granted Roark summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court analyzes Waldron's claims under the qualified-immunity framework, focusing on knock-and-announce, unlawful arrest, and policy/custom theory.
Fact questions concern Roark's entry into Waldron's home without apparent knock-and-announce and whether exigent circumstances existed.
The court adopts a two-pronged qualified-immunity analysis but may address the second prong first, considering whether the right was clearly established in the given context.
The court concludes Roark is entitled to qualified immunity on both Waldron’s knock-and-announce and unlawful-arrest claims, and finds no evidence of a Lancaster County policy or custom causing damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roark's no-knock entry was protected by qualified immunity	Waldron: right clearly established; no-exigent-entry not justified	Roark: exigent circumstances and lack of clearly established right negate liability	Roark entitled to qualified immunity
Whether Waldron's arrest was without probable cause and violated § 1983	Roark lacked probable cause; excessive force inquiry	Probable cause and reasonable force; qualified immunity available	Roark entitled to qualified immunity
Whether a Lancaster County policy or custom caused Waldron's damages	County custom allowed Roark's actions	No evidence of policy or custom; Monell not shown	No genuine issue; policy/custom claim fails
Whether Roark is entitled to summary judgment in his official capacity	Roark's official-capacity claim should be rejected	Same defenses apply; official-capacity judgment appropriate	Court declines to address due to lack of argument

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established standard requires not general propositions but context-specific right)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (contextualized framework for plainly established rights in qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (discretion to address immunity prongs in any order)
U.S. v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1994) (exigent-circumstances analysis guidance on knock-and-announce)
Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010) (fact-specific inquiry on excessive force and clearly established law)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (reaffirms need for particularized, not generalized, clearly established rights)
City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (2015) (illustrates balancing of reasonableness in entry/search contexts)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (probable-cause inquiry in arrest without a warrant)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipality liability for policy or custom, not respondeat superior)