Waldron v. Roark
298 Neb. 26
| 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 they did not properly knock and announce and would not show badge/warrant when asked.
- Waldron alleges Roark violated her Fourth Amendment rights by making a no‑knock entry, arresting her without probable cause for obstructing government operations, and using excessive force while handcuffing her, causing injury.
- District court initially granted summary judgment for Roark; Nebraska Supreme Court in Waldron I reversed and remanded, finding material factual disputes on knock‑and‑announce and excessive‑force issues.
- On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity; this appeal asks whether Roark violated clearly established law on the knock‑and‑announce rule, probable cause for arrest, excessive force, and whether Lancaster County has a policy or custom causing the injury.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court (per curiam) affirms: it holds that, even assuming the facts in Waldron’s favor, Waldron failed to show the relevant rights were "clearly established" such that a reasonable officer would have known Roark’s conduct was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knock‑and‑announce (no‑knock entry) | Waldron: deputies entered without announcing; violation of Fourth Amendment and Neb. statute | Roark: exigent circumstances (Copple visible then not seen; prior weapons history) justified no‑knock entry; qualified immunity protects reasonable mistakes | Court: Even if entry violated the Fourth Amendment, right was not "clearly established" in these circumstances; Roark entitled to qualified immunity |
| Probable cause for arrest (obstructing government operations) | Waldron: she did not know they were officers; thus no intent to impede and no probable cause | Roark: Waldron interfered with deputies executing a warrant; a reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed | Court: Viewing facts for plaintiff, reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed; right not clearly established; qualified immunity applies |
| Excessive force in handcuffing | Waldron: force was excessive given her age, prior shoulder surgery, and the manner she was handled | Roark: Waldron was noncompliant, actively resisting, deputies faced uncertain, potentially dangerous situation | Court: Although factual dispute exists, the contours of excessive‑force law were not clearly established here; a reasonable officer could have believed force was lawful; qualified immunity applies |
| Monell claim (county policy/custom) | Waldron: Lancaster County had an unofficial custom permitting such conduct | Roark/County: policies do not authorize the alleged acts; plaintiff offers only speculation | Court: No evidence of a policy or custom causing injury; speculation insufficient; Monell claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity requires violation of clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide which prong of qualified immunity to address first)
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (knock‑and‑announce is part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (exigent‑circumstances exception to knock‑and‑announce)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (standard for knock‑and‑announce required showing not high)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (an officer need not be "entirely unreasonable" to lose qualified immunity)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness in seizures/force context)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable cause standard for arrests)
- Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir.) (excessive‑force analysis referenced by plaintiff)
- U.S. v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) (knock‑and‑announce suppression precedent relied on in earlier opinion)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (recent Supreme Court emphasis on particularized clearly‑established inquiry)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (limits on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)