Waldron v. Roark, 298 Neb. 26

Waldron sued Lancaster County Deputy Roark under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations arising from Roark entering Waldron’s home to serve a warrant on Copple.
On Feb. 22, 2012, Roark and May entered Waldron’s residence; Waldron alleges no knock-and-announce and asserts exigent circumstances.
The district court granted Roark summary judgment on qualified immunity after remand; Waldron appealed.
In Waldron I, we found material issues of fact on knock-and-announce, reasonableness of entry, and Roark’s use of force, and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment in Roark’s favor, finding Roark entitled to qualified immunity on knock-and-announce and on the alleged unlawful arrest and excessive-force claims; the County’s policy/custom liability was deemed without merit; the official-capacity issue was not argued on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roark is entitled to qualified immunity on knock-and-announce.	Waldron contends no-knock violated clearly established rights.	Roark acted under exigent circumstances; no clearly established right violated.	Roark entitled to qualified immunity on knock-and-announce.
Whether Roark is entitled to qualified immunity for Waldron’s arrest given probable cause and excessive force claims.	Roark lacked probable cause and used excessive force; rights were clearly established.	A reasonable officer could believe arrest was lawful; right not clearly established.	Roark entitled to qualified immunity for arrest and for excessive-force claim.
Whether Lancaster County’s policy or custom caused Waldron’s damages.	County policy/custom inferred from Roark’s actions.	Evidence does not establish a county-wide policy or custom.	No evidence of Monell liability; district court correct.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (clearly established standard must be particularized to the facts)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (U.S. Supreme Court 2017) (reaffirmed need for particularized, not generalized, clearly established law)
City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (U.S. Supreme Court 2015) (recognizes flexible reasonableness and no rigid knock rule)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (contextual analysis for clearly established rights)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (probable cause analysis focused on the crime believed at the time)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court 2012) (requires case-specific inquiry for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (clarified sequencing in qualified-immunity analysis)