Wheeler v. City of Lansing, 660 F.3d 931

Wheeler's apartment in Eaton County, part of Lansing, was searched on January 31, 2008 under a warrant obtained by Wirth and Sharp based in part on Tywone Brown's statements.
Brown identified Wheeler's boyfriend Michael Adams as involved in Lansing home invasions and indicated stolen property was at Wheeler's unit; officers relied on Brown and surveillance data to obtain the warrant.
The warrant affidavit described two Lansing burglaries for probable cause but the warrant itself listed broad categories of property to be seized, not the specific items identified in the affidavit.
Despite a discrepancy between the address in the warrant and the actual address, officers executed a no-knock entry and seized various items logged in the property records.
Wheeler sued in federal court alleging Fourth Amendment violations for unlawful search/seizure and for overbroad and non-specific listing of items; the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wirth on qualified immunity for some claims and against Wheeler on others.
The Sixth Circuit granted partial reversal: qualified immunity for seizure based on probable cause was affirmed, but not for the warrant's lack of particularity; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause to seize certain items	Wheeler contends affidavit lacked probable cause for several seized items.	Wirth argues reasonable reliance on the warrant and prosecutor's affidavit; qualified immunity applies.	Wirth entitled to qualified immunity for seizure-based probable cause.
Warrant's particularity of items to be seized	Wheeler asserts the warrant described items only by broad categories, lacking specificity.	Wirth maintains the warrant description was adequate given the circumstances.	Wirth not entitled to qualified immunity; warrant violated specificity requirement.
Appellate jurisdiction over cross-appeal	Wheeler argues the district court's decision on Fourth Amendment issues is reviewable.	Wirth contends the cross-appeal should be dismissed as the district court rendered relief in his favor.	The court lacked jurisdiction to review Wirth's cross-appeal.

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 F.3d 635 (U.S. 1987) (clearly established rights; objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (permissibility of addressing qualified immunity before deciding constitutional violation)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (officials shielded unless rights clearly established)
United States v. Campbell, 256 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2001) (specificity required for warrants involving common items)
United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir. 1991) (overbreadth when warrant describes stolen property only by generic terms)
United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372 (6th Cir. 1996) (probable cause assessment must be supported by facts in affidavit)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (liability under qualified immunity when applying for a warrant)
Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1971) (probable cause standard for warrants)
U.S. v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1162 (6th Cir. 1995) (evidence not described in a warrant may be seized if reasonably related to the offense)