Eighth Circuit: Officers Denied Qualified Immunity after Search of Entire Domicile Not Justified under Community Caretaker Exception
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
In the middle of the night, a drunk man in his 30s took a taxi from St. Louis to Ballwin, Missouri, asked the taxi driver to stop on the street near the home of Jon Luer and his wife, Andrea Steinebach, and exited the taxi without paying his $65 fare. The driver reported the fare skipper to the police at 2:38 am, and officers arrived on the scene 2:45 am.
The driver told Officer Michael Clinton that the skipper was a white male in a white hat, and ran off towards Luer and Steinebach’s home. Officer Clinton passed between houses and checked backyards. He entered Luer and Steinebach’s backyard, and proceeded onto a private garden pathway on the side of their home. On the pathway, Officer Clinton noticed a side entry to the attached garage that was not fully secured. Officer Benjamin Selz then joined Officer Clinton and they approached Luer and Steinebach’s front door. They knocked on the door and rang the doorbell. They received no response, and returned to the side garage entrance, and entered it.
Inside the garage, the officers discovered that the door leading to the kitchen from the garage was ajar. They again announced their presence, but received no response. They then entered the house and searched the home, including the basement, until they encountered Luer, partially dressed. Luer identified himself as the homeowner, and stated that his wife and step-son were home. The officers asked the Luer, his wife, and step-son to join them outside, and the taxi driver identified the step-son as the fare skipper. Luer consented a search of the step-son’s bedroom for a white hat, and the officers could not find such a hat. A sobriety test indicated that the step-son was not intoxicated. The officers concluded the step-son was not the suspect, and left.
Luer and his wife sued the officers, arguing the officers unlawfully entered and searched their home and the curtilage of their home. Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the district court denied the officers qualified immunity and granted Luer and Steinebach partial summary judgment on their claims. The officers then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The court of appeals concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for some, but not all, of their actions. The court described that at the very core of the Fourth Amendment is the “right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.” Thus, a warrant is required to protect a homeowner’s right, absent certain exceptions. The court looked at the community caretaker exception, and weighed whether the exception applied here. The court stated that the exception includes an “infinite” variety of services to preserve and protect community safety, yet the warrantless intrusion into the home or curtilage must be limited in scope to carry out a caretaking function.
The court first looked at whether the officers’ conduct in walking down the home’s pathway and driveway was a reasonable search under the community caretaker exception. The court found that this sweep of the exterior curtilage of the immediately adjacent residence was reasonable.
The court of appeals next considered the officers’ intrusion to the garage entry, a doorway not visible from the street. The court found this to be a “closer question,” but also found this intrusion to be a reasonable exercise of the community caretaker function. The officers had reason to believe an intoxicated thief was in the vicinity, and an open garage door was a likely place where he could have entered and damaged property. The court stated that given the “dearth” of relevant prior judicial authority, it found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their entry into this area of this curtilage.
The court of appeals next considered the officers’ entry into and extensive search of the home, ending with their guns pointed at a family in the middle of the night. The officers entered the home after finding no one in the attached garage and observing a door from the garage into the kitchen ajar. The officers announced themselves and asked anyone present to make themselves known. The court found that until this point, the officers were still entitled to qualified immunity, since an open door late at night without response from occupants warranted a limited protective entry under the community caretaker exception.
But the officers went further than that, entered the home, and continued to search the home until they encountered Luer outside his bedroom. The court of appeals found that the community caretaker exception did not justify this “severe, warrantless intrusion into a home.” The court explained that the officers at that point searched two yards and a garage without any signs of an intoxicated fare skipper or criminal activity, and that the taxi driver did not report the suspect was armed and dangerous or report a burglar on the prowl. The court stated that reasonable officers acting as community caretakers should have left the home after they received no response.
The court of appeals stated that whether the community caretaker exception, itself, extends to entries of the home is not a resolved question in the circuits. But here, the officers’ entry to the home was not justified, and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this intrusion.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in part, reversed it in part, and remanded it for further proceedings.
Read the full case: Luer v. Clinton
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.