The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a case involving the qualified immunity of police officers. Donnetta Smith v. Stoneburner was released on May 10, 2013.
Charles Smith shoplifted a $14.99 phone charger and two police officers visited his home. While arresting him, the officers entered the house twice without a warrant. Police then allegedly forcefully restrained him and injured his mother. Therefore, Smith and his mother filed this action under § 1983 and state law, alleging that the entry was unconstitutional and that the officers used excessive force. At the district court level, qualified immunity was denied.
When the police arrived at Charlesâs house, they encountered his younger brother outside. Police asked to enter the home, but the brother told police to wait on the deck. However, one of the police officers disregarded the brotherâs instructions and followed him through the door. Then the officer and all three Smiths went outside.
After being questioned about the incident, Charles Smith attempted to reenter the house. One officer crossed the door threshold, grabbing him by the wrist and pulling him outside. In the process, the officer collided with the mother, causing her to hit the side of the house. Then the officer bent Charles over the railing, pressed his head against the wall, and handcuffed him. Charles was then arrested and charged with third degree retail fraud, a misdemeanor that he later pleaded down to disturbing the peace.
Were the Victims Rights Violated and Were Those Rights Established?
Two questions arise in any qualified immunity case. First, did the officers violate an individualâs constitutional rights? Second, were those rights clearly established during the incident? Concerning whether the first entry was a Fourth Amendment violation due to lack of consent, the Court felt this was a triable issue of fact for a jury to decide. Regarding the second entry, the Court said no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The police were not in hot pursuit, the suspect was not violent, no ongoing public nuisance existed, and no person in the house was in need of emergency assistance. Also, Smithâs rights were clearly established in two cases that have been established precedence for more than 25 years old. These cases (Payton and Welsh,) clarified that a double presumption guarded against entry into a home to arrest a misdemeanor suspect without a warrant.
Charles alleges that in the course of the arrest the officers banged his head several times against a wall as they held him over a deck railing. In his motherâs excessive force claim, she alleges that the officer shoved her against the side of the house. The Court stated these are questions for the jury to decide. Moreover, regarding the state law claims related to whether the officers committed intentional torts, the Court stated it was an open question and a reasonable jury could decide either way that the officers acted in good faith or bad faith.
In conclusion, the Court found that the district court properly denied the officersâ request for qualified immunity. Therefore, the Court affirmed.
The lawyers at The Kronzek Firm PLC, have extensive experience defending constitutional rights in Michigan. If you are facing charges of theft or have questions about police actions or warrantless searches, contact The Kronzek Firm PLC.