124350cv

GlenHarrisv.JohnMichaelOHareetal.
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS 1
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT 2
____________________ 3
4
AugustTerm,2013 5
6
(Argued:December11,2013Decided:October30,2014) 7
8
DocketNo.124350cv 9
10
____________________ 11
12
GLENHARRIS,individually,andPPAasguardianforK.H.,aminorchild, 13
14
PlaintiffsAppellants 15
16
v. 17
18
JOHNMICHAELOHARE;ANTHONYPIA;andCITYOFHARTFORD, 19
20
DefendantsAppellees. 21
22
____________________ 23
24
Before:POOLER,PARKER,andWESLEY,CircuitJudges. 25
26
AppealfromaSeptember27,2012orderandjudgment,enteredSeptember 27
28,2012,oftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofConnecticut(Robert 28
N.Chatigny,J.)denyingPlaintiffsmotionsforjudgmentasamatteroflawand 29
newtrial,broughtpursuanttoFederalRulesofCivilProcedure50and59.We 30
concludethattherewasinsufficientevidencetosupportthejurysfindingof 1
exigentcircumstances,andthusthatthedistrictcourterredindenyingPlaintiffs 2
posttrialmotions.Wethereforereversethejudgment,andremandthematterto 3
thedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. 4
Reversedandremanded. 5
____________________ 6
JON.L.SCHOENHORN,JonL.Schoenhorn& 7
Associates,Hartford,CT,forPlaintiffsAppellants. 8
9
THOMASR.GERARDE,Howd&Ludorf,LLC, 10
Hartford,CT(AlanR.Dembiczak,onthebrief),for 11
DefendantsAppelleesJohnMichaelOHareandAnthonyPia. 12
13
NATHALIEFEOLAGUERRIERI,Assistant 14
CorporationCounsel,Hartford,CT,forDefendant 15
AppelleeCityofHartford. 16
17
POOLER,CircuitJudge: 18
GlennHarrisandhisdaughterK.H.(together,Plaintiffs)filedsuitin 19
2008againsttheCityofHartfordandHartfordPoliceOfficersJohnMichael 20
OHareandAnthonyPia(together,Defendants),fordamagesstemmingfrom 21
theofficerswarrantlessentryontoHarrisspropertyonDecember20,2006.After 22
enteringtheproperty,OHareshotandkilledSeven,thefamilyspetSaint 23
2
Bernard,atcloserangeandwithinearshot,ifnotinfrontof,Harrissthentwelve 1
yearolddaughter,K.Duringtheentiretyofthelitigationleadinguptotrial, 2
DefendantsarguedthattherewasnoFourthAmendmentintrusionbecausethe 3
entryintotheyardwasnotaFourthAmendmentsearch,thatitwasreasonable 4
inanyevent,andthattheywereentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Thedistrictcourt 5
deniedthepartiescrossmotionsforsummaryjudgmentinMarch2010andthe 6
partiessubmittedtheirJointTrialMemorandainJanuary2011.Morethanayear 7
later,weeksbeforetrial,Defendantsfiledanadditiontotheirtrialmemorandum 8
addingtheaffirmativedefenseofexigentcircumstancesasanexceptiontothe 9
FourthAmendmentswarrantrequirement.Plaintiffsobjectedtothislateraised 10
defense.Thedistrictcourtpermitteditoverobjection,andthejuryreturneda 11
verdictforDefendants. 12
Forthereasonssetoutinthisopinion,weholdthattherewasinsufficient 13
evidencetosupportafactualfindingofexigentcircumstances,andthatthis 14
substantiveerrorrequiresreversalofthejudgment.Wethereforereversethe 15
judgmententeredinfavorofDefendants,andremandthematterforfurther 16
proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. 17
18
3
BACKGROUND 1
DuringasixdaytrialheldinMay2012,thejuryheardevidence 2
concerningOHareandPiaswarrantlessentryontoPlaintiffsproperty 3
followingtheirreceiptofatipaboutgunsbeingstashedinanabandonedNissan 4
Maxima.TheofficersenteredthepropertyatthesametimethatHarrisstwelve 5
yearolddaughter,K.,hadreturnedfromschoolandwasplayingwithherthree 6
yearoldSaintBernarddog,Seven,inthebackyardofthefamilysHartford 7
home.Thefollowingfactsaretakenfromthetestimonyandotherevidence 8
presentedattrial. 9
I. RelevantFactualBackground 10
A. PlaintiffsHomeonEnfieldStreet 11
From2006to2007,Plaintiffslivedinasinglefamilyhomeat297Enfield 12
Street.Theirhomewassurroundedentirelybyachainlinkfence.InDecember 13
2006,HarrislivedtherewithhisdaughterK.,TashonnaAyers,whowasHarriss 14
girlfriendandK.sstepmother,andtwopetSaintBernards,SevenandDeuce. 15
Thehousehadafrontyardandbackyard,whichthefamilyusedfor 16
cookouts,playingwiththedogsandhangingouttogetherandwithfriends. 17
Duringthesummer,Plaintiffswouldhavepoolpartiesandwaterfightswitha 18
4
blowuppooltheysetup.Thereisafrontgatewhichremainsclosedwithalatch. 1
Thegateopensontoawalkwayleadinguptothefrontstepsandfrontdoor.On 2
thefrontofthehouseisaBewareofDogsign. 3
Harristestifiedthatduringhisownershipoftheproperty,therewereno 4
utilitymetersthatwouldrequireutilitypersonneltoentertheproperty.Further, 5
whenwatercompanypersonnelneededtoenterthepropertytoplaceawater 6
meterinthenorthsideyard,theyobtainedhispermissionbeforetheyentered 7
ontohisproperty. 8
K.testifiedthatwhensheplayedwithherdogsintheyard,theywould 9
runallaroundthefencedinperipheryofthehouse.Whenthedogswereplaying 10
withK.intheyard,sheneverneededtoleashthem.Noonewouldevercome 11
intotheyardwhileK.wasplayingiftheywerenotinvited.Attherelevanttime 12
in2006,Harrishadtwocars,adarkSUVandawhitepickuptruckthathedrove 13
toworkeachday. 14
B. TheOfficersGunTip 15
OnDecember20,2006,OfficersOHareandPiawereondutyinthe 16
vicinityofEnfieldStreet.BothwerepartoftheNortheastConditionsUnit, 17
whichhaditsofficersunderorderstogetasmanygunsoffthestreetas[they] 18
5
could.TrialTr.Vol.Iat140.ThenOfficerGabrielLaureano,whoisnotaparty 1
inthisaction,wasalsoondutythatday,specificallyafewstreetsoveronGarden 2
Street.WhilepatrollingwithOHare,LaureanosawGeorgeHemingway,ahigh 3
rankingmemberoftheWestHellGang,
1
whomLaureanoknewtohavebeen 4
recentlyreleasedonparole.LaureanonoticedHemingwaydropsomething 5
thatlookedlikelittleplasticsleevesverydiscretely,whichappearedto 6
Laureanotobeheroinoranothertypeofdrug.Id.at64.Thissubstancewaslater 7
confirmedtobeheroin.Id.LaureanoandOHareplacedHemingwayunder 8
arrest,handcuffedhim,andputhiminthebackofthepatrolcar.Laterthat 9
evening,Laureanofilledoutanapplicationforanarrestwarrant. 10
Hemingway,whilealoneinthecarwithLaureanoandknowinghewasin 11
abindbecausehehadbeenarrestedwithdrugswhileoutonparole,told 12
Laureanothathecouldget[them]someguns.Id.at68.Laureanounderstood 13
Hemingwaytobehopingforsomesortofconsiderationfromaprosecutorin 14
lightofthisarrest,andpermittedHemingwaytomakeacallonhiscellphone, 15
duringwhichtimeLaureanorecalledHemingwaywassweatingand...was 16
1
TheWestHellGangwasknowntotheofficersasaviolentstreetgangof
fifteentotwentyyearolds,andmanyofitsmembersweresuspectsinshootings
throughoutHartford.
6
kindoffranticaboutfiguringoutwherethegunscouldbelocated.Id.at147. 1
Specifically,HemingwayinformedLaureanothatthereweretwosmallcaliber 2
gunsstashedunderthedriversseatofanabandonedgreyNissanMaximainthe 3
rearyardof297EnfieldStreet.HemingwaydidnottellLaureanohowheknew 4
abouttheguns. 5
LaureanohadneverusedHemingwayasaninformantbefore.Neitherhad 6
OHareorPia.ArmedwithHemingwaystip,LaureanoinformedOfficers 7
OHareandPiatogocheckouttheinformation.Id.at76;seealsoApplicationfor 8
ArrestWarrantat2.OfficerPiacouldnotrecalltheroutethatheandOHaretook 9
toEnfieldStreet,buttheyheadedoverimmediately,withoutawarrantand 10
withoutinformingtheirsergeantofwhattheyweredoing. 11
C. TheEncounterat297EnfieldStreet 12
Proceedingwithoutawarrant,PiaandOHareenteredthefrontgateat297 13
EnfieldStreet.Theofficersdidnotgouptothefrontdoortoknockandexplain 14
theirpresence,nordidtheylooktothefrontdoor,ornoticetheBewareofDog 15
sign.TheydidnotlooktoseeifagreyNissanMaximawasparkedinthe 16
driveway.Theyalsodidnotdriveonaparallelstreettocheckiftheycouldsee 17
anythinginthebackyardfromthestreet.Oncetheyenteredtheproperty,the 18
7
officersdidnotseeanyabandonedvehicles.Infact,althoughitisundisputed 1
thatHarrissSUVwasinthedrivewayatthetime,OHaretestifiedthathedid 2
notrecallseeinganyvehiclesontheproperty. 3
AsPiaandOHarebeganwalkingalongthesideofthehousetowardthe 4
rearyard,bothoftheofficershadtheirserviceweaponsoutinatacticallow 5
readyapproach,whichOHareexplainedwasatwohandedgrip,TrialTr.Vol. 6
IIIat620.Piarecalledseeingthedogtowardstherearcornerofthesideyard,as 7
hepeekedintothebackyard.Piasawthedogtakeafewstepstowardshim. 8
OHareyelledtoPiatorun,andPiaturnedaroundandranuntilheexitedthe 9
yard.OHareheardthedoggrowl,andbelievedthatthedogwaschasinghim. 10
Ratherthanrunoutthewayhehadentered,OHareranbackacrossthefront 11
lawn,turningtofacethedogashecontinuedtobackup.OHarethenfiredthree 12
shotsatthedogatpointblankrange.Aftershootingthedog,OHaresawK. 13
K.hadreturnedfromschoolandhadtakenSevenoutside,whichwasa 14
regularafterschoolchore.K.testifiedthatafterSevenurinatedagainsttheback 15
fence,heranaroundtowardsthefrontofthehouse.K.wentaroundtheopposite 16
way,[t]ocuthimoff.Id.at425.Bythetimeshegottotheareawhereher 17
fathersSUVwasparked,K.heardtwogunshots.K.rantothefrontyardandshe 18
8
sawapoliceofficer,withhisgunaimedatSeven,whowaslayinginthegrass.K. 1
screamed,andtestifiedthatthepoliceofficershotSevenathirdtimeinthehead, 2
infrontofher.
2
Herstepmotherranoutsideuponhearinggunshots,sawOHare 3
holdingagunnexttoSeven,Piastandinginthedriveway,andK.onherknees 4
overSeven,whowaslyingonhissideonthelawn. 5
NoNissanMaximawaseverfoundonoranywherenearthepremises,and 6
nogunswereeverrecovered. 7
II. ProceedingsBeforetheDistrictCourt 8
Harriscommencedsuitin2008againstOHare,Pia,andtheCityof 9
HartfordfordamagesstemmingfromtheentryontohispropertyonDecember 10
20,2006,andtheshootingandkillingofSeven.Plaintiffscomplaintallegedeight 11
counts:twoconstitutionalclaimsbroughtpursuantto42U.S.C.1983for(1) 12
illegalsearchandseizureinviolationoftheFourthAmendment,and(2)a 13
FourteenthAmendmentsubstantivedueprocessviolation,aswellassixstate 14
lawclaimsfor(3)aviolationoftheConnecticutStateConstitution;(4)intentional 15
2
ThereisnodisputethatOHarefiredthreeshotsatSeven,thoughthereis
somedisputeastowhetherthethirdandfinalshotwasfireddirectlyinfrontof
K.SeeTrialTr.Vol.IIIat683.
9
inflictionofemotionaldistress;(5)trespass;(6)conversion;(7)negligence;and(8) 1
indemnificationagainsttheCityofHartford. 2
Throughoutthelitigation,DefendantscontendedthattherewasnoFourth 3
AmendmentintrusionbecausetheentryintotheyardwasnotaFourth 4
Amendmentsearch,thatitwasreasonableinanyevent,andthattheywere 5
entitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Thedistrictcourtdeniedtheparties 6
crossmotionsforsummaryjudgmentinMarch2010includingDefendants 7
motionassertingentitlementtosummaryjudgmentonthebasisofqualified 8
immunity.InJanuary2011,thepartiessubmittedtheirJointTrialMemoranda. 9
There,too,DefendantsmaintainedthattheirentryintoHarrissyardwasnota 10
FourthAmendmentsearch,asitwasnotcurtilage. 11
Weeksafterthepretrialconference,andjustbeforetrial,Defendantsfiled 12
anadditiontotheirtrialmemorandum,whichaddedtheaffirmativedefensesof 13
exigentcircumstancesandcommunitycaretakingasexceptionstothewarrant 14
requirement,andrequestedsupplementaljuryinstructionsonthesedefenses. 15
Plaintiffsobjectedtotheselateraiseddefensesasextremelyprejudicial.The 16
districtcourtpermittedevidencetobeintroducedattrialincontemplationof 17
allowingthesedefensesoverPlaintiffsobjection. 18
10
A. InclusionoftheExigentCircumstancesDefense 1
Atthecloseofevidence,andafterbothpartieshadmovedforjudgmentas 2
amatteroflawpursuanttoRule50oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,the 3
districtcourtaskeddefensecounselaboutthestateoftheevidencewithregard 4
totheexigentcircumstancesexception.TrialTr.Vol.IIIat94344.Defense 5
counselnotedthatthereweretwocategoriesofevidence,thefirstbeingthe 6
officersgeneralexperience,whichheconcededwasonlyoflimitedrelevance.Id. 7
at944.Thesecond,whichdefensecounselcalledthehardcorefacts,were 8
describedasfollows: 9
[W]ehadamanbythenameofGeorgeHemingway....Weknow 10
hewasreleasedfromprison,onparole,caughtwithheroin,witha 11
seriousmotivetotryandhelphimself.Weknowthathesaid,Ican 12
findyousomeillegalguns.GunsisourbusinesssincetheNortheast 13
ConditionsUnitstarted.Theyrecoverillegalgunsallthetime.They 14
askforillegalgunsallthetime,andtheymakethesequick 15
recoveriesoncetheygettips....[T]heygetfromLaureanothereare 16
twogunsoverinanabandonedvehiclewithaparticularized 17
descriptionofthehome,its297EnfieldStreet,thelocationinthe 18
home,intherearyard,inaNissanMaxima,underthefrontseat,and 19
itsgray. 20
21
Id.at94445.Defensecounselconcluded,illegalgunsthatareunsecuredarea 22
presentandimmediatedangertothepublicandtothecommunity.Id.at946. 23
Hefurtherofferedthattheofficerswerenotlookingforanyevidencetotryand 24
11
arrestsomeoneortotryanddevelopacaseorwhatever....Weweregoingonto 1
thatpropertytotaketwounsecuredillegalgunsoutofthecommunityandinto 2
destruction.Noarrests,nonothing.Id.at947. 3
B. JuryInstructions 4
ThejurywasinstructedthattheFourthAmendmentswarrant 5
requirementextendstothecurtilageofahomeanareaimmediatelyadjacent 6
tothehomeinwhichtheindividualhasareasonableexpectationofprivacy 7
becausetheareainquestionislikepartofthehomeitself.Trial.Tr.Vol.V(Jury 8
Instructions)at24.Thejurywasgivenaseriesoffactorstoconsiderinmaking 9
itsdeterminationaboutwhetherthepropertyinquestionwascurtilage. 10
Thejurywasalsoinstructedthatevenifthepropertyinquestionwas 11
curtilage,theyweretodecidewhetherthewarrantlessentrywaslawfulunder 12
theexigentcircumstancesexceptiontotheFourthAmendmentswarrant 13
requirement.Thedistrictcourtchargedthejuryasfollows: 14
[U]ndertheexceptiontothewarrantrequirementforexigent 15
circumstances,conductingawarrantlesssearchforcontrabandor 16
evidenceofacrimeisjustifiedifthepolicereasonablybelievethat 17
unlesstheyimmediatelyconductawarrantlesssearch,theitemsin 18
questionswillberemovedordestroyed.Amerepossibilitythat 19
suchitemscouldberemovedordestroyedisnotsufficient;rather, 20
fortheexigentcircumstancesexceptiontoapply,theofficersmustbe 21
12
justifiedinreasonablybelievingthattheitemsareintheprocessof 1
beingremovedordestroyedorthatremovalordestructionofthe 2
itemsisimminent.Exigentcircumstancesjustifyinganimmediate 3
searchmaynotbepresentifpolicehaveareasonableopportunityto 4
securearesidencetopreventdestructionorremovalofcontraband 5
orevidencewhileasearchwarrantisobtained. 6
Plaintiffsdidnotobjecttotheseinstructionsonthebasisthattheywerelegally 7
incorrect.Rather,Plaintiffsassertedthattheinstructionshouldnothavebeen 8
givenbecausetherewasnoevidencetosupporttheapplicationofthisexception. 9
ThedistrictcourtoverruledthePlaintiffsobjectioninanofftherecordruling. 10
OverDefendantsobjection,thejurywasnotchargedonthecommunity 11
caretakingexception. 12
C. JuryVerdictandInterrogatories 13
Followingthesixdaytrial,thejuryreturnedaverdictforDefendantson 14
allcounts.Thedistrictcourtthenissuedtwospecialverdictinterrogatoriestothe 15
jury,specificallyontheissueofcurtilageandexigentcircumstances.Thejurydid 16
notreachaconclusionontheissueofwhethertheareaofthepropertythatthe 17
defendantsenteredwascurtilage,butfoundthattheexigentcircumstances 18
exceptionapplied. 19
20
13
D. PostTrialMotions 1
Allpartiesfiledposttrialmotions.HarrisandK.movedunderRules50 2
and59oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureonthebasisthatDefendants 3
shouldnothavebeenpermittedtoaddexigencyasadefenseweeksbeforetrial, 4
andthattherewasinsufficientevidencetosupportthejurysverdictonthis 5
ground.DefendantsmovedpursuanttoRule50onthebasisthateven 6
notwithstandingtheverdict,theywereentitledtoqualifiedimmunity. 7
Inabriefruling,thedistrictcourtdeniedPlaintiffsposttrialmotions, 8
holdingthatthejurycouldreasonablyconcludethattheofficersentrywas 9
supportedbyprobablecauseandexigentcircumstances.Dist.Ct.Dkt.ECFNo. 10
129(Dist.Ct.Op.)at4.Withregardtoexigentcircumstancesspecifically,the 11
courtheldthat 12
thejurycouldcredittheofficerstestimonythattheyhadanurgent 13
needtotakeactiontoseizethegunsbeforeawarrantcouldbe 14
obtained.Theofficersexplainedthatintheirexperience,illegalguns 15
movedquickly,andtheydidnotexpectthegunstobeinthe 16
Maximaforlong.Thejuryalsocouldcredittheofficerstestimony 17
thattherewasnoreasonablealternativetoenteringthepropertyto 18
seizetheguns,suchascordoningoffthepropertywhileawarrant 19
wasobtained. 20
21
14
Id.at45.ThecourtalsodeniedHarrissmotionforanewtrial,holdingthatthe 1
juryverdictwasnotagainsttheweightoftheevidence.Id.at5.Havingaffirmed 2
thejuryverdict,thedistrictcourtdeniedDefendantsqualifiedimmunitymotion 3
asmoot.Id. 4
DISCUSSION 5
Onappeal,HarrisandK.challengethejuryverdictandthedistrictcourts 6
denialoftheirRule50andRule59motionsonseveralgrounds,allrelevanttothe 7
FourthAmendmentclaims.Plaintiffsassert:(1)thattheissueofwhetherthe 8
propertyconstitutedcurtilageshouldnothavebeensubmittedtothejury 9
becauseasamatteroflaw,thepropertyinquestioniscurtilage;(2)thatitwas 10
errortopermittheexigentcircumstancesdefensesoclosetothecommencement 11
oftrial,(3)that,asamatteroflaw,theevidencedidnotsupportafindingof 12
probablecauseandexigentcircumstances,and(4)thatthedistrictcourtabused 13
itsdiscretioninpermittingtestimonyaboutDefendantsunderstandingthat 14
HartfordwasoneofthemostdangerouscitiesinAmericaatthetimeofthe 15
officersentryintoHarrissyard.Asaresultoftheseerrors,Plaintiffsarguethat 16
theremainderofthejuryverdictcannotstand,becauseallcountsofthe 17
15
complaintrelatetowhethertheentryandshootingwerereasonableor 1
unreasonableundertheFourthAmendment. 2
I. StandardsofReview 3
WereviewadistrictcourtsdenialofaRule50motionforjudgmentasa 4
matteroflawdenovo.Indoingso,weconsidertheevidenceinthelightmost 5
favorabletothepartyagainstwhomthemotionwasmadeand...givethatparty 6
thebenefitofallreasonableinferencesthatthejurymighthavedrawninhis 7
favorfromtheevidence.U.S.exrel.Feldmanv.vanGorp,697F.3d78,93(2dCir. 8
2012)(alterationinoriginal)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Wewillreverse 9
thejudgmentofthedistrictcourt[i]fapartyhasbeenfullyheardonanissue 10
duringajurytrialandthecourtfindsthatareasonablejurywouldnothavea 11
legallysufficientevidentiarybasistofindforthepartyonthatissue.Fed.R. 12
Civ.P.50(a)(1). 13
AdenialofaRule59motionforanewtrialisreviewedforabuseof 14
discretion,whichoccurswhen(1)thedecisionrestsonanerroroflaw...ora 15
clearlyerroneousfactualfinding,or(2)thedecisionthoughnotnecessarily 16
theproductofalegalerrororaclearlyerroneousfactualfindingcannotbe 17
16
locatedwithintherangeofpermissibledecisions.Zervosv.VerizonNewYork, 1
Inc.,252F.3d163,169(2dCir.2001). 2
Evidentiaryrulings,suchaspermittingthetestimonyaboutHartfords 3
recordasaviolentcity,arereviewedforabuseofdiscretion.UnitedStatesv. 4
Cadet,664F.3d27,32(2dCir.2011). 5
II. Analysis 6
A. FourthAmendmentWarrantlessSearches 7
ThecorepremiseunderlyingtheFourthAmendmentisthatwarrantless 8
searchesofahomearepresumptivelyunreasonable.UnitedStatesv.Simmons, 9
661F.3d151,15657(2dCir.2011)(citingKentuckyv.King,U.S.,131S.Ct. 10
1849,1856(2011)(ItisabasicprincipleofFourthAmendmentlaw...that 11
searchesandseizuresinsideahomewithoutawarrantarepresumptively 12
unreasonable.(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted)).Asrelevantto 13
thiscase,policeofficersneedeitherawarrantorprobablecauseplusexigent 14
circumstancesinordertomakealawfulentryintoahome.Kirkv.Louisiana,536 15
U.S.635,638(2002). 16
17
1. Curtilage 1
Wefirstaddressthequestionofcurtilage,aconceptwhichoriginatedat 2
commonlawtoextendtotheareaimmediatelysurroundingadwellinghouse 3
thesameprotectionunderthelawofburglaryaswasaffordedthehouseitself. 4
UnitedStatesv.Dunn,480U.S.294,300(1987).Plaintiffsmaintainthatthe 5
questionofwhetherthepropertyconstitutedcurtilageshouldnothavebeen 6
submittedtothejury,andthatinsteadthedistrictcourtshouldhaveinstructed 7
thejurythatcurtilagewasestablishedasamatteroflaw. 8
WeneednotaddressthisargumentbecausePlaintiffssufferednoharm 9
fromtheerrortheycontest.Asindicatedinthespecialinterrogatories,thejury 10
didnotdecidewhethertheareainquestionconstitutedcurtilage,butfocused 11
directlyonwhethertheofficersintrusionintothatareawasexcusedbyexigent 12
circumstances.Becausethedistrictcourtinstructedthejuryonlytoconsiderthe 13
exigentcircumstancesdefenseifitfoundtheareainquestionwascurtilage,this 14
casewasdecidedonthejurysapparentpresumptionthatDefendantscould 15
escapeliabilityonlyiftheysucceededinestablishingtheiraffirmativedefense, 16
whichassumessubsilenciothatthesideyardof297EnfieldStreetwascurtilage 17
andthereforesubjecttothewarrantrequirement.Moreover,whenthedistrict 18
18
courtaffirmedthejuryverdictonthebasisthatsufficientevidenceexistedto 1
supportthefindingofexigentcircumstancesandprobablecause,itreinforcedthe 2
jurysimplicitconclusionthattheofficershadencroachedonthecurtilageof 3
Plaintiffshome. 4
2. ProbableCause 5
Weaddresswhethertheofficershadprobablecausetoproceedwith 6
investigatingHemingwaystip,whichisthefirstrequirementforawarrantless 7
searchonthebasisofexigentcircumstances.Kirk,536U.S.at638.Plaintiffs 8
contendthatasamatteroflaw,therewasinsufficientevidencetosupporta 9
findingofprobablecausehere.Wedisagree,andaffirmthedistrictcourtwith 10
respecttoitsdenialofPlaintiffsRule50and59motionsonthebasisofprobable 11
cause. 12
[P]robablecauseisafluidconceptturningontheassessmentof 13
probabilitiesinparticularfactualcontextsnotreadily,orevenusefully,reduced 14
toaneatsetoflegalrules.Informantstipsdoubtlesscomeinmanyshapesand 15
sizesfrommanydifferenttypesofpersons.Illinoisv.Gates,462U.S.213,232 16
(1983).Informantstips,likeallothercluesandevidencecomingtoapoliceman 17
19
onthescenemayvarygreatlyintheirvalueandreliability.Id.(internal 1
quotationsomitted). 2
InrejectingHarrissposttrialmotionforjudgmentasamatteroflaw,the 3
districtcourtconcludedthatunderthepractical,nontechnicalconceptionof 4
probablecausedescribedbytheSupremeCourt,thejurycouldcreditthe 5
experiencedofficerstestimonythatHemingwaystipprovidedprobablecause 6
thattwogunswouldbefoundatthislocation.Dist.Ct.Op.at4.Thedistrict 7
courtalsohighlightedthatHemingwaystipwasreasonablydetailed.Id.at2. 8
Weagreewiththedistrictcourtsrulingontheissueofprobablecause.The 9
juryhadevidencethatonthedayinquestion,thepoliceofficersidentified 10
HemingwayasahighlevelmemberoftheWestHellGang,whichOfficer 11
Laureanodescribedasa[v]iolentstreetgangcomprisedofteenagersandsome 12
twentyyearoldsthatcommittedhomicidesintheneighborhood.TrialTr.Vol.I 13
at142.Hetestifiedfurtherthat[w]ewereconstantlygoingthereforshotsfired. 14
Andalotof[WestHell]membersthemselvesweresuspectsinshootingsallover 15
thecity.Id.at14243.Onthedayoftheincident,LaureanoandDefendant 16
OHarehadcaughtHemingwaywitheightbagsofheroin,andtheyknewthat 17
Hemingwayhadrecentlybeenreleasedfromprisonandwasonparolefroma 18
20
priorgunconviction.Laureanotestifiedthat,oncecaught,Hemingwaystarted 1
volunteeringinformation...thatheknewwheregunswere,hecouldgetus 2
guns.TrialTr.Vol.Iat144.Hemingwaydescribedindetailwheretheguns 3
wouldbefoundunderthefrontseatofanabandonedNissanMaximainthe 4
rearyardof297EnfieldStreet. 5
WhenaskedwhyLaureanofoundHemingwayreliable,Laureano 6
explained: 7
Hesreliableinthesensewherehesaknowngangmemberwho 8
basedonourintelligencewasahighranking,ifnottheleader.His 9
friendshadbeenarrestedwithguns,hehadapriorgunconviction, 10
wewererespondingoverthereonadailybasisforgunshots,people 11
shot.Andsowhenitcametoguns,inmyeyes,hewasveryreliable. 12
13
Id.at7677.PiatestifiedthatHemingwaywasanactivegangmember.Hewasa 14
memberofWestHell,aleader.Hehadthepower,hehadtheauthorityandthe 15
accesstofirearms.Soinhisarea,inthatcontext,hewasreliabletous.TrialTr. 16
Vol.IIat366.OHareexplainedfurther,Hemingwaywasnowinapositionof 17
selfpreservation.Itwouldbedetrimentaltohimtoprovideusfalseinformation. 18
...Atthatpointhewaslookingforconsideration....Andthiswascommon 19
practiceweemployedatthetimetorecovermostofourillegalfirearms.Trial 20
Tr.Vol.IIIat679. 21
21
Atthisstageoftheproceedings,thisCourtisnotpermittedtosubstituteits 1
ownviewofwhatweight,ifany,togivetoHemingwaystip.SeeReevesv. 2
SandersonPlumbingProds.,Inc.,530U.S.133,15051(2000)(onreviewofaRule50 3
motion,thecourtmustdrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe 4
nonmovingparty,anditmaynotmakecredibilitydeterminationsorweighthe 5
evidence....Credibilitydeterminations,theweighingoftheevidence,andthe 6
drawingoflegitimateinferencesfromthefactsarejuryfunctions,notthoseofa 7
judge(citationsomitted)).Thereisevidenceintherecordtosupportthejurys 8
inferencethattheofficersbelievedthatHemingwayslegalpredicament(hehad 9
justbeenarrestedwitheightbagsofheroinclosetoaschool,whileonparolefor 10
apriorgunconviction)madehimmorelikelytotellthetruthaboutaguntip,in 11
ordertohelphimselfinwhateverwayhecould.Further,theofficerstestified 12
that,inthepast,theyhadsuccessfullyprocuredillegalgunsbysecuringtips 13
fromgangmembersagainstothergangmembers.Assuch,therewassufficient 14
evidencetosupportthejurysfindingofprobablecausetoactonHemingways 15
tip.WethereforeaffirmthedistrictcourtwithrespecttoitsdenialofHarriss 16
Rule50and59motionsonthisbasis. 17
22
3. ExigentCircumstances 1
Thoughweholdthattherewassufficientevidencetosupportthejurys 2
findingonprobablecause,wedonotreachthesameconclusionwithrespectto 3
exigentcircumstances. 4
Theessentialquestionindeterminingwhetherexigentcircumstances 5
justifiedawarrantlessentryiswhetherlawenforcementagentswereconfronted 6
byanurgentneedtorenderaidortakeaction.Loriav.Gorman,306F.3d1271, 7
128485(2dCir.2002)(alterationandinternalquotationmarksomitted).In 8
answeringthatquestion,wemustbecognizantoftheSupremeCourts 9
admonitionthatexceptionstothewarrantrequirementarefewinnumberand 10
carefullydelineatedandthatthepolicebearaheavyburdenwhenattemptingto 11
demonstrateanurgentneedthatmightjustifywarrantlesssearchesorarrests. 12
Id.(quotingWelshv.Wisconsin,466U.S.740,74950(1984)(quotationmarksand 13
citationomitted)). 14
Therewassimplyinsufficientevidencetowarranttheapplicationofthe 15
exigentcircumstancesexceptionhere.InRuggierov.Krzeminksi,weexplained,in 16
asimilarFourthAmendmentcontext,thatthepresumptionofunreasonableness 17
attachedtowarrantlesssearchesmaycastuponthedefendantthedutyof 18
23
producingevidenceof...exceptionstothewarrantrequirement.
3
928F.2d558, 1
563(2dCir.1991).Inthefaceofpatentlyinsufficientevidencetosupportthe 2
defense,thedistrictcourterredfirstbyallowingtheexigentcircumstances 3
questiontogotothejury,andsecond,indenyingPlaintiffsposttrialmotions.
4
4
a. LegalStandardsforExigentCircumstances 5
Recognizingthatthewarrantrequirementissubjecttocertainreasonable 6
exceptions,King,131S.Ct.at1856,weemployanobjectivetestindeciding 7
whetheraclaimedexigencyjustifiesawarrantlessintrusiononFourth 8
Amendmentinterests.Theobjectivetestturnson[an]...examinationofthe 9
totalityofcircumstancesconfrontinglawenforcementagentsintheparticular 10
case.UnitedStatesv.MacDonald,916F.2d766,769(2dCir.1990). 11
3
Ofcourse,asinallcivilcases,theultimateriskofnonpersuasionmust
remainsquarelyontheplaintiffinaccordancewithestablishedprinciples
governingciviltrials.Ruggiero,928F.2dat563;seealsoFed.R.Evid.301.
4
Plaintiffsarguethatthedistrictcourtshouldnothavepermitted
instructionsonexigencyinthefirstplace,becauseDefendantsfailedtoraisethe
defenseatearlierstagesinthelitigation.Becauseweconcludethattherewas
insufficientevidencetosupportafindingofexigentcircumstances,andthat
reversalisthereforewarranted,weneednotconsiderPlaintiffsargumentthat
theywereprejudicedbyDefendantsstrategicdecisiontoraisetheaffirmative
defensesoclosetothestartoftrial.
24
Wehaveoftenreferredtosixfactors,adoptedfromtheD.C.Circuit 1
opinioninUnitedStatesv.Dorman,435F.2d385,391(D.C.Cir.1970),as 2
guidepostsfordeterminingwhetherexigentcircumstancesarepresent: 3
(1)thegravityorviolentnatureoftheoffensewithwhichthesuspect 4
istobecharged;(2)whetherthesuspectisreasonablybelievedtobe 5
armed;(3)aclearshowingofprobablecause...tobelievethatthe 6
suspectcommittedthecrime;(4)strongreasontobelievethatthe 7
suspectisinthepremisesbeingentered;(5)alikelihoodthatthe 8
suspectwillescapeifnotswiftlyapprehended;and(6)thepeaceful 9
circumstancesoftheentry. 10
11
UnitedStatesv.Moreno,701F.3d64,73(2dCir.2012)cert.denied,133S.Ct.2797 12
(2013)(citingMacDonald,916F.2dat76970(omissioninoriginalandinternal 13
quotationmarksomitted)). 14
Defendantsconcedethatthesefactorsalthoughinformative,arenot 15
directlyapplicabletorecoveryofpropertyscenariosbecausethereisnospecific 16
suspectofinteresttothelawenforcementdefendants.Asrelevanthere,federal 17
courts,includingourown,haveconsideredanadditionalfactor,namelywhether 18
quickactionisnecessarytopreventthedestructionofevidence.Moreno,701 19
F.3dat73(alterationomitted)(citingUnitedStatesv.Brown,52F.3d415,421(2d 20
Cir.1995));seealsoKing,131S.Ct.at1856([T]heneedtopreventtheimminent 21
destructionofevidencehaslongbeenrecognizedasasufficientjustificationfora 22
25
warrantlesssearch.(internalquotationmarksomitted)).Defendantsclaimonly 1
thislastfactorthattherewasaneedtopreventtheimminentremovalofthe 2
illegalgunsasjustificationfortheirentryintoHarrissyard. 3
b. TheEvidenceAdducedatTrialPermitsNoReasonable 4
InferenceofUrgency 5
6
OHarestatedthat,onthedayinquestion,theofficerspurposewasto 7
retrievethetwofirearmsfromtheNissanMaximabeforeanyoneelsecouldgetto 8
them,andthattheofficersmadeatacticalapproachontoHarrissproperty 9
duetothefactwereinahighcrimeneighborhood.TrialTr.Vol.IIIat682. 10
OHarealsonotedthat[he]wasntsureifthiswouldbeanambush.Id. 11
Thoughgenuinelyheld,theofficersconcernsaboutgettingillegalgunsoff 12
ofthestreetsofHartfordarenotpertinenttoanexigencyanalysis.Thisisbecause 13
testimonyabouthowfastgunsmoveinHartford,orabouttheviolentgangsin 14
thatpartofthecity,arenotspecificfactsorevidenceparticulartothiscase. 15
Rather,theyaregeneralizedfactsaboutthecityandaboutthenatureofgun 16
trafficking.Suchgeneralknowledge,withoutmore,cannotsupportafindingof 17
exigency.Theexigencyinquiryturnsonthedistrictcourtsexaminationofthe 18
26
totalityofcircumstancesconfrontinglawenforcementagentsintheparticular 1
case.MacDonald,916F.2dat769(emphasisadded). 2
Indeterminingwhethertherewasanurgentneedtotakeaction,the 3
gravityoftheunderlyingoffenseisconsideredanimportantpartof[the] 4
constitutionalanalysis.Welsh,466U.S.at75152.Here,therewasno 5
underlyingoffense,onlyatipaboutgunsleftinanabandonedMaxima. 6
Defendantscounselconcededthattherewasnoevidence,andnoallegation,that 7
Harriswastheholder,owner,ortraffickeroftheillegalgunsmentionedby 8
Hemingway.
5
Thus,PiaandOHare,whoadmitthattheyhadnosuspectin 9
mind,musthavehadevidenceofsomethingmorethantheexistenceofgunsin 10
orderforajurytoreasonablyfindthatexigentcircumstanceswarrantedtheir 11
immediate,tacticalentryontoPlaintiffspropertyfollowingthereceiptof 12
Hemingwaystip. 13
Thecorequestioniswhetherthefacts,astheyappearedatthemomentof 14
entry,wouldleadareasonable,experiencedofficer,tobelievethattherewasan 15
5
Atthepretrialconference,thedistrictcourtdirectlyaskeddefense
counsel,DothedefendantswantthejurytobelievethatMr.Harriswas
involvedwithsomekindofillegalactivityrelatingtoguns?towhichdefense
counselresponded,No.Andthatsnotthedefendantscontentions.Itstopaint
thepictureofwhytheofficersweregoingthere.Appxat161.
27
urgentneedtorenderaidortakeaction.Simmons,661F.3dat157(emphasis 1
added)(alterationandinternalquotationmarksomitted).Viewingtheevidence 2
inthelightmostfavorabletoDefendants,andcreditingOHareandPias 3
testimonythattheywentoverto297EnfieldStreetinordertoseizetwoillegal 4
gunsstashedinanabandonedcar,therecordlacksanyevidenceofanurgent 5
needto...takeaction.Seeid.First,itisundisputedthatthepropertywas 6
entirelysurroundedbyachainlinkfence,makingmuchofthepropertyvisible 7
fromthestreet.Piaacknowledgedthatfromthefrontoftheproperty,you 8
couldsee[thebackyard]fromdifferentangles.TrialTr.Vol.IIat278.Thoughhe 9
notedthathisviewofthebackyardwasobstructedfromourangle,id.,healso 10
concededthatheandOHaredidnottrytodrivearoundtheproperty,ortryto 11
seewhattheycouldobservefromthestreet,priortoparkingandenteringthe 12
property.Id.at272.Second,atthemomentoftheofficersentry,noNissan 13
Maximawaslocatedonorneartheproperty.Therewasonlyone 14
vehicleHarrissSUVparkedinthedriveway,thoughDefendantspaidno 15
attentiontotheSUVastheyenteredthepremises.Hemingwayhadstatedthat 16
thegunswouldbestashedintheMaxima,andtheofficerstestimonyconfirms 17
thattheysawnovehicleswhentheyfirstenteredtheproperty.Thus,onthis 18
28
record,andunderthestandardgoverningexigentcircumstances,areasonable, 1
experiencedofficerwouldnothaveperceivedsufficientevidencegivingriseto 2
anurgentneedtotakeactionatthemomentofthewarrantlessentry. 3
[A]bsentexigentcircumstances,awarrantlessentrytosearchforweapons 4
orcontrabandisunconstitutionalevenwhenafelonyhasbeencommittedand 5
thereisprobablecausetobelievethatincriminatingevidencewillbefound 6
within.Grohv.Ramirez,540U.S.551,559(2004)(internalquotationmarks 7
omitted).Thus,meresuspicionorprobablecauseforbeliefofthepresenceofa 8
firearmdoesnot,onitsown,createurgency.SeeSimmons,661F.3dat15758(Of 9
course,absentsuchanurgency,thegunalonedidnotjustifytheofficerssearchof 10
thebedroom.)(emphasisadded);UnitedStatesv.Johnson,22F.3d674,680(6th 11
Cir.1994)(Themerepresenceoffirearmsdoesnotcreateexigent 12
circumstances.). 13
Intherarecaseswherewehavefoundexigentcircumstancestobepresent 14
onaccountofafirearm,thefirearmisonlyoneofmultiplefactorsthatarefound 15
tocontributetotheurgency.Forexample,inMacDonald,NewYorkCitysdrug 16
enforcementtaskforcehadobservednumerousindicationsthataretail 17
narcoticsexchangewasbeingoperatedoutofanapartment,andanundercover 18
29
officerhadenteredintotheapartmentforanundercoverdrugpurchase.916F.2d 1
at768.Whileintheapartment,theundercoverofficersawtwoloadedweapons. 2
Id.There,ourCourtconcludedthatawarrantlessentrythatoccurredsubsequent 3
totheofficersconfirmationofthepresenceofdrugsandweaponsinthe 4
apartment,wasreasonableundertheFourthAmendment.Seeid.at773. 5
Similarly,inUnitedStatesv.Brown,weaffirmedthedistrictcourtsdenial 6
ofasuppressionmotiononthebasisofexigentcircumstanceswhereofficerswho 7
violatedtheknockandannouncerulewereinvestigatingtheunderlyingoffense 8
oftraffickingincrackcocaineandheroinandtheuseofafirearmincidentto 9
thattrafficking,andthesuspectswerereasonablybelievedtobearmedin 10
lightofapastattempttocollectadrugrelateddebtfromaconfidentialinformant 11
withapumpactionshotgun.52F.3d415,421(2dCir.1995). 12
InUnitedStatesv.Crespo,wealsofoundexigentcircumstancesbasedon 13
severaloftheDormanfactors,andnotedthatCresposprioruseofgunsmadeit 14
reasonabletobelievehewaseitherarmedwhenheansweredPolkowskisknock, 15
orthathewouldarmhimselfimmediatelyuponretreatingintohisapartment. 16
834F.2d267,27071(2dCir.1987).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Gordils,982F.2d64,69 17
(2dCir.1992)(affirmingdenialofmotiontosuppress,inlightofseveralDorman 18
30
factorsfavoringexigentcircumstances,whereofficershadprobablecauseto 1
believetherewasanongoing,largescalecocainesaleoperationonthepremises, 2
aconfidentialinformanthadinformedtheDEAthatfirearmsthatwereusedfor 3
protectionwerekeptintheapartment,andtheofficersconfirmedthroughtheir 4
attempttoknockandtalkthattherewereindividualshidingintheapartment 5
wheretheconfidentialinformanthadreportedthatthesuspectswerewaitingto 6
receivetheproceedsofadrugsale);UnitedStatesv.McCoy,407Fed.Appx514, 7
515(2dCir.2010)(affirmingdistrictcourtsrulingthatexigentcircumstances 8
justifiedofficerswarrantlessentrywhereofficerreceivedinformationoverthe 9
dispatchradiothatsomeonemightbeinsidedefendantshomewithafirearm 10
thathadbeenusedtophysicallyassaultanotherperson,andwhere,despitea 11
statementbydefendantsgirlfriendthatnoonewashome,policeofficerheard 12
noisecomingfrominsidethehouse).Eachofthesecasesinvolvedevidenceof 13
morethanameretipaboutthepresenceofanillegalgun.
6
Wedeclinetoextend 14
6
Casesinoursiblingcircuitsthathavefoundexigentcircumstances
justifyingwarrantlessentryhavesimilarlyinvolvedmorethanatipaboutthe
presenceofacontrabandfirearm.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Jones,239F.3d716,720
(5thCir.2001)(holdingpoliceofficersplainviewofhandgunthroughclosed
screendoorofapartment,duringknockandtalkinitiatedafterreceiptoftip
concerningillegaldrugactivityatapartment,suppliedexigentcircumstance
permittingofficerswarrantlessentrytosecuregun;residentandsecond
occupantwereawareofofficerspresenceandgunwasnearsecondoccupant),
31
theexigentcircumstancesexceptiontooccasionsinwhichtheonlyclaimed 1
urgencyistheallegedpresenceofafirearm. 2
Thus,Hemingwaystipdidnotcreateexigenciesonitsown.Defendants 3
alsoarguethatexigentcircumstancescouldbecreatedsolelybasedonthe 4
officerspastexperiencewithHartford.Wedisagree.Takentoitslogicalend,this 5
argumentwouldpermitexigentcircumstancesanytimethereisatipaboutillegal 6
gunsbeinglocatedsomewhereinahighcrimeneighborhoodorcity,andwould 7
allowtheexceptiontoswallowtherule.
7
[T]hegenerallabelhighcrimeareais 8
notasubstituteforanalysisoftheunderlyingtestimony,UnitedStatesv. 9
Freeman,735F.3d92,101(2dCir.2013),andawarrantlesssearchmustbestrictly 10
circumscribedbytheexigencieswhichjustifyitsinitiation,UnitedStatesv. 11
Klump,536F.3d113,118(2dCir.2008)(quotingMinceyv.Arizona,437U.S.385, 12
393(1978)).NotwithstandingtheofficersdescriptionofHartfordasahigh 13
cert.denied,534U.S.861(2001);UnitedStatesv.Barrientos,758F.2d1152,1159(7th
Cir.1985)(holdingexigentcircumstancesjustifiedanoknocksearchwherethe
policehadreasontobelievethedefendantswerearmedanddangerousandthat
theoccupantsofthepremiseshadsubstantialquantitiesofcocainewhichcould
havebeendestroyedordisposedofquicklyhadthepolicegivenwarningoftheir
presence).
7
Notwithstandingthisconclusion,werejectPlaintiffsassertionsonappeal
thatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretioninadmittingevidencethatHartford
wasadangerouscitythatsufferedfromincidentsofgunviolence.
32
crimearea,therecorddoesnotreflectrelevantevidenceofcriminalrisk 1
proximaltoHarrissproperty.WedisagreewithDefendantsprofferedvisionof 2
policeworkonewhichovervalueshighcrimeratesasafactortobe 3
consideredinfindingexigentcircumstances.
8
4
Defendantsassertionsthatitwouldhavebeenfarmoreintrusiveto 5
attempttosecuretheparcelofpropertywhileawarrantwasprepared,given 6
thatHarrisspropertywassurroundedonthreesidesbyotherprivatelyowned 7
parcels,areinapposite.Thefactthatitmayhavebeenmoretedioustosecurethe 8
propertyat297EnfieldStreetwhileawarrantwasobtaineddoesnotcreate 9
exigency.Wefurthernotethatasidefromtherebeingnourgencycreatedby 10
Hemingwaystipaboutthefirearmsinandofitself,thereisnoevidencethatthe 11
officerssoughttocorroboratethetippriortotheirentry.Theofficersdidnot 12
attempttoknockandtalkortolearnwholivedat297EnfieldStreetpriorto 13
arrivingonthescenewiththeirweaponsoutinatacticalapproach.TrialTr. 14
8
Highcrimeratesalone,whilerelevant,donotnecessarilytriggerexigent
circumstances.SeeSimmons,560F.3dat108(Itisarelevantconsideration,
thoughbynomeansdispositive,thattheofficers,uponarrival,encountered
Simmonsalongwithagatheringofpeopleattheapartmentbuilding,lateat
night,andinahighcrimearea.).
33
Vol.IIat277;TrialTr.Vol.IIIat620.Thesefactsunderscorethe 1
inappropriatenessoftheexigentcircumstancesexceptiontothiscase. 2
Accordingly,weconcludethattherewasinsufficientevidenceofurgency, 3
andthattheexigentcircumstancesexceptiontothewarrantrequirementwas 4
thereforenotapplicableontheevidencepresentedattrial.Becausepoliceofficers 5
requireeitherawarrantorprobablecauseplusexigentcircumstancesinorder 6
tomakealawfulentry,Kirk,536U.S.at638,theinvasionofPlaintiffscurtilage 7
withoutawarrantviolatedtheFourthAmendment. 8
4. Remedy 9
TwoconclusionsfollowfromourFourthAmendmentanalysis.First,on 10
accountoftheinsufficientevidenceofurgency,thejuryshouldnothavebeen 11
instructedontheexigentcircumstancesexception.
9
Becausethejuryexplicitly 12
foundexigentcircumstancespresentwhenitrespondedtothespecial 13
9
Alitigantisentitledtoaninstructiononaclaimwherethatclaimis
supportedbyevidenceofprobativevalue.Andersonv.Branen,17F.3d552,557
(2dCir.1994).Allthatapartyneedstoshowisthatthereissomeevidence
supportingthetheorybehindtheinstructionsothataquestionoffactmaybe
presentedtothejury.Id.Whileitwouldhavebeenusefulforourreviewtohave
atranscriptofthedistrictcourtsreasonsforincludingthisjuryinstruction,the
recordclearlyrevealsthattherewasinsufficientprobativeevidenceofurgencyto
justifytheinstruction.
34
interrogatories,theerroneousinstructionplainlyprejudicedPlaintiffscase.See 1
Girdenv.SandalsIntern.,262F.3d195,203(2dCir.2011). 2
Second,thecourterredindenyingPlaintiffsRule50and59motionson 3
thisissue.Rule50(e)controlswhere,ashere,theverdictloserappealsfromthe 4
trialcourtsdenialofamotionforjudgmentasamatteroflaw,Weisgramv. 5
MarleyCo.,528U.S.440,448(2000),andprovidesthat[i]ftheappellatecourt 6
reversesthejudgment,itmayorderanewtrial,directthetrialcourttodetermine 7
whetheranewtrialshouldbegranted,ordirecttheentryofjudgment,Fed.R. 8
Civ.P.50(e).[A]ppellaterulingsonposttrialpleasforjudgmentasamatterof 9
lawcallfortheexerciseofinformeddiscretion,withparticularfocuson 10
fairnesstotheparties.Weisgram,528U.S.at454(citingNeelyv.MartinK.Eby 11
Constr.Co.,386U.S.17(1967)).Whendeterminingtheappropriateremedy, 12
fairnessconcernsshouldloomaslargewhentheverdictwinner,intheappellate 13
courtsjudgment,failedtopresentsufficientevidence.Id. 14
Plaintiffsaskthatthejudgmentbereversedandalsoassertthattheverdict 15
andtheerroneouslygivenjuryinstructionsinvalidatedthejurysverdictonthe 16
remainingsubstantivedueprocessandstatelawclaims.WeagreewithPlaintiffs 17
thatthelawfulnessofDefendantswarrantlessentryisathresholdissueforthe 18
35
remainderofPlaintiffsassertedclaims,whichthejuryconsequentlyrejected.We 1
thereforeremandforanewtrialtodeterminedamagesfortheFourth 2
AmendmentviolationaswellasanyissuesraisedbyPlaintiffsremainingclaims. 3
SeeBrooksv.BrattleboroMemlHosp.,958F.2d525,530(2dCir.1992)(Itiswell 4
establishedthatapartialnewtrialmaynotproperlyberesortedtounlessit 5
clearlyappearsthattheissuetoberetriedissodistinctandseparablefromthe 6
othersthatatrialofitalonemaybehadwithoutinjustice.)(internalquotation 7
marksomitted). 8
B. QualifiedImmunity 9
Defendantsaskustofindthattheyareentitledtoqualifiedimmunity. 10
Below,thedistrictcourtdeniedDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmenton 11
thebasisofqualifiedimmunityandDefendantsdidnotfileinterlocutoryappeals 12
challengingthisdenial.Aftertrial,thedistrictcourtagaindeniedDefendants 13
Rule50motionforqualifiedimmunityasmootuponholdingthatsufficient 14
evidencesupportedthejurysverdictofnoliability. 15
Underthedoctrineofqualifiedimmunity,agovernmentofficial 16
performingdiscretionaryfunctionsisshieldedfromliabilityforcivildamagesif 17
hisconductdidnotviolateclearlyestablishedrightsorifitwouldhavebeen 18
36
objectivelyreasonablefortheofficialtobelievehisconductdidnotviolate 1
plaintiffsrights.Reulandv.Hynes,460F.3d409,419(2dCir.2006)(internal 2
citationsomitted).Becausequalifiedimmunityisanimmunityfromsuitnot 3
merelyanimmunityfromjudgmentassertionsofqualifiedimmunityshouldbe 4
addressedasearlyaspossibleinthejudicialprocess.Savinov.CityofNewYork, 5
331F.3d63,71(2dCir.2003);seealsoPearsonv.Callahan,555U.S.223,232(2009). 6
Wethinkitappropriateheretoconsidertheissueofqualifiedimmunityinthe 7
firstinstance,becausetheunderlyingfactsmaterialtothisdeterminationarenot 8
indisputeandtheultimatelegaldeterminationwhetherareasonablepolice 9
officershouldhaveknownheactedunlawfullyisaquestionoflawbetterleftfor 10
thecourttodecide.Lennonv.Miller,66F.3d416,421(2dCir.1995)(alterations 11
omitted)(citingWarrenv.Dwyer,906F.2d70,76(2dCir.),cert.denied,498U.S.967 12
(1990)). 13
Indeterminingwhethertheofficersareentitledtoqualifiedimmunity,the 14
keyquestioniswhethertherightinquestionwasclearlyestablishedatthe 15
timeoftheviolation.Tolanv.Cotton,134S.Ct.1861,1866(2014).In2008,when 16
theshootingtookplace,itwasclearlyestablishedthatpoliceofficersneedeither 17
awarrantorprobablecauseplusexigentcircumstancesinordertomakealawful 18
37
entryintoahome.Kirk,536U.S.at638.Itwassimilarlysettleddoctrinethat 1
probablecauseforbeliefthatcertainarticlessubjecttoseizureareinadwelling 2
cannotofitselfjustifyasearchwithoutawarrant.Jonesv.UnitedStates,357U.S. 3
493,497(1958).Asdiscussedabove,ourpriordoctrinemakesitabundantlyclear 4
thatthemerepresenceofafirearmdoesnot,onitsown,createtheurgency 5
necessaryforexigentcircumstances.SeeSimmons,661F.3dat15758;Groh,540 6
U.S.at559.Areasonableofficerthereforeshouldhaveknownthatitwas 7
unlawfultoinvadePlaintiffscurtilageunderthecircumstances.
10
8
Atthetimeoftheintrusion,itwasalsoclearlyestablishedthatafencedin 9
sideorbackyarddirectlyabuttingasinglefamilyhouseconstitutescurtilage. 10
Brucugliov.Proulx,67Fed.Appx58,61(2003)(Atthetimeofeventsgivingrise 11
tothisaction,itwasclearlyestablishedthat...afencedinbackyardiscurtilage 12
entitledtoFourthAmendmentprotection.)(citingDunn,480U.S.at300;Oliver 13
10
Defendantsargumentthattheofficerscouldhavereasonablybelieved
thattheirconductwaslawfulpursuanttothecommunitycaretakingdoctrineis
similarlywithoutmerit.IntheabsenceofanycaselawfromtheSecondCircuitor
SupremeCourtextendingthisexceptiontofactsatallanalogoustothe
warrantlessentryatissuehere,anofficersbeliefthathewaspermitted,asa
communitycaretaker,toinvadePlaintiffscurtilagewithoutawarrantinsearch
ofillegalgunswouldnotbereasonable.Cf.Cadyv.Dombrowski,413U.S.433,442
(1973)(recognizingthecommunitycaretakingexceptionwhereofficerretrieved
itemsfromvehicledisabledinaccident);UnitedStatesv.Markland,635F.2d174
(2dCir.1980)(same).
38
v.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,180(1984));seealsoUnitedStatesv. 1
RomeroBustamente,337F.3d1104,1108(9thCir.2003)(holdingthatayardthat 2
wassmall,enclosed,adjacenttohishouse,andlocatedbehindhishouse;under 3
Dunn,asamatteroflaw...fallswithinthecurtilage).Curtilagequestionsare 4
resolvedwithreferencetofourfactors,including: 5
[1]theproximityoftheareaclaimedtobecurtilagetothehome, 6
[2]whethertheareaisincludedwithinanenclosuresurroundingthe 7
home,[3]thenatureoftheusestowhichtheareaisput,and[4]the 8
stepstakenbytheresidenttoprotecttheareafromobservationby 9
peoplepassingby. 10
11
Dunn,480at301.ThefirstthreeoftheDunnfactorsindisputablyfavorthe 12
conclusionthatthesideandbackyardwerecurtilage.First,theareaisinclose 13
proximity...tothehome.Dunn,480U.S.at300.Second,theareaisincluded 14
withinanenclosuresurroundingthehome.Id.Third,theofficershadnoreason 15
tothinkthatthisareawasputtoanyusesotherthanthoseassociatedwitha 16
home. 17
Furthermore,thisCourtspriorreasoninginReillyclearlyforeshadow[s] 18
aparticularrulingontheissueofcurtilageinthepresentcase.Scottv.Fischer, 19
616F.3d100,105(2dCir.2010).Nearlytwentyyearsago,weconcludedthatthe 20
curtilageofacriminaldefendantshomeextendedtoacottagelocated375feet 21
39
fromthemainresidence,becausetheentirepropertywasenclosedbyasingle 1
wirefence,somehedgerows,andwoods,withnointeriorfencingseparatingthe 2
cottagefromthemainresidence.UnitedStatesv.Reilly,76F.3d1271,127779(2d 3
Cir.1996);seealsoDunn,480U.S.at301n.4([F]encingconfigurationsare 4
importantfactorsindeterminingcurtilage.).Andasinthiscase,theactualuse 5
ofthelandinReillyincludedsuchprivateactivitiesascooking,swimming, 6
Reilly,76F.3dat1278,andotherintimateactivityassociatedwiththesanctityof 7
a...homeandtheprivaciesoflife,Dunn,480U.S.at300. 8
AstheSupremeCourthasexplained,formosthomes,theboundariesof 9
thecurtilagewillbeclearlymarked;andtheconceptiondefiningthe 10
curtilageastheareaaroundthehometowhichtheactivityofhomelife 11
extendsisafamiliaroneeasilyunderstoodfromourdailyexperience.Oliver, 12
466U.S.at182n.12;seealsoFloridav.Jardines,133S.Ct.1409,141415(2013) 13
(identifyingafrontporchasaneasycaseundertheancientanddurable 14
commonlawprinciplesofcurtilage,whichwouldregardtheporchasan 15
exemplarofanareaadjacenttothehomeandtowhichtheactivityofhomelife 16
extends).Thiscaseprovidesnoexception.Accordingly,itwouldnothavebeen 17
objectivelyreasonablefortheofficerstobelievetheiractsdidnotencroach 18
40
uponPlaintiffsprotectedcurtilage.Okinv.Vill.ofCornwallOnHudsonPolice 1
Dept,577F.3d415,433(2dCir.2009).Basedupontheforegoing,weconclude 2
thattheofficersarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityfortheirFourth 3
Amendmentintrusion. 4
CONCLUSION 5
Becausethepoliceofficerslackedawarrantorprobablecauseplusexigent 6
circumstancestoinvadePlaintiffscurtilage,andbecauseDefendantscannotoffer 7
anyotherbasisonwhichtheofficersintrusionwouldbelawful,weconclude 8
thatDefendantsviolatedPlaintiffsFourthAmendmentrights.Wealsoholdthat 9
Defendantsarenotentitledtoqualifiedimmunityforthisviolationbecause, 10
undertheundisputedfacts,itwouldnothavebeenobjectivelyreasonablefor 11
themtohavebelievedthattheirconductwaslawful.Wethereforereversethe 12
judgmentofthedistrictcourtandremandforanewtrialontheissueof 13
damages.Weleavetothepartiesandtothesounddiscretionofthedistrictcourt 14
thequestionofwhichofPlaintiffsremainingclaims,ifany,shouldalsobe 15
submittedtothejuryatretrial. 16
Fortheforegoingreasons,weREVERSEthejudgmentofthedistrictcourt 17
andREMANDforproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. 18
41