Officers were qualifiedly immune for entry based on dispossessed live-in girlfriend’s consent

Moore v. Andreno, 505 F.3d 203 (2d Cir. 2007):

Courts have long acknowledged that a person has the right to establish a private sanctum in a shared home, a place to which he alone may admit or refuse to admit visitors. Yet, with the recurrence of domestic violence in our society, we are loath to assume that a man may readily threaten his girlfriend, take her belongings, lock her out of part of his house, and then invoke the Fourth Amendment to shield his actions. Deputies Joseph A. Andreno and Kurt R. Palmer, responding to an emergency call, were faced with reconciling these two competing interests. While they misapplied the relevant constitutional calculus, they are police officers, not lawyers or mathematicians. And thus, because the law governing the authority of a third party to consent to the search of an area under the predominant control of another is unsettled, and because Deputies Andreno and Palmer made a reasonable mistake in applying that law to the situation with which they were confronted, the district court erred in denying them summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Plaintiff appeared to have abandoned his property in his hotel room when he planned to keep his stuff in the room for four days but be gone, having paid for it. However, he was gone for an additional week or so, and he failed to respond to voicemails to his cellphone. The hotel moved his stuff out, and found a lot of cash, and called the police. Cook v. United States DEA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77769 (W.D. Pa. October 19, 2007).*

Officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant was the suspect in a credit union robbery that just occurred. He was on foot, matched the description, was sweating, and had paperclipped money bulging in his cargo pants pockets. United States v. Morgan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77826 (N.D. Ill. October 19, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.