CA11: Plaintiff could not be arrested for revoking consent to enter his house

Although in an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit discusses at length “arguable probable cause,” actual probable case, and the interplay of state court decisions in determining whether the Fourth Amendment claim was “clearly established.” Poulakis v. Rogers, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17714 (11th Cir. August 10, 2009) (unpublished).*

Plaintiff permitted officers in the home without a warrant, and shortly revoked consent. The officer then sought to arrest the plaintiff for impeding the investigation, essentially by refusing consent. His lawsuit was permitted to proceed because of the primacy of protection of the home. This protection of the home made the arrest violate “clearly established law.” Manzanares v. Higdon, 575 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2009):

Further, to the extent that Higdon’s argument can be read as seeking an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s strictures on seizures in the home, we decline his invitation. We will not lower the drawbridge to invite police into a home without a warrant or an established substitute therefor whenever officers “feel” that a resident might impede an ongoing investigation. Such an exception would stand the Fourth Amendment on its head. See Randolph, 547 U.S. at 109 (exceptions to the warrant requirement must be “jealously and carefully drawn” (quoting Jones, 357 U.S. at 499)).

We accordingly reject both of Higdon’s purported justifications for remaining in the Manzanares home. Given the absence of probable cause, Higdon was constitutionally compelled to leave the home when Manzanares withdrew consent. Thus, a reasonable jury was compelled to find that Manzanares’ constitutional rights were violated when Higdon remained in his home without a warrant or valid exception to the warrant requirement after consent was revoked.

Denying plaintiff Jehovah’s Witnesses access to a Puerto Rico urbanization, apparently a gated community, did not violate Fourth Amendment rights because there was no seizure. Watchtower Bible Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Sanchez-Ramos, 647 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D. P.R. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.