CA8: Lack of knock-and-announce for parole search gets QI despite fact no case says it’s lawful; no “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority”

Plaintiff absconded parolee was subjected to an unannounced entry into his hotel room about 6 am for a parole search. He was in bed with his girlfriend and a gun. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the entry violated the Fourth Amendment but refused to apply the exclusionary rule under Hudson v. Michigan. Lane v. State, 2017 Ark. 34, 513 S.W.3d 230, 233 (2017). So, he filed a pro se § 1983 complaint against the officers. The district court denied qualified immunity because no case said that such an unannounced entry was valid. Reversed: The fact some cases say the entry was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and they aren’t in disagreement still isn’t a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” under D.C. v. Wesby. Lane v. Nading, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18524 (8th Cir. June 20, 2019).

Disclaimer: I was appointed by the Eighth Circuit for the appeal. The first case saying this entry without announcement was a Fourth Amendment violation was about 1963, and LaFave has made this assertion about parole search knock-and-announce since 1978. Still not enough. Literally no case could be found on Lexis or Westlaw holding that knock-and-announce was excused for parole searches, and that’s still true. So, what is a “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority”? There is no fixed number.

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Knock and announce, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.