The district court erred in finding for officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff’s house. It was not her burden to plead around qualified immunity—it was the defendant’s burden to show qualified immunity. “It was clearly established in October 2014 that the search and seizure that Denwiddie described in her complaint and elaborated on in her response to the motion to dismiss were unlawful. Ignoring key facts when obtaining a search warrant, executing an overly broad warrant, destroying the homeowner’s property, and permanently seizing private, legal property, are objectively unreasonable.” In addition: “On appeal, the appellees have waived any argument that Denwiddie failed to state a claim. In a footnote, they state that they ‘disagree’ with the district court’s analysis, but they do not develop any argument. Instead, they incorporate ‘the reasons stated in [their] motion to dismiss.’ Incorporation by reference is not permitted in an appellate brief.” Denwiddie v. Mueller, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16355 (7th Cir. May 31, 2019).