CA11: Warrantless entry to arrest on reasonable suspicion violates clearly established law; officers denied qualified immunity

A warrantless entry to arrest on reasonable suspicion violates clearly established law of the presumption of invalidity of a warrantless entry, and the officers are denied qualified immunity. Morris v. Town of Lexington Ala., 748 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2014)*:

Bradford and Bowers seek to overcome the presumption that their warrantless entry into the Morris residence was unreasonable with the argument that a warrant was not required at all; they had “reasonable suspicion” to detain Morris and, thus, to enter his house to do so. If not, the entry was not proscribed by clearly established law. We are not persuaded. Assuming for sake of argument that reasonable suspicion akin to that appearing in Terry v. Ohio would provide an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion, or even arguable reasonable suspicion. As such, the officers’ entry into the Morris residence, without a warrant, exigency, or reasonable suspicion, was contrary to clearly established Fourth Amendment law.