Douglas McClish v. Richard B. Nugent
483 F.3d 1231, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8294, 2007 WL 1063337 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless, nonconsensual arrest of a person standing entirely inside their home violates the Fourth Amendment, even if the officer only reaches across the threshold to effect the arrest, because the Constitution draws a firm and bright line at the entrance to the house. However, an officer may be entitled to qualified immunity for such a violation if the law was not clearly established at the time of the arrest.
Facts:
- Douglas McClish and Edmund Holmberg had an ongoing property dispute with their neighbors, the Padzurs.
- On October 13, 2001, the Padzurs complained to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office that Holmberg had been screaming profanities at them.
- Later that day, while Deputy Shawn Terry was speaking with the Padzurs, McClish drove by in his car and yelled. Deputy Terry claimed McClish shouted, 'I’m going to kill you, bitch,' while McClish claimed he was addressing the officers about the neighbors' lies.
- Based on this incident and the neighbors' complaints, Deputy Terry decided he had probable cause to arrest McClish for aggravated stalking.
- Deputy Terry did not seek an arrest warrant during the six to seven hours that passed between his decision to arrest and the arrest itself.
- At approximately 11:30 p.m., deputies returned to the McClish/Holmberg residence, entered the property through a private gate using a borrowed opener, and knocked on the door of the trailer home.
- McClish, a 75-year-old man wearing only a bathrobe, opened the door.
- While McClish was standing completely inside his home, Deputy Terry reached across the threshold, physically grabbed him, and pulled him out onto the porch to place him under arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Douglas McClish and Edmund Holmberg sued Deputy Shawn Terry and other officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging § 1983 civil rights violations.
- The defendant officers moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Deputy Terry on McClish's claim, finding Terry was entitled to qualified immunity because the law on 'doorway arrests' was not clearly established.
- The district court also granted summary judgment for the deputies on Holmberg's claim, holding it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey due to Holmberg's participation in a pretrial intervention program.
- The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' supplemental state law claims.
- McClish and Holmberg, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law enforcement officer violate the Fourth Amendment by reaching across the threshold of a home to physically pull a resident out for a warrantless arrest, when the resident opened the door in response to the officer's knock but remained entirely inside the home?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Circuit Judge
The court held that Deputy Terry's action violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Payton v. New York established a firm and bright-line rule at the physical entrance to a home, and absent exigent circumstances or consent, that threshold may not be crossed without a warrant to effect an arrest. When Deputy Terry's arm crossed the threshold to grab McClish, who was entirely inside, he conducted an unconstitutional warrantless entry and seizure. The court distinguished United States v. Santana, where the suspect was standing in the public-facing doorway, arguing McClish had not forfeited his expectation of privacy by merely opening his door while remaining fully inside. However, the court also held that Deputy Terry was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not 'clearly established' in 2001 due to an apparent tension between Payton and Santana, as evidenced by a split among the circuit courts on the 'doorway arrest' issue.
Concurring - Anderson, Circuit Judge
Judge Anderson concurred in the result (granting qualified immunity) but disagreed with the majority's Fourth Amendment analysis. He argued that the controlling precedent is United States v. Santana, which established an expectation-of-privacy test for doorway arrests, not the rigid physical-boundary rule from Payton. When McClish voluntarily opened his door, he exposed himself to public view and relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy in the doorway area, effectively placing himself in a 'public' place for Fourth Amendment purposes. Therefore, in Anderson's view, the police only needed probable cause, not a warrant, to arrest him. The 'firm line' language in Payton is rhetorical dicta and should not be interpreted as overruling Santana's specific holding on doorway arrests. Anderson agreed that qualified immunity was appropriate given the unsettled state of the law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the Eleventh Circuit's position on 'doorway arrests,' firmly adopting the Payton bright-line physical threshold rule over the Santana expectation-of-privacy analysis for situations where a suspect is fully inside their home. While the officer in this case received qualified immunity due to prior legal uncertainty, the ruling establishes a clear precedent for future cases in the circuit. Law enforcement officers are now on notice that any physical intrusion across the threshold of a home to effect a warrantless arrest, without consent or exigent circumstances, is unconstitutional, regardless of whether the door is open.
