James White v. Tammie Stanley
2014 WL 929049, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467, 745 F.3d 237 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The smell of burning marijuana alone does not constitute an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home. However, police officers may be entitled to qualified immunity for such an entry if the law was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.
Facts:
- Deputy Tammie Stanley determined that a vehicle registration sticker on Nancy Hille's car was stolen, a felony in Illinois.
- Stanley and Deputy Thomas Morrison went to Hille's registered address to arrest her without a warrant.
- James White, Hille's boyfriend and the homeowner, answered the door and refused to allow the deputies to enter without a warrant.
- While speaking with White at the doorway, the deputies smelled burning marijuana emanating from inside the house.
- White attempted to close the door on the deputies.
- Deputy Stanley blocked the door with her foot, allowing both deputies to enter the home.
- Upon entry, the deputies tackled White on the stairs and arrested him for obstructing a peace officer.
Procedural Posture:
- James White sued Deputies Stanley and Morrison in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force.
- The deputies moved for summary judgment on the false arrest claim, arguing both exigent circumstances and qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the motion, finding that no exigency existed and that the deputies had waived their qualified immunity defense.
- The deputies, as appellants, filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- James White is the appellee in this appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are police officers entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless entry into a home based solely on the smell of burning marijuana when, at the time of the entry, the law was unsettled as to whether that smell created an exigent circumstance?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. The court's decision rests on a two-part analysis. First, the court determines that the deputies' warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. Citing Supreme Court precedent like Johnson v. United States and Welsh v. Wisconsin, the court concludes that the smell of burning marijuana, without more, does not create an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry, particularly when the suspected underlying offense (marijuana possession) is minor. Second, the court addresses whether this constitutional right was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident in March 2010. The court finds that it was not, pointing to a significant and widespread split among federal and state courts on this exact issue. Because a reasonable officer would not have definitively known that their conduct was unconstitutional in light of the fractured case law, the deputies are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. The court explicitly states, however, that this ruling now clearly establishes the law in the circuit for future cases.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the Fourth Amendment's application within the Seventh Circuit, establishing a new, binding precedent that the odor of burning marijuana by itself is not an exigent circumstance for a warrantless home entry. The case serves as a clear example of how qualified immunity operates, protecting officers for conduct in legally ambiguous situations while simultaneously resolving that ambiguity for the future. By finding the officers' actions unconstitutional but granting immunity, the court sets a clear boundary for future police conduct without penalizing officers who acted before that boundary was drawn.
