Moore v. Andreno
505 F.3d 203, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24649, 2007 WL 3052216 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for an unconstitutional warrantless search based on a third party's consent if the law governing the consenting party's authority was not clearly established at the time, making the officers' mistaken belief in the validity of the consent objectively reasonable.
Facts:
- Richard B. Moore and his girlfriend, Ruth M. Sines, lived together in Moore's home.
- Moore's study was designated as 'off limits' to Sines, and Moore always kept it locked.
- Following an argument on April 9, 2002, during which Moore threatened to kill Sines, she decided to move out a couple of days later.
- While packing, Sines discovered some of her personal belongings were missing and noticed new locks on Moore's study.
- Suspecting her items were inside, Sines used a bolt cutter to break the new locks on the study door.
- Fearing Moore's imminent and potentially violent return, Sines called the Sheriff's Department.
- When Deputies Andreno and Palmer arrived, Sines told them she was not allowed in the study and had forcibly cut the locks, then asked for their assistance in retrieving her belongings from inside.
- The Deputies accompanied Sines into the study, where she searched a desk and closet, discovering illegal drugs and paraphernalia which the Deputies then seized.
Procedural Posture:
- Following the search, Richard B. Moore was indicted by a New York state grand jury on drug possession charges.
- The state county court granted Moore's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his study and dismissed the indictment.
- Moore then filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputies Andreno and Palmer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The Deputies moved for summary judgment, arguing their search was lawful or, in the alternative, that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the Deputies' motion, finding that a constitutional violation had occurred and that the law was clearly established, thus precluding qualified immunity.
- Deputies Andreno and Palmer (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Moore as the appellee.
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 search of a locked study in a shared residence when they rely on the consent of a co-occupant who admits she is not allowed in the room and had to forcibly break the locks to enter?
Opinions:
Majority - John M. Walker, Jr.
Yes, the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The court first determined that the warrantless search violated Moore's Fourth Amendment rights. Sines lacked the actual authority to consent to the search because, despite gaining physical access by force, she did not have the requisite control, substantial interest, or permission to enter the study, which Moore had explicitly made private. Furthermore, no exigent circumstances justified the entry, as Moore was not present and his arrival was not imminent. However, the court then found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific legal rules governing third-party consent in this context were not 'clearly established' at the time. The court noted significant ambiguity in precedent regarding what constitutes 'access' or a 'substantial interest' under the governing legal test. Because the law was unclear, a reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed Sines's consent was valid, and thus the officers' actions, while unconstitutional, were not objectively unreasonable in light of the unsettled legal landscape.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies the protective power of the qualified immunity doctrine, highlighting the distinction between an unconstitutional act and an act for which an officer can be held liable. It demonstrates that for a right to be 'clearly established,' the general principle is insufficient; the law must be clear in the specific, particularized context the officer faced. The case clarifies that legal ambiguity, especially in complex areas like third-party consent, can shield officers from liability, thereby setting a high bar for plaintiffs seeking damages for Fourth Amendment violations. This reinforces the idea that qualified immunity protects 'all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'
