Search & seizure; 42 USC § 1983; Whether defendant-officers were entitled to qualified immunity; Whether plaintiffs established that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment “clearly established” rights; Whether exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless entry; Whether there was probable cause for a warrantless arrest; Whether detaining a plaintiff for 30 to 45 minutes was an “arrest”; Whether the defendants helped a complainant steal a car; “Malicious prosecution”; Municipal liability under Monell v Department of Soc Servs

The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant-police officers where plaintiffs failed to offer case law with specific conduct to support their claim that there were no exigent circumstances supporting a warrantless entry into their home. Similar cases from other courts supported a finding of exigent circumstances where the officers smelled marijuana and knew someone was inside the house who could possibly destroy evidence. An argument between plaintiff-Howell and his roommate, involving a car, a gun, and an allegedly drunk Howell, led to a 911 call to which police responded. The officers smelled marijuana and entered the home to search for the gun that was allegedly pointed at the complainant. The police arrested Howell and placed him in the cruiser. At that time, he consented to the search of the house for a gun. The officers had Howell’s girlfriend, plaintiff-Brown, handcuffed for 30 to 45 minutes. Howell was indicted for assaulting his roommate and resisting arrest and was tried and found guilty. He eventually spent 30 days in jail on a lesser charge. He and Brown sued the officers and the municipality under the Fourth Amendment, and the officers claimed qualified immunity. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The court focused on the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether plaintiffs established that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment “clearly established” rights. It explained that they offered no case law that supported their claim, and “lack of precedent about the ‘specific conduct’ at issue generally dooms a plaintiff’s effort to show that the conduct violated clearly established law.” The court considered similar cases from other courts and held that the facts supported a finding of “exigent circumstances” where the officers smelled marijuana and knew someone was inside the house who could possibly destroy evidence. “As long as a reasonable officer could have concluded that a concern with the destruction of evidence created exigent circumstances, qualified immunity would protect the officers no matter their reasons for the entry.” The court next held that the warrantless arrest was not unconstitutional where there was probable cause to believe that Howell committed a crime where the roommate had claimed so in her 911 call, and nothing at the scene contradicted this fact. It rejected Brown’s claim that when she was handcuffed she was arrested without probable cause where officers can detain individuals if they reasonably believe they have committed a crime. The court declined to determine whether the officers aided in the theft of a car when the ownership of the vehicle was in question and where plaintiffs failed to adequately brief the issue. Even if the court were to conclude that the officers aided in moving the car, “no decision would have given the officers ‘fair notice’ that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.” The malicious-prosecution claim was unsuccessful where there was probable cause to prosecute. The Monell claim was dismissed where plaintiffs could not show an unconstitutional policy or custom.