Excessive force & unlawful home entry claims under 42 USC § 1983; Qualified immunity; Warrantless entry into a home; “Exigent circumstances”; Clearly established right to be free from a warrantless entry into a home without an exception to the warrant requirement; Excessive force claim; Williams v Mauer; Jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendant-Deputy Due on plaintiff-Hoover’s warrantless-entry and excessive-force claims under § 1983, concluding a reasonable juror could find that there were no exigent circumstances to support a warrantless entry into Hoover’s home. Due responded to a 911 dispatch call from a woman who claimed that Hoover had threatened her with a gun during a domestic dispute. Due went to Hoover’s home where there were three women present. One woman told Due that Hoover had “gone crazy.” Due saw Hoover, who was standing at the garage door, and asked him to raise his hands. Although Hoover did so, Due approached him with his gun drawn, and when Hoover refused to be handcuffed, Due pushed him into the “house, slammed him against a wall, and punched him in the face.” One of the women then told Due that Hoover had never used a gun to threaten anyone. The incident was recorded on one woman’s phone. Hoover sued under § 1983, alleging that Due unlawfully entered his home and subjected him to excessive force. Due moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied it on both claims. On appeal, the court first held that it had jurisdiction over Due’s appeal, which raised legal questions such as whether his warrantless entry into Hoover’s home was supported by “exigent circumstances,” whether Due’s actions amounted to excessive force, and whether they violated clearly established law. It then considered the first requirement of a qualified immunity defense—whether Hoover’s constitutional rights were violated. It held that a 911 domestic abuse call “vaguely reporting an altercation, is not enough to justify an officer’s warrantless entry into a home.” Something more was needed. The court noted that none of the people at the scene appeared injured, and there were no signs that someone in the house was injured. Also, Hoover was cooperative and raised his hands when told to do so. Further, the presence of firearms alone does not constitute an exigent circumstance. The court found that the cases Due relied on confirmed “the lack of exigency here.” And it noted that the “right to be free from a warrantless entry into a home without an exception to the warrant requirement is clearly established.” As to the excessive force claim, the court did not have to decide “whether any of Due’s force was used to effectuate his unlawful entry into Hoover’s” home because “Due made no effort to develop this argument” and thus, forfeited it on appeal.