Cotten v. Miller

Background

Terry Davis and Benedda Cotten brought one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against officials who violate constitutional rights. They alleged that Minneapolis police officers Ryan Miller and Brian Graupner violated the Fourth Amendment by entering their apartment without a warrant. The officers were sued in their individual capacities.

The officers responded to a 911 report from a neighbor who reported hearing a verbal argument, yelling, screaming, and sounds suggesting that someone was being thrown around. When the officers arrived about ten minutes later, the sounds had stopped. The officers heard children who sounded playful, saw no signs of violence, and observed other facts that did not indicate anyone was injured or threatened. The 911 caller told them that the sounds had been aggressive but did not specifically say that an assault or violence was occurring.

At the apartment door, the officers demanded entry and threatened to kick the door in. Cotten said that no one was hurt, and Davis asked why the officers were there. After the door was opened, the officers entered without an invitation. Miller pointed a taser at Davis, pushed him toward a wall, handcuffed him, and patted him down. Graupner conducted a visual sweep of the apartment and saw that the children were unharmed. Miller found a live .45-caliber round in Davis’s pocket. The officers took Davis to a squad car and arrested him for unlawful possession of ammunition; the charges were later dismissed before trial.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court stated that no material facts were genuinely disputed, allowing it to decide the case as a matter of law.

Fourth Amendment violation

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches and seizures of a home unless an established exception applies. The officers relied primarily on exigent circumstances, meaning an emergency that makes it unreasonable to wait for a warrant.

The court held that the officers lacked objectively reasonable grounds to believe that someone inside the apartment was injured or threatened with injury. A report of possible domestic abuse, by itself, was not enough. The caller was a neighbor rather than a victim, the noises had stopped before the officers entered, the officers observed no injuries or signs of violence, and locking the door did not create an emergency. The court also found that Davis’s statements at the door did not reasonably indicate violence or a threat of violence.

The court rejected the officers’ reliance on the circumstances created during the door encounter. It found that the officers’ aggressive conduct escalated the interaction, while Cotten and Davis remained as calm as possible. Considering the totality of the circumstances known when the officers entered, the court concluded that no reasonable officer could have believed that an emergency justified the warrantless entry.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The court applied the two-part test of whether the officers violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established when the conduct occurred.

The court concluded that both requirements favored the plaintiffs. Eighth Circuit precedent had already established that a report of domestic abuse, without additional indications of violence or threats, did not create exigent circumstances. The court found the earlier precedent sufficiently similar because the officers arrived at a calm scene, saw no injuries or signs of violence, and received the report from a neighbor rather than a victim. The officers therefore were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Community caretaking argument

The officers also argued that the community-caretaking exception justified their entry. At the time of the 2019 entry, that exception was understood to allow officers to enter a home to assist people in danger, but the caretaking function had to be separate from investigating crime or gathering evidence.

The court rejected this argument because the officers expressly said they were investigating a possible domestic incident. The court also found the cited precedent distinguishable because, in that case, officers could not locate a potential victim and believed she might be held captive. Here, the officers knew the potential victims were inside and had no reason to believe they were being held captive. The court did not consider the officers’ separate emergency-aid argument because they raised it for the first time in a reply brief.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. It found that the officers were liable to the plaintiffs under § 1983 for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. The issue of damages will proceed to trial.

The court also ruled on the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. It granted in part and denied in part that motion. The parties must file redacted versions of specified filings, other specified filings will remain sealed and restricted to party and court access for five years, and additional specified filings will be unsealed.