Kaminsky v. Schriro

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed the District of Connecticut’s grant of summary judgment for defendants in Joseph Kaminsky’s Fourth Amendment action. The court held that Kaminsky consented to officers’ entry into his home and to the surrender of his firearms, despite the officers’ mistaken belief that he was legally prohibited from possessing firearms. The court also held that officers who waited in the yard were entitled to qualified immunity on the curtilage claim.

Holdings

1. Kaminsky voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into his home, including the entry of Mattson and Imbimbo, because he waved the officers in and his conduct at least impliedly consented to their entry.
2. The seizure of Kaminsky's firearms did not violate the Fourth Amendment because Kaminsky consented to surrendering them, and the officers' mistaken belief about his felony status did not render that consent coerced.
3. The court did not decide whether the officers' presence in the backyard area constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, because the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in any event.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Kaminsky voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into his home.
2. Whether Kaminsky voluntarily consented to the surrender and seizure of his firearms despite the officers' mistaken belief that he was legally barred from possessing firearms.
3. Whether officers who waited in the backyard area violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the home's curtilage.
4. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the curtilage claim.

Disposition

affirmed