Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Madison and six police officers in Frederick D. Jackson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that Jackson waived his failure-to-intervene and property-damage claims, that probable cause and exigent circumstances supported his warrantless arrest, and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his excessive-force claims arising from the use of 40-millimeter foam rounds.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Jackson waived his failure-to-intervene claim by presenting only a vague and conclusory argument on appeal.
- Whether Jackson waived his property-damage claim and, in any event, failed to show a causal connection between the damage and the named defendants.
- Whether the warrantless arrest inside the residence violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked probable cause or exigent circumstances, and whether qualified immunity nevertheless applied.
- Whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Jackson's excessive-force claim arising from the three foam rounds.
- Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.
Holdings
- Jackson waived his failure-to-intervene claim by failing to develop the argument or support it with pertinent authority.
- Jackson waived his property-damage claim and failed to establish a viable § 1983 claim against the named officers.
- The officers had probable cause to arrest Jackson for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment.
- The court did not decide whether the prolonged standoff actually supplied exigent circumstances, but held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, in December 2019, it was not clearly established that a warrantless arrest was unconstitutional in these circumstances.
- The officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Jackson's claim that they used excessive force by firing three 40-millimeter foam rounds.
Key quotations
“Probable cause to justify an arrest exists if the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest would warrant a reasonable, prudent person in believing that the arrestee had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.” (11)
“Warrantless arrests inside one’s home or residence are presumptively unconstitutional unless the police can show exigent circumstances or consent.” (15-16)
“Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability for constitutional violations unless a plaintiff shows that (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.” (19)
“We analyze excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘reasonableness’ standard.” (23-24)
Factual background
Police responded to a neighbor's report of possible gunfire from the Madison home where Jackson was staying. Officers heard sounds they reasonably believed were gunshots, received information that Jackson had alcoholism and a weapons history, and formed probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. After a prolonged standoff, officers entered the home without an arrest warrant, broke windows and the front door to make their announcements audible, and fired three non-lethal 40-millimeter foam rounds at Jackson before arresting him. Jackson was later acquitted of a federal felon-in-possession charge.
Procedural history
Jackson sued the City of Madison and six police officers under § 1983. The Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims, and that Jackson could not recover for property damage caused by officers who were not named defendants. On appeal, Jackson abandoned his Monell claim against the City and his excessive-force claims concerning the arrest itself; the Seventh Circuit held that the remaining claims were waived or failed on the merits and affirmed.