Johnnie E. Russell v. Ryan Comstock, Colin Powell, and Dave Wohlgemuth

Russell v. Comstock · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · February 24, 2026 · No. 24-1100

Summary

Johnnie E. Russell appealed summary judgment for defendant Colin Powell in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a warrantless 37-second search of Russell’s apartment. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Russell had not shown a clearly established Fourth Amendment right prohibiting the search under the circumstances, including the officers’ concern that an injured person might be inside, and therefore upheld qualified immunity for Powell.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Diane P. Wood? No, Rovner; Rovner; Hamilton; Kirsch
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
February 24, 2026
Docket number
24-1100
Procedural posture
Russell appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Colin Powell in Russell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a warrantless search of his apartment. Russell appealed only the ruling concerning Powell and the apartment search.
Standard of review
De novo review of summary judgment; the court may affirm on any ground supported by the record when the parties had a fair opportunity to present their arguments and evidence.
Precedential value
published and precedential
Parties
Johnnie E. Russell v. Ryan Comstock, Colin Powell, Dave Wohlgemuth
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

qualified immunityfourth amendmentsearch and seizuresection 1983standard of review

Practice areas

constitutional lawcivil rights litigationcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Officer Powell was entitled to qualified immunity from Russell's Fourth Amendment claim based on the 37-second warrantless search of Russell's apartment.
  2. Whether existing precedent clearly established that the limited warrantless search for potentially injured persons was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
  3. Whether the delay between the officers' arrival and the warrantless search defeated qualified immunity by making the exigent-circumstances rationale clearly unreasonable.

Holdings

  1. Powell was entitled to qualified immunity because Russell failed to identify precedent clearly establishing that the limited search of the apartment, under the circumstances presented, violated the Fourth Amendment.
  2. The approximately hour-and-a-half delay before the search did not make the search clearly unreasonable for qualified-immunity purposes.

Key quotations

A clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ (at 5)
Russell does not identify any reasonably analogous caselaw that would have alerted a reasonable officer in Powell’s position that a sweep of the apartment in those circumstances would be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (at 7)
Given our cases recognizing that the passage of time does not necessarily render a warrantless search unreasonable where officers reasonably could believe that a person in the area to be searched was in need of immediate medical aid, it would not have been clear to Powell that the passage of time would render the search unreasonable here. (at 17)
Given the undisputed facts in this case, therefore, Powell is entitled to qualified immunity as to the search of Russell’s apartment in this case, and is entitled to summary judgment on that ground. (at 18)

Factual background

After Willie Cannon was stabbed outside an apartment building where both Cannon and Russell lived, officers learned that Russell was identified as the attacker but that his whereabouts were uncertain. Officers also received conflicting information suggesting Russell might have returned to his apartment, and they knew that the violent incident had left at least one person injured. Before obtaining a warrant, Officer Colin Powell entered Russell's apartment for approximately 37 seconds to determine whether anyone inside was injured or posed a danger; officers later obtained a warrant and conducted a more extensive search, which Russell did not challenge.

Procedural history

Russell sued Racine Police Department officers under § 1983, alleging that searches of his apartment and vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits and based on qualified immunity. The Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for the defendants on the merits, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Powell on qualified-immunity grounds.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…