Hoover v. Due

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 17, 2025 · No. 24-5666

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment for Deputy Justin Due on a § 1983 claim alleging unlawful warrantless entry into the plaintiff's home and excessive force. Reviewing de novo, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the officer lacked an objectively reasonable basis for exigent circumstances to justify entering the garage without a warrant. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to submit the excessive force claims to a jury, concluding the officer's conduct was not protected by qualified immunity.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Julia Smith Gibbons; Helene N. White; Eric E. Murphy
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
September 17, 2025
Docket number
24-5666
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville, which denied summary judgment on both the unlawful entry and excessive force claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Justin Due v. Michael Hoover
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

section 1983qualified immunitygovernment liabilitycivil rightsfourteenth amendmentappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Deputy Due’s warrantless entry into Hoover’s home was justified by exigent circumstances under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether Deputy Due’s use of force after entering the home was excessive under the Fourth Amendment.
  3. Whether Deputy Due is entitled to qualified immunity on either claim.

Holdings

  1. The court held that no exigent circumstances existed; the warrantless entry was unlawful.
  2. The court held that the force used was excessive because it was employed to effectuate an unlawful entry.
  3. The court denied qualified immunity, finding that the constitutional violations were clearly established.

Key quotations

The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” (Page 8)
A warrantless entry into a home without an exception to the warrant requirement violates clearly established constitutional law. (Page 13)

Factual background

Deputy Justin Due responded to a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute and a threat with a gun at Michael Hoover’s residence. Upon arrival he was met by several women, entered the garage and home without a warrant, ordered Hoover to show his hands, and after Hoover complied, Due pushed him, punched him, and continued to use force despite learning that Hoover had not threatened anyone with a gun.

Procedural history

The district court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. Defendant‑Appellant Justin Due appealed the denial, asserting qualified immunity.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…