Waldron v. Roark

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for a sheriff’s deputy in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an entry into the plaintiff’s home, her arrest, and the use of handcuffs. The court held that the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to show that the alleged knock-and-announce, unlawful-arrest, and excessive-force violations contravened clearly established law. The court also addressed official-capacity and municipal-liability issues.

Holdings

1. Roark was entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming his warrant-service entry violated the Fourth Amendment, Waldron did not show that the unlawfulness of the particular no-knock entry was clearly established such that every reasonable officer would have understood it to be unlawful.
2. Roark was entitled to qualified immunity on Waldron's claim that he arrested her without probable cause because, under the particular circumstances, a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest her for obstructing government operations.
3. Roark was entitled to qualified immunity on Waldron's excessive-force claim because the contours of reasonable force were not clearly established for the specific circumstances, including Waldron's repeated disobedience, physical resistance, continued activity while officers were searching for Copple, and attempts to escape the handcuffs.
4. Waldron failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue that a Lancaster County policy or custom caused her alleged injuries; speculation based only on Roark's alleged conduct was insufficient to establish municipal liability.
5. The court declined to consider Waldron's assignment challenging summary judgment on her official-capacity claim because she assigned the error but did not specifically argue it in her brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roark was entitled to qualified immunity on Waldron's Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce claim.
2. Whether Roark was entitled to qualified immunity on Waldron's claim that he arrested her without probable cause.
3. Whether Roark was entitled to qualified immunity on Waldron's excessive-force claim.
4. Whether Waldron presented evidence that a Lancaster County policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional injury, supporting municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5. Whether the court should consider Waldron's challenge to summary judgment on her official-capacity claim when the assignment of error was not argued in her brief.

Disposition

affirmed