Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635

United States Supreme Court

1987

Chapter

19

Title

Civil Rights

Page

800

Topic

Immunity

Quick Notes

Officials, who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful, should not be held personally liable when they make a mistake.

Book Name

Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises.  Weaver, Third Edition.  ISBN:  978-1-4224-7220-0.

Issue

o         Whether a federal law enforcement officer who participates in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment may be held personally liable for money damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         District Court granted summary judgment on the ground that the search was lawful.

Appellant

o         Reversed - Held that the issue of the lawfulness of the search could not properly be decided on summary judgment.

Supreme

o         Vacate Judgment and Remand

Facts

Reasoning

Rules

Pl Creighton

Df Anderson (FBI)

What happened?

o         Anderson is an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On November 11, 1983,

o         Anderson and other state and federal law enforcement officers conducted a warrantless search of the home of respondents, the Creighton family.

o         The search was conducted because Anderson believed that Vadaain Dixon, a man suspected of a bank robbery committed earlier that day, might be found there.

o         He was not.

Creighton Filed Suit

o         Filed suit against Anderson in a Minnesota state court, asserting among other things a claim for money damages under the Fourth Amendment

Anderson (FBI) Motioned for SJ

o         After removing the suit to Federal District Court, Anderson filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

o         Arguing that the Bivens claim was barred by Anderson's qualified immunity from civil damages liability.

District Court Granted SJ

o         Before any discovery took place, the District Court granted summary judgment on the ground that the search was lawful.

o         Holding  Anderson had probable cause to search the Creighton's

Court of Appeals - Reversed

o         Held that the issue of the lawfulness of the search could not properly be decided on summary judgment.

o         Because unresolved factual disputes made it impossible to determine as a matter of law that the warrantless search had been supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.

Conflicting Concerns

o         When government officials abuse their offices, "action[s] for damages may offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees.

VS

o         Permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly [excessively] inhibit [restrain] officials in the discharge of their duties.

Government Official Immunity - Shielding From Civil Damages

o         Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally provided with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated.

Malley v. Briggs

o         Qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."

Mitchell v. Forsyth

o         Officials are immune unless "the law clearly proscribed [prohibits] the actions" they took.

Due Process Discussion

o         There is a sense in which any action that violates that Clause (no matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Harlow Discussion

o        Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.

o        Harlow  would be transformed from a guarantee of immunity into a rule of pleading.

Approach Would Destroy Balance

o        Such an approach would destroy "the balance that our cases strike between the interests in vindication of citizens' constitutional rights and in public officials' effective performance of their duties," by making it impossible for officials "reasonably to anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages."

Official is protect by qualified immunity

o        An official has qualified immunity UNLESS unlawfulness is apparent.

Anderson (FBI) Arg

o         Contends that the Court of Appeals misapplied these principles.

S.Ct Agrees

Warrantless Searches Rule

o         The right to be free from warrantless searches of one's home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances.

Courts Probable Cause Analysis

o         It simply does not follow immediately from the conclusion that it was firmly established that warrantless searches not supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment that Anderson's search was objectively legally unreasonable.

o         We have recognized that it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present, and we have indicated that in such cases those officials like other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful -- should not be held personally liable.

Court Relevant Question For This Case

o         Whether a reasonable officer could have believed Anderson's warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.

o         Anderson's subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant.

Courts - Conclusion

o         The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search of the Creightons' home was lawful.

Vacate Judgment and Remand

DISSENT Stevens, Brennan, Marshall

o         This opinion announces a new rule of law that protects federal agents who make forcible nighttime entries into the homes of innocent citizens without probable cause, without a warrant, and without any valid emergency justification for their warrantless search.

Rules

Government Official Immunity - Shielding From Civil Damages

o         Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally provided with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated.

Warrantless Searches Rule

o         The right to be free from warrantless searches of one's home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances.

Class Notes