Montville v. Lewis, No. 95-3085

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and MANION; BAUER; MANION
Citation87 F.3d 900
PartiesJacqueline J. MONTVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stan LEWIS, Keith Setchell, Lance Farris, individually and in their official capacities as building inspectors/code enforcement officers, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 95-3085
Decision Date06 August 1996

Page 900

87 F.3d 900
Jacqueline J. MONTVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stan LEWIS, Keith Setchell, Lance Farris, individually and
in their official capacities as building
inspectors/code enforcement officers, et
al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 95-3085.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Jan. 17, 1996.
Decided July 1, 1996.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 6, 1996.

Robert S. Wilson, Sycamore, IL, Jacqueline J. Montville (argued), DeKalb, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles E. Hervas, James G. Sotos, Michael W. Condon, Michael D. Bersani (argued), Margo Ely, Sally Wiggins, Hervas, Sotos & Condon, Itasca, IL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

After a number of city building inspectors twice entered Jacqueline Montville's home to determine whether renovations complied with local building ordinances, she filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendants had violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment. 1 The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the inspectors lawfully entered Montville's

Page 901

home. In the alternative, the defendants contended that even if they had violated Montville's constitutional rights, they were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. The district court denied summary judgment on the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim, and also denied qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over the defendants' qualified immunity appeal, see Edwards v. Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir.1995), and, finding that the defendants' conduct did not violate "clearly established law" and thus was shielded by qualified immunity, we reverse.
BACKGROUND

On September 14, 1993, several DeKalb, Illinois city building inspectors investigated a complaint by Montville's neighbor about excessive parking in the common driveway. When the inspectors arrived at the house, they observed a contractor's van parked in the driveway. The van's hood was raised, and an extension cord ran from the van into Montville's house. The inspectors noted that the house had a seemingly new chimney stack, as well as what appeared to be a new side porch. They knocked on the front door, and asked the contractor who answered whether he had the required permits for his work. The contractor, concerned that the inspectors might "shut the job down," invited the inspectors into the house so that they could examine his work. The inspectors entered the living room, where they observed a new fireplace and new electrical outlets, and then moved to the bathroom, where the contractor was installing tile. They stayed in the home less than five minutes.

One of the inspectors asked the contractor whether a city electrical inspector could enter the house. The contractor assented. Before entering the house, the electrical inspector noticed what seemed to be a new electrical box on the outside wall next to the front door. When he tested the box to determine whether it was wired properly, he received an electrical jolt. He entered the living room, looked at the electrical outlets, and left the house after approximately one minute.

Later that day, one of the inspectors, Stan Lewis, telephoned Montville to tell her about the inspection. He then sent her a letter detailing the building code violations observed, and informing her that the plumbing, electrical and fireplace work had been done without necessary permits and by a contractor who was neither licensed nor bonded as required by city building ordinances. The letter also indicated that another inspection would be required before the construction work was completed.

On September 16, Montville herself allowed another inspector, Keith Setchell, to enter her house to inspect the fireplace and chimney. Setchell approved the fireplace, but recommended that Montville brace the chimney stack extending from the roof. Thereafter, the City sent Montville a letter requesting a reinspection of her house on or before November 5. Montville replied with a letter questioning the authority for a reinspection, but failed to schedule a time for it.

The City then filed an affidavit and complaint for an administrative search warrant in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County. The affidavit, signed by Lewis, stated that he inspected the exterior and interior of Montville's house on September 14, 1993 and that he observed a number of building code violations. Lewis' September 14 letter to Montville was attached as an exhibit to his affidavit. It detailed several code violations: installation of a fireplace without a permit and by an unlicensed, unbonded contractor; installation of electrical devices without a permit and by an unlicensed, unbonded contractor; performance of plumbing work in the bathroom without a permit and by an unlicensed, unbonded contractor; and remodelling of the porch without a permit. The letter also noted that the electrical inspector received an electrical jolt when he tested the electrical box next to the front door, and advised Montville that she must take certain remedial measures and allow further inspections before the work was completed. Lewis' affidavit stated that he unsuccessfully had attempted to arrange for a reinspection. Finally, the affidavit stated that, based upon Lewis' experience as a code enforcement officer, his familiarity with Montville's house, and his prior observations and inspections, Montville's house was in

Page 902

substantial violation of the city building code, electrical regulations, plumbing regulations and mechanical regulations. The court issued an administrative warrant authorizing a code inspection limited to the areas and items complained of as being in violation of the city building code. The defendants executed the warrant on December 1, 1993.

Montville subsequently filed this suit against the defendants, alleging that the September 14 and December 1 searches of her house violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the searches were lawful and, in the alternative, that they were protected by qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment on the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim, and also denied qualified immunity.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

The pertinent facts are undisputed. The dispositive issue, therefore, is whether the district court properly concluded as a matter of law that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for the September 14 and December 1 searches of Montville's house. We review the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. Sherman v. Four County Counseling Center, 987 F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir.1993).

We have developed a two-prong analysis in qualified immunity cases. Id. We first determine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Abbott v. Village of Winthrop Harbor, No. 93 C 4642.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • December 13, 1996
    ...established when the conduct occurred.5 See, e.g., Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 Page 936 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir.1996); Montville v. Lewis, 87 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir.1996); Clash v. Beatty, 77 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir.1996), Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (1987). With respect to the Plainti......
  • Hodgson v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, No. 93-C-819.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • April 30, 1997
    ...1789, 1792-93, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991)). A negative answer to either prong of this test will decide the matter. See Montville v. Lewis, 87 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 961, 136 L.Ed.2d 847 (1997). Qualified immunity is generally a question of law for th......
  • State v. Boggess, No. 111,361
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • August 24, 2018
    ...v. Waller , 426 F.3d 838, 846-47 (6th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Kimoana , 383 F.3d 1215, 1222 (10th Cir. 2004) ; Montville v. Lewis , 87 F.3d 900, 904 (7th Cir. 1996) ; United States v. Whitfield , 939 F.2d 1071, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1991). As one commentator put it, "sometimes the facts kno......
  • State v. Jackson, No. 14–0067.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 29, 2016
    ...circumstances make that person's authority questionable." United States v. Goins, 437 F.3d 644, 648 (7th Cir.2006) ; Montville v. Lewis, 87 F.3d 900, 903 (7th Cir.1996). Although the court has acknowledged "officers have a duty to inquire further as to a third party's authority" in some cir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Abbott v. Village of Winthrop Harbor, No. 93 C 4642.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • December 13, 1996
    ...established when the conduct occurred.5 See, e.g., Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 Page 936 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir.1996); Montville v. Lewis, 87 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir.1996); Clash v. Beatty, 77 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir.1996), Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180, 1209 (1987). With respect to the Plainti......
  • Hodgson v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, No. 93-C-819.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • April 30, 1997
    ...1789, 1792-93, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991)). A negative answer to either prong of this test will decide the matter. See Montville v. Lewis, 87 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 961, 136 L.Ed.2d 847 (1997). Qualified immunity is generally a question of law for th......
  • State v. Boggess, No. 111,361
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • August 24, 2018
    ...v. Waller , 426 F.3d 838, 846-47 (6th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Kimoana , 383 F.3d 1215, 1222 (10th Cir. 2004) ; Montville v. Lewis , 87 F.3d 900, 904 (7th Cir. 1996) ; United States v. Whitfield , 939 F.2d 1071, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1991). As one commentator put it, "sometimes the facts kno......
  • State v. Jackson, No. 14–0067.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 29, 2016
    ...circumstances make that person's authority questionable." United States v. Goins, 437 F.3d 644, 648 (7th Cir.2006) ; Montville v. Lewis, 87 F.3d 900, 903 (7th Cir.1996). Although the court has acknowledged "officers have a duty to inquire further as to a third party's authority" in some cir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT