Waldron v. Roark
| Decision Date | 26 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. S–15–144,S–15–144 |
| Citation | 874 N.W.2d 850,292 Neb. 889 |
| Parties | Marilyn Waldron, Appellant, v. Lancaster County Deputy Sheriff James Roark, Individually and In His Official Capacity, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Vincent M. Powers, of Vincent M. Powers & Associates, Lincoln, for appellant.
Richard C. Grabow and David A. Derbin, Deputy Lancaster County Attorneys, for appellee.
Wright, Connolly, Cassel, and Stacy, JJ.
This action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). Appellant, Marilyn Waldron, filed an appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment to appellee, Lancaster County Deputy Sheriff James Roark. Waldron was a 78–year–old woman who sustained injuries when Roark and his partner, Deputy Sheriff Amanda May, entered Waldron's home to serve an arrest warrant on her grandson, Steven Copple. The officers were not uniformed and drove an unmarked vehicle.
Waldron claimed the deputies did not display badges and did not present a warrant upon demand before or after using force to enter her home. She claimed that Roark forcefully placed her in handcuffs, which caused injuries, including a torn rotator cuff. Waldron claimed that the entry was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that Roark used excessive force. The district court found that as a matter of law, the deputies' entry was proper, that Waldron obstructed the work of the deputies, and that Roark's use of force was objectively reasonable.
For the reasons stated below, we reverse the order of the district court granting summary judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.
The parties' characterizations of the facts of this case differ substantially, but in reviewing orders granting summary judgment, we consider the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.1 Consequently, the following facts are set forth in a light most favorable to Waldron:
On the evening of February 22, 2012, Roark and May went to Waldron's home to serve an arrest warrant on Copple for failure to appear at sentencing for a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. Copple had prior police contacts, which included at least one weapons charge. Additionally, there was at least some indication that Copple may have had a desire for a "suicide by cop." The severity of the prior weapons charge and the context of the information concerning Copple's possible desire for a "suicide by cop" are unclear from the record.
Copple lived with Waldron at all relevant times. Waldron's husband, now deceased, was a retired captain with the Nebraska State Patrol and had instructed her to never allow a person claiming to be law enforcement into the home without a badge or a warrant. Roark and May were both dressed in plain clothes at the time. Roark was dressed in jeans, a sweatshirt, and a ball cap. May wore jeans and a nonuniform shirt. Neither deputy had a badge displayed. The deputies drove an unmarked vehicle.
Upon arriving at Waldron's home, Roark observed Copple's vehicle near the house. As Roark approached the home, he observed a young male he identified as Copple inside the house and proceeded to the front door. May went to the rear of the house to ensure Copple did not flee out the back door. Roark rang the doorbell. Waldron went to the door and began opening it cautiously. As Waldron began to open the door, Roark forced the door open and pushed his way past Waldron. When he entered the home, Roark stated that he was a deputy sheriff and demanded to know where Copple was located. Waldron demanded to see a warrant. Roark ignored Waldron's requests and did not present a warrant or display his badge.
Once inside the house, believing Copple had fled toward the basement, Roark and May drew their service weapons and ran toward the basement stairs. Roark encountered a young male, later identified as a friend of Copple who was visiting him, sitting in the basement. Roark testified that the individual was very cooperative and provided Roark information regarding Copple's whereabouts. May ordered Waldron to stay in the kitchen and not follow Roark to the basement. Despite this instruction and May's attempts to block Waldron from doing so, Waldron proceeded to the basement, following Roark. Waldron continued to yell at the officers and threatened to call the police on Roark and May, who had not shown identification as police officers.
Once Waldron was in the basement, Roark threw Waldron to the ground, breaking her glasses. Once on the ground, Roark placed his knee into Waldron's back and pulled her right arm back, causing her substantial pain. Waldron resisted Roark's attempts to place her in handcuffs by keeping her arm stiff. She told Roark that she had surgery on her right shoulder and did not want to be placed in handcuffs because of the pain it caused. After being restrained, Waldron slipped one of her hands out of the handcuffs due to the pain. Roark again placed Waldron in handcuffs, and at some point, she fell onto a couch and then to the floor. Waldron continued to resist being placed in handcuffs by keeping her arms stiff. Waldron sustained bruises to her hands and legs and experienced a great deal of pain in her shoulders. Waldron testified that during this time, the deputies had still not displayed either a badge or a warrant.
Uniformed Lincoln Police Department officers arrived to assist, and Copple was subsequently located in the house and arrested. Waldron admitted to one of the uniformed officers that she had not been compliant with Roark and May because she " ‘did not know who they were.’ " One of the officers asked Roark whether he had a copy of the warrant, to which Roark responded that he did not have the warrant but that he knew one existed. Waldron was then transported to the Lancaster County jail, where she was lodged after being charged with obstructing government operations and resisting arrest. The resisting arrest charge was later amended to false reporting. Waldron successfully completed a pretrial diversion program, and the charges were dismissed without prejudice. Waldron has no additional criminal history or arrests.
On September 18, 2013, Waldron filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Roark in his individual and official capacities. She claimed that Roark's actions violated her civil rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments. Waldron claimed that Roark's actions constituted an unlawful entry into her home. Moreover, Waldron claimed Roark used excessive force to restrain her. Waldron alleged that she sustained physical injuries to her neck, back, and shoulders, requiring treatment, including a torn left rotator cuff.
Roark denied the allegations in the complaint. He asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and argued that Waldron's claims were barred by her participation in pretrial diversion for the offenses of false reporting and obstructing government operations.
On February 13, 2015, the district court granted summary judgment to Roark. The court stated that it was viewing the record and "drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to [Waldron], while simultaneously viewing the facts from the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer on the scene." In considering Waldron's Fourth Amendment argument, the court cited Payton v. New York,2 stating, "When the police enter the home of the person they wish to arrest, the arrest warrant suffices for entry if ‘there is reason to believe the suspect is within.’ " The court noted that Roark had a warrant for Copple's arrest and observed Copple inside the house as he approached and that, therefore, he had reason to believe Copple was in the home despite Waldron's statements to the contrary.
The district court found that Roark possessed an arrest warrant for Copple, observed Copple in the window, and saw Copple go to the basement. It found that the exigent circumstances doctrine applied, because once Copple was aware of the deputies' presence, Roark had a realistic expectation that any delay in entry might result in Copple's arming himself, becoming a threat, destroying evidence, or simply escaping. Thus, even absent a warrant, the court found the circumstances justified the deputies' entry.
In considering the issue of whether Roark used excessive force, the district court concluded as a matter of law that Roark's use of force was objectively reasonable. It found that the undisputed facts showed Waldron was uncooperative by impeding Roark's entrance, failing to obey directives, following deputies to the basement, and physically resisting being handcuffed. The court also noted that an unknown third party (Copple's friend) was present and that the deputies knew Copple had prior contact with law enforcement that included weapons offenses.
The district court did not address the issue of whether Roark was entitled to qualified immunity or whether Waldron's claims were barred by her participation in pretrial diversion.
Waldron assigns that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Roark.
An appellate court will affirm a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.4
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Waldron, we must determine if there is a material issue of fact whether Roark's entry into Waldron's home violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and whether the district court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaeffer v. Frakes
...of federally protected rights, statutory or constitutional, caused by persons acting under color of state law. Waldron v. Roark , 292 Neb. 889, 874 N.W.2d 850 (2016). In order to assert a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that he or she has been deprived of a federal constitutio......
-
Waldron v. Lancaster Cnty. Deputy Sheriff James Roark, S-16-676.
...and unconstitutional because there was no probable cause to arrest her and because Roark used excessive force in handcuffing her.In Waldron v. Roark ( Waldron I ),1 we found that material issues of fact existed as to Waldron's knock-and-announce and excessive force claims and remanded the c......
-
Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...circumstances. State v. Thompson, supra ; Wagner v. City of Omaha, 236 Neb. 843, 464 N.W.2d 175 (1991). See, also, Waldron v. Roark, 292 Neb. 889, 874 N.W.2d 850 (2016). The reasonableness inquiry as to excessive force is whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable. See Tyler ......
-
State v. Washburn
...authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. Waldron v. Roark, 292 Neb. 889, 874 N.W.2d 850 (2016). However, the manner in which a warrant is executed is subject to later judicial review as to its reasonableness. Id. The exe......