Williams v. Maurer

Decision Date17 August 2021
Docket NumberNo. 20-1996,20-1996
Citation9 F.4th 416
Parties James WILLIAMS ; Marciona Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Brian MAURER; Russell Charles Gartha; Tyler Fegreus; Eric Jachym; Cole Armil; Trevor Elliot; Patrick McCormick, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

ON BRIEF: Kali M. L. Henderson, T. Joseph Seward, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants. Matthew S. Kolodziejski, LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW S. KOLODZIEJSKI, PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellees.

Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

At about 5 o'clock in the morning on December 28, 2018, Defendants Brian Maurer, Russell Gartha, Eric Jachym, Tyler Fegreus, Patrick McCormick, Cole Armil, and Trevor Elliot, all officers employed by the Southfield Police Department, entered the home of Plaintiff Marciona Mitchell and her guest, Plaintiff James Williams, without a warrant and proceeded to arrest Williams. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Defendants bring an interlocutory appeal of the district court's grant of Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Williams' claim for false arrest, and denial of their motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claim for unlawful entry and Mitchell's claim for excessive force. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS IN PART Defendants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction and AFFIRM IN PART the district court's decision.

BACKGROUND
Factual Background

In March 2013, Plaintiff Marciona Mitchell moved into an upstairs apartment in 21700 Colony Park Circle, Southfield, Michigan. A few years later, along with her young son, Mitchell moved downstairs into Apartment 103. Plaintiff James Williams was Mitchell's friend since childhood when they were in school together, and, at the time of the events at issue in this case, Mitchell and Williams were in a romantic relationship and Williams was spending approximately four to five nights a week in Mitchell's apartment.

At 4:36 a.m. on December 28, 2018, an anonymous person called 911 and was connected to the Southfield Police Department. (R. 23-2 at 0:00–0:10.) The anonymous caller reported that "someone had just busted into [her] neighbors." (Id. at 0:12–0:16.) She further reported that she "heard him down there screaming" and that she "heard some ... glass breaking." (Id. at 1:00–1:10.) She also stated that, although she did not know who they were, the screaming was between a man and woman, and that she "heard him break the glass." (Id. at 1:17–1:23.) The caller provided 21700 Colony Park in Southfield as the address of the disturbance but declined to provide her apartment number or her name because she did not "want to get involved." (Id. at 0:40–0:42, 1:42–1:47.) She did, however, inform the 911 operator that the neighbor's apartment number was "uh ... uh ... 1, 0, 3." (Id. at 0:50–0:57.)

While the anonymous caller was talking to the 911 operator, police dispatch sent officers to the scene. The above information about the alleged disturbance was then relayed to the responding officers. At 4:40 a.m., dispatch further told the responding officers that the "anonymous caller believes that the door to that apartment was kicked in before the screaming started." (Id. at 4:20–4:30.)

Defendants Fegreus, McCormick, Elliot, and Armil arrived at the apartment building at about 4:42 a.m. When they entered the building, they heard screaming. But the officers could not identify where the screaming was coming from. On the audio recording from Fegreus' body microphone, he can be heard saying, "we don't think it's coming from 103. We walked in, we heard yelling .... They're gonna check up there. [Elliot] thought he heard it upstairs. I don't know where it's from." (R. 22-3 at 3:52–4:06.) The officers also noted that there was "no sign of forced entry to the front door" of Apartment 103. (R. 23-5 at PageID# 598.)

Three minutes after arriving on the scene, at about 4:45 a.m., Fegreus and McCormick knocked on the door to Apartment 103. Over the next 30 seconds, they knocked intermittently on the door. While Fegreus and McCormick stood at the door to Apartment 103, Armil and Elliot went to look for the broken glass that the anonymous caller had mentioned. Outside of Apartment 103, they discovered broken glass from a window. However, the window was double paned and only the outer pane was broken. Thus, Armil was "able to determine that [the window] was not a point of entry for an intruder." (R. 23-6 at PageID# 611.) Armil and Elliot also did not see anything suspicious through the window.

Meanwhile, about a minute after first knocking on the door to Apartment 103, at about 4:46 a.m., Fegreus called dispatch to confirm the apartment number because, as he reported to dispatch, "it's locked, and there's no answer and it's all quiet." (R. 22-3 at 6:08–6:41; R. 23-2 at 5:35–5:57.) Armil and Elliot then returned, and Armil told Fegreus and McCormick about the broken glass.

At that point, at around 4:47 a.m., Fegreus announced for the first time, "Southfield Police, open the door." (R. 22-3 at 7:31–7:33.) Defendants then began talking amongst themselves. After briefly discussing the broken glass, Defendants discussed whether they should "boot the door." (Id. at 7:59–8:00.) At about 4:48 a.m., the discussion about booting the door was interrupted by a call from the dispatch officer letting Defendants know that she had called the anonymous caller back and that the caller now said that she "can't be positive what apartment it was coming from." (Id. at 8:13–8:17; R. 23-2 at 6:25–6:40.)

In the minute that Defendants had been conversing and talking to dispatch, there was no knocking on the door. But after talking to dispatch, one of the officers suggested that they "keep knocking on the door. They're gonna answer eventually." (R. 22-3 at 8:36–8:38.) Around this time, Defendants Maurer, Gartha, and Jachym joined Fegreus, McCormick, Armil, and Elliot at the door to Apartment 103. For about the next two minutes, Defendants intermittently shouted and knocked loudly on the door.

At approximately 4:51 a.m., after Fegreus and McCormick had been standing at the door to Apartment 103 for about eight minutes without hearing any signs of a disturbance, and close to four minutes after Fegreus first announced the police presence, Mitchell partially opened the door. Mitchell says that she "cracked [the door] enough for them to see that everything was okay and intact, but not giving access to [her] apartment." (R. 22-12 at PageID# 514.) She also "put [her] knee to the door just for protection so that the door wouldn't be all the way opened." (Id. )

The audio recording from Fegreus' body microphone reveals the following exchange taking place between Fegreus and Mitchell:

Fegreus: Hi, how you doing?
Mitchell: I'm fine.
Fegreus: What happened to your window?
Mitchell: I don't fucking know. I just heard somebody throw something and run.
Fegreus: Okay, there's nobody screaming and yelling because we ...
Mitchell: No.
Fegreus: Okay.
Mitchell: I'm okay.
Fegreus: Okay .... because we got that people were fighting and then there's a glass break.
Mitchell: Nobody's fighting.
Fegreus: What take you so long, what took you so long to answer the door? We've been knocking ...
Mitchell: Because I'm asleep.
Fegreus: Alright, you got an ID with you.
Mitchell: I have an ID.
Fegreus: Okay.

(R. 22-3 at 11:19–11:45.)

At that point, even though none of the Defendants noticed any visible injuries on Mitchell or saw any signs of suspicious activity, Defendants began to push their way into the apartment. Mitchell can be heard protesting: "Excuse me, you don't have a ... you don't have anything to ..." (Id. at 11:46–11:48.) While Fegreus responded, "relax, relax," another officer shouted, "we got exigent circumstances. We're coming in." (Id. at 11:47–11:51.) Mitchell protested, "no, no, no." (Id. at 11:48–11:51.) But Defendants "pushed the door open, banged it against [Mitchell's] knee and came in" to the apartment. (R. 22-2 at PageID# 512; R. 22-3 at 11:51–11:52.) Defendants' forceful opening of the door caused Mitchell's knee to start bleeding.

Mitchell continued to object to the warrantless entry. She told Defendants, "You can't just bust into my door." (R. 22-3 at 11:53–11:55.) One officer responded, "Yes, we can. Yes, we can." (Id. at 11:55–11:56.) While Mitchell continued "yelling" and "telling [Defendants that] they had no business being in [her] apartment," Williams walked out of Mitchell's bedroom. (R. 22-2 at PageID# 516.)

Armil testified that he saw Williams "standing still" in the hallway. (R. 23-6 at PageID# 613.) Armil allegedly asked Williams to "to remove his left hand from behind his back" so that he could "confirm that [Williams] didn't have a weapon in his hand." (Id. ) According to Armil, Williams did not reply, was "irate and upset[,] and began to back into the bedroom." (Id. ) At this point, Armil believed that he had probable cause to arrest Williams for "[r]esisting" and "obstructing." (Id. )

Mitchell testified that she saw Defendants "charge[ ] towards [Williams], and "tackl[e] him." (R. 22-2 at PageID# 516.) Mitchell further alleged that Defendants then "slammed [Williams] down" so hard that Mitchell "thought they were going to kill him." (Id .) On the audio recording, Defendants can be heard shouting, "Get on the ground"; "You're gonna get tased"; "Roll on your stomach"; and "Put your hands behind your back." (R. 22-3 at 12:09–13:53.) Mitchell can be heard shouting "Are you going to kill us?"; "Oh my god, somebody help"; and "Oh my god, what are you all doing?" (Id. at 12:09–13:53.) Williams is recorded repeatedly shouting, "I'm not doing nothing"; "I'm putting my hands like this"; and "What are they doing to me?" (Id. at 12:09–13:53.) After being arrested, Williams refused to walk to the police car and had to be hand-carried to the vehicle by several officers. When Williams complained that he was being "treated like a fucking criminal," one Defendant responded...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • French v. Merrill
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 1, 2021
    ...requirement on that ground, such that they could exceed the social license recognized in Jardines. See generally Williams v. Maurer, 9 F.4th 416, 435-36 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that a reasonable jury could find no exigent circumstances where the officers "respond[ed] to a report of a [poss......
  • Skatemore, Inc. v. Whitmer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 19, 2022
    ...not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Williams v. Maurer , 9 F.4th 416, 430 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ). "While the defendant ‘bears th......
  • Palma v. Johns
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 28, 2022
    ...controlling authority placing the burden on the Palmas to show a clearly established constitutional violation. See Williams v. Maurer , 9 F.4th 416, 430–31 (6th Cir. 2021) ("[W]hen a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show......
  • Canaday v. Anthem Cos.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 17, 2021
  • 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