Wright v. Watson

• Decision Date: 25 August 2016
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 4:15-CV-34 (CDL)
• Citation: 209 F.Supp.3d 1344
• Parties: Robert H. WRIGHT, Jr., Plaintiff, v. S/A Jerald WATSON, John Goodrich, and Mike Pitts, in their individual capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia

209 F.Supp.3d 1344

Robert H. WRIGHT, Jr., Plaintiff,

v.S/A Jerald WATSON, John Goodrich, and Mike Pitts, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-34 (CDL)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division.

Signed August 25, 2016

Craig T. Jones, The Orlando Firm, P.C., Decatur, GA, for Plaintiff.

Kenneth Drew Jones, Russell A. Britt, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

CLAY D. LAND, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

We are all familiar with the English common-law maxim that "a man's home is his castle." And few of us would disagree with Justice Louis Brandeis's observation that the right to be left alone is "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."¹ In this case, law enforcement officials certainly did not leave Plaintiff Robert Wright alone. In fact, they invaded his castle. More precisely, they hovered over his rural home in a helicopter, saw what they believed to be a patch of marijuana on his neighbor's adjacent property, trespassed on Mr. Wright's property to investigate, snooped around the shed near his home, searched the inside of his home pursuant to a search warrant obtained through the use of alleged false information, and then arrested and prosecuted Mr. Wright based on evidence found inside his home.

The issue to be decided today, however, is not whether this clear invasion of Mr. Wright's privacy by law enforcement officers is generally offensive. The issue is whether that invasion violated Mr. Wright's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, the Court must decide whether the law enforcement officials whom Mr. Wright has sued for damages because of this conduct violated clearly established law and thus lose their qualified and official immunity. This inquiry requires that the Court carefully analyze how far Mr. Wright's castle extends for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Court must also consider the conduct of Defendants in trespassing upon the property, providing the magistrate with allegedly false information to obtain a search warrant, and then arresting Mr. Wright and prosecuting him based on evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant.

Mr. Wright asserts federal law claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants in their individual capacities for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. He also asserts state law claims arising from that same conduct. Defendants seek summary judgment on their qualified and official immunity defenses. As explained in the remainder of this Order, the Court finds that Defendant Mike Pitts is entitled to qualified and official immunity as a matter of law as to all of Mr. Wright's claims against him, and therefore, Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 71) is granted in its entirety as to those claims against Pitts. The Court finds that Defendants Jerald Watson and John Goodrich are not entitled to qualified or official immunity as a matter of law as to Mr. Wright's claims against them that the search of his home violated the Fourth Amendment because they supplied the magistrate with allegedly false information in support of the warrant application. Therefore, their motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 71) is denied as to those claims. Watson and Goodrich, however, are entitled to qualified and official immunity as a matter of law as to Mr. Wright's other claims, and thus their motion for summary judgment is granted as to those claims. Accordingly, the only claims remaining for trial are Mr. Wright's Fourth Amendment and state law claims against Watson and Goodrich arising from the search of Mr. Wright's home, which claims are based on Mr. Wright's contention that these Defendants supplied false information in support of the search warrant application.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment may be granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, drawing all justifiable inferences in the opposing party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it is relevant or necessary to the outcome of the suit. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

Here, Defendants seek summary judgment on their qualified immunity defenses. Thus, the question is whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity based on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Wright, with all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor See Perez v. Suszczynski , 809 F.3d 1213, 1217 (11th Cir.2016) (explaining that the court "must review the evidence in this manner ‘because the issues ... concern not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law.’ " (quoting Lee v. Ferraro , 284 F.3d 1188, 1190 (11th Cir.2002) )). If, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Wright, a Defendant's conduct would not amount to a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law, then summary judgment must be granted in that Defendant's favor based on qualified immunity.

See Lee (emphasizing that the plaintiff must show the violation of a constitutional right "under the plaintiff's version of the facts").

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Wright, the record reveals the following.

I. The Wright Property

Plaintiff Robert H. Wright, Jr. and his wife, Lisa Wright, live at 525 R.D. Brown Road in Hamilton, Georgia ("Wright Property"). R.D. Brown Road is a dirt road located off of Highway 116. Mrs. Wright owns the Wright Property, which is approximately nine and a half acres. One acre immediately surrounding the house is landscaped, with manicured grass and a garden area. The rest of the property has natural vegetation and is not landscaped.

There is a fence surrounding the north, west, and south sides of the property; in the summary judgment papers, it is a black chain-link fence.² There is a gate in the portion of the fence that is along the southern border of the property. There is a factual dispute as to whether the gate was locked. Compare Binion Dep. 17:3-9, ECF No. 79 (stating that he believed the gate was "closed" and that officers had to go over it) with Pitts Dep. 53:10-11, ECF No. 78 ("I want to say there was a gate or something where we—it was open."). The distance between the house and the chain-link fence at the southern border of the Wright Property is not clear from the present record.

A shed is located approximately 100 to 150 yards north of the house. The shed is inside the black chain-link fence. Defendants assert that there is only natural vegetation around the shed. Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 77, ECF No. 71-12. But they also claim that there was a "gardening area" near the shed. Id. ¶ 12; accord Bracewell Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 71-2. It is undisputed that the shed is not visible from the house, and the house is not visible from the shed. The shed itself can be seen from R.D. Brown Road, but there is a factual dispute as to whether the area around the shed could be seen from R.D. Brown Road. Compare R. Wright Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No. 88-1 (stating that it is not possible to see anything on the ground near the shed from the road because of dense vegetation between the road and the shed) with Bolen Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 71-3 (stating that the site was visible from R.D. Brown Road). The Wrights use the shed as a "a storage shed, tool shed" where they keep their garden tools. R. Wright Dep. 41:13-19, ECF No. 92. The shed also houses the water supply (a well) for the Wrights' house. R. Wright Dep. 41:13-19. The parties did not point to any evidence that the shed could be identified as a well house without entering it. See Memmo Dep. 25:22-26:1, ECF No. 87 (testifying, in response to the question whether he went "to the well house," that Agent Memmo "went to the—I don't know it's a well house. There was, like, a potting shed.").

?

L. Wright Dep. Ex. 1, Map of Site, ECF No. 93-1.

Also on the Wright Property is the grave site for Mrs. Wright's son, who died in 2007. The grave site, which predates the house, is approximately fifty feet northwest of the house. L. Wright Dep. 55:25-56:10, ECF No. 93. Based on the description and drawing that was provided to the Court at the summary judgment hearing, the grave site is located between the house and the shed. Before the house was built, Mrs. Wright permitted her son's friends to visit the gravesite. Visits to the gravesite ceased within a year or two following his death. Id. at 57:15-24.

II. The Helicopter Surveillance

On June 27, 2013, the Governor's Task Force for Drug Suppression performed aerial surveillance in Harris County, Georgia as part of its marijuana eradication operation.³ Two Georgia state troopers, Paul Wofford and Mark Bracewell, randomly canvassed the county in a helicopter, looking for marijuana. Bracewell observed a suspected marijuana grow site at a property on R.D. Brown Road. The suspected grow site was south of the black chain-link fence surrounding the Wright Property. Neither the officers in the helicopter nor the officers on the ground team knew whether the suspected grow site was on the Wright Property. At some point, officers on the ground team reviewed property tax records and learned that Mrs. Wright owned the property at 525 R.D. Brown Road, but they did not determine whether the large suspected grow site was on that property. Watson Dep. 87:17-22, 94:24-95:19, ECF No. 83. It is not clear from the present record how far the...