In an opinion and concurrence Wednesday, three judges found in favor of plaintiff Michael Hoover, who was home when deputy Justin Due entered and beat him while trying to arrest him, after hearing a report that Hoover was wielding a weapon that was nowhere in sight.
At the time of the incident, no one at the scene seemed injured and Hoover was initially cooperating with Due, the panel said, explaining that a "jury could conclude that Due lacked an objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone inside Hoover's home was injured or at risk of immediate danger." As a result, the panel said a jury might find unauthorized entry to Hoover's home and use of force was unwarranted, and so it denied Due summary judgment, but Due appealed the denial.
Due had argued that because he was a deputy he had qualified immunity, preventing him from being held responsible for liability or civil damages, so long as his actions didn't violate any particular known laws, the panel explained.
When Due entered Hoover's home, he was responding to a 911 call in which a woman stated that a man at the location was threatening her with a gun, the court said. When Due arrived at Hoover's house, Ashley Kinnett met Due in the driveway and pointed at Hoover, reportedly telling the deputy that Hoover was the problem and that he had "gone crazy."
As Due approached, he reportedly told Hoover, "She's saying you pulled a gun out on her."
Hoover responded, "OK, so you're taking her word over anything else?"
"Until I get things secured, yes I am," Due reportedly said.
After Hoover raised his hands and showed the deputy he had no weapons, Due tried to grab him and Hoover backed into his home, according to the court.
"You ain't handcuffing me in my house," Hoover reportedly said.
Then Due and Hoover locked arms and, eventually, Due punched Hoover in the face, according to the court. The altercation only ended when another woman who was at the scene told Due that Hoover never pulled a gun on anyone, the panel explained. Due then stopped arresting Hoover, according to the court.
Around one year after the incident, Hoover sued Due in Tennessee federal court over claims of unlawful entry and excessive force, and both parties were denied summary judgment, the panel said, noting that Due appealed his denial.
However, the panel found that the trial court's denial was proper because a reasonable jury could conclude that Due did not have circumstances that were significant enough to enter Hoover's home without a warrant or to use excessive force.
In his concurrence, Circuit Judge Eric E. Murphy questioned whether exigent circumstances should be considered as a question of fact, put to a jury, rather than a matter of law.
He wrote that the Sixth Circuit's precedent "gives this exigent-circumstances question to the jury whenever reasonable minds could differ on the answer," but suggested "our cases may be wrong in treating exigent circumstances as a question of fact rather than law."
"How are officers supposed to know whether the conduct at issue in these cases was lawful or unlawful? Should they track down the jury verdicts to see which way the jury resolved the matter?" he wondered.
"Many of our cases find both that a jury should decide whether there were exigent circumstances and that the officers' conduct violated clearly established law," he said, pointing out what he saw as a problem.
"These cases reason that our standard of review requires us to accept the version of the facts most favorable to the plaintiffs," the judge wrote, explaining that because factual questions have to be put to a jury, the idea that there were no exigent circumstances is treated as a given. While this case was not the ideal to parse more complicated questions of law, the judge encouraged the court to look into the matter in the future.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments Thursday.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judges Julia Smith Gibbons, Helene N. White and Judge Eric E. Murphy sat on the panel.
Hoover is represented by Benjamin K. Raybin of Raybin & Weissman PC.
Deputy Due is represented by Benjamin K. Lauderback of Watson Roach Batson & Lauderback PLC.
The case is Hoover v. Due, case number 25a0260p-06, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
--Editing by Kelly Duncan.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
