In a unanimous opinion Friday, a three-judge panel said a family of two parents and five children could not argue that Detective Joseph Percich, the author of the search warrant affidavit, had "'knowingly and intentionally' or 'recklessly' disregarded the truth'" when officers beat in the family's door – after knocking and waiting 25 seconds – to discover the mother wearing only her underwear, caring for her children.
Percich was looking for suspects in a violent carjacking and thought the family's home was connected to the incident because a pair of AirPods that had been in the stolen vehicle appeared at that address on Apple's Find My app, which tracks devices using GPS, the court explained. The earbuds were eventually found on the street outside the home, according to the opinion.
However, before the earbuds were found, the officers pointed weapons at the family and ransacked their home, punching a hole larger than a basketball in some drywall and overturning their drawers, according to the opinion.
Still, although the family had nothing to do with the carjacking, the appeals court agreed with the district court that the family's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure weren't violated.
"To establish the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant, the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant affidavit includes factual statements that are truthful," the panel said, explaining that just because the statements had to be truthful didn't mean they had to be correct.
The use of a SWAT team and the conduct of the SWAT team was also reasonable, the panel said, because police believed they were pursuing violent criminals.
Bevis Schock, who represents the family, said he was disappointed with the court's decision.
"The reason we were optimistic was because it appeared to us that the officer hadn't given enough information to the judge who issued the warrant to make an informed decision – we really thought that was the issue. The cop said the AirPods were at the residence, but they weren't at the residence, they were in the street in front of the residence," Schock explained.
"If an officer came to any judge and said 'we've located a heroin baggie in front of a guy's house, can we have a warrant to search the house,' a judge wouldn't give a warrant," he added.
Schock said he had also hoped to use the case to challenge St. Louis County's policy of using SWAT teams for every single search warrant, saying he thought it constituted excessive force, but the court didn't agree.
The panel found that the family's allegation "that St. Louis County has a policy 'to conduct SWAT team raids when not justified by the circumstances'" was "conclusory" and "insufficient to state a claim for municipal liability."
The family's six-count suit accused Percich of an unreasonable use of force based on the use of a SWAT team and the conduct of the SWAT team, and of unreasonable seizure. The suit also accused St. Louis County of having an unconstitutional SWAT team raid policy and violating Missouri's Sunshine Law, requiring open access to public records. Counts one through five were brought against Percich under federal civil rights law, while the last two counts were brought against the county pursuant to Missouri law, the panel said.
The court also decided not to opine on the Sunshine Law claim, as the district court had also declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law.
Representatives for the county did not immediately respond to requests for comments Monday.
Schock said that although the county promised to fix the damage the SWAT raid had caused at the family's rented home, it never did.
U.S. Circuit Judges Duane Benton, Lavenski R. Smith and Ralph R. Erickson sat on the panel for the Eighth Circuit.
The plaintiffs are represented by W. Bevis Schock of Schock Law and Erich Vieth.
The defendants are represented by Lawrence L. Pratt of the St. Louis City Counselor's Office.
The case is Lindell Briscoe et al. v. St. Louis County et al., case number 25-1668, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
--Editing by Haylee Pearl.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
