SCOTUS overturns 'perplexing' appellate decision, rules for cop asserting warrant exception
A police officer who entered a couple’s backyard and accessed their deck without a warrant was entitled to qualified immunity, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a per curiam opinion Monday.
The court granted cert and ruled on behalf of Pennsylvania state police officer Jeremy Carroll, who entered the backyard of Andrew and Karen Carman after receiving a tip that a car thief may have fled to their home.
The per curiam opinion (PDF) reversed a decision by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the officer should have used the front door under the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement.
The opinion recounts the events in July 2009 that led to the lawsuit. Carroll and another officer had found the only available parking places at the rear of the Carmans’ property and saw a shed in the yard with the light on. The officers headed to the structure but found no one inside, so they continued to a sliding glass door that opened onto a ground level deck.
A man who answered the door refused to give his name, turned away and appeared to reach for his waist. Carroll reached for the man’s arm, and the man fell into the yard. Then a woman came to the door who identified herself as Karen Carman and said the fallen man was her husband, Andrew. She gave the officers permission to search their home, and the suspect was not there. The Carmans sued for the alleged violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
Jurors returned a verdict for Carroll, but the 3rd Circuit reversed. The appeals court said the “knock and talk” exception required Carroll to enter the front door, and the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated clearly established law.
The U.S. Supreme court said the case cited by the 3rd Circuit didn’t decide the back-door question and “it arguably supports Carroll’s view.”
“The 3rd Circuit’s decision is even more perplexing,” the Supreme Court said, “in comparison to the decisions of other federal and state courts, which have rejected the rule the 3d Circuit adopted here.”
The Supreme Court said it was not deciding whether officers could use entrances besides the front door under the “knock and talk” exception, but it did find that Carroll was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rule was not “beyond debate.”
The case is Carroll v. Carman.
