In Frunz v. City of Tacoma (2006 WL 3313989, 9th Cir.(Wash.), Nov. 13, 2006)), the United States Court of Appeals considered an appeal by police officers of a trial court’s finding of unlawful entry and excessive use of force, against a woman who, unknown to a neighbor, had taken possession of her ex-husband’s home in a divorce proceeding.
The officers’ conduct–breaking down a door, charging unannounced into the house with guns drawn, holding occupants at gunpoint, and forcing them to the floor and handcuffing them at gunpoint, with no warrant or probable cause–was so clearly unconstitutional, the Court ruled, that the officers’ appeal was frivolous.
Facts
Susan Frunz obtained a home in Tacoma, Washington as a result of divorce proceedings. A neighbor, unaware of the divorce outcome, called 911 when he saw Frunz enter the home he mistakenly believed still belonged to her ex-husband. Officers responded, saw no signs of a break-in, knocked on the door, and left after receiving no answer. The neighbor called 911 again a short time later when he saw Frunz open the door and allow visitors inside.
This time, officers responded by breaking down the door, accosting Frunz and her guests at gunpoint, and forcing them to the floor and handcuffing them. After determining the guests’ identities and finding no outstanding warrants, the officers released them and ordered them to leave. Frunz was kept cuffed for another hour because she couldn’t produce ID or proof that she owned the house. Officers finally released her after contacting her divorce lawyer and verifying that she in fact owned the house.
Frunz sued the officers for violating her constitutional rights, including unlawful entry and search of her home, and excessive force. A jury found for Frunz, and awarded $27,000 in compensatory damages and $111,000 in compensatory damages. The officers appealed.
Decision
The officers argued that the verdict was not supported by the evidence and that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably thought a burglary was in progress and they needed to respond to catch the suspects in the act. They were wrong on every point, the Court ruled.
The court further said that protecting people from unnecessary physical entry into their homes is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment to the United State’s Constitution. Nothing the neighbor observed and reported to police—someone driving up to and entering a house, and admitting visitors—gave the officers cause to suspect that a burglary was in progress and that the suspects were likely to flee, the court said. Additionally, the neighbor correctly identified Frunz as the ex-wife of his former neighbor, meaning the situation was likely not a burglary but a spousal dispute at most. Furthermore, the police made no effort to determine ownership of the house or investigate Frunz’ right to be there. Most importantly, the Court said, reasonable officers would have tried to obtain a warrant and observed the house to see if a burglary appeared to be occurring. Barging in with guns drawn and handcuffing the occupants was neither necessary nor reasonable under the circumstances.
The Court ruled that the jury correctly concluded that the officers acted in reckless or malicious disregard of Frunz’ constitutional rights. The judgment was affirmed, and the officers were ordered to show cause why they should not be assessed double costs and attorney’s fees for filing a frivolous appeal.
Legal Alert Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.