ILNews

Judge: Officer is entitled to qualified immunity

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge ruled in favor of a defendant police officer in a suit alleging he conducted a warrantless and unreasonable search of a home to find a gun mentioned in a 911 call.

In Robert Butler v. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Dept., et al., No. 1:07-CV-1103, U.S. District Chief Judge David Hamilton in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, found Tuesday that Deputy Glenn Schmidt was entitled to qualified immunity on Robert Butler's claim the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his home.

Schmidt, then a deputy with the Marion County Sheriff's Department, which merged with the Indianapolis Police Department to form IMPD, responded to a 911 call to Butler's home that shots had been fired. Butler's girlfriend, McKenna Decker, called police to report Butler shot at her car while at his house.

Butler told Schmidt he shot his gun near Decker's car, but the gun was now inside. Schmidt went inside the home and got the gun. Butler entered a plea agreement, but for unknown reasons, the plea wasn't entered and the prosecutor eventually dismissed all of the charges.

Butler claimed the police department and officers who arrived on the scene deprived him of his constitutional rights. Chief Judge Hamilton agreed with Schmidt that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Butler's search and seizure claim. Schmidt argued that even if he had violated Butler's right by entering his home without a warrant, a reasonable law enforcement officer wouldn't have understood that this act would have violated his constitutional rights under the circumstances.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.

"On the merits, there is certainly room to argue here about whether the danger posed by the loaded gun in the unoccupied home posed a threat of imminent injury," wrote the chief judge. "In the quiet calm of a courtroom years later, it might be easy to say that it did not."

But Schmidt faced an ambiguous and potentially explosive situation and acted swiftly and with minimal intrusion to control the greatest source of danger, Chief Judge Hamilton continued.

The District Court also found Schmidt had probable cause to arrest Butler for criminal recklessness. Summary judgment was also entered in favor of IMPD and the two other officers who responded because the facts are insufficient to support under any of Butler's theories that his constitutional rights were violated.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT