Tubbs v. Harrison ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    June 23, 2010
    TENTH CIRCUIT                  Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    JAMES KELLY TUBBS; TAMMY
    LYNN TUBBS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    v.
    JEREMY HARRISON; TIMOTHY
    MUZNY,                                                 No. 09-6152
    (D.C. No. 5:07-CV-01286-M)
    Defendants-Appellants,                      (W.D. Okla.)
    and
    THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a
    political subdivision of the State of
    Oklahoma,
    Defendant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before TYMKOVICH, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
    Jeremy Harrison and Timothy Muzny appeal the district court’s denial of
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with the terms and conditions of Fed.
    R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    their motion for summary judgment. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    Defendants are police officers with the Oklahoma City Police Department. 1
    They went to the home of James Kelly Tubbs and Tammy Lynn Tubbs to conduct
    a “knock and talk” 2 based on two anonymous tips, received seven months
    previously, of drug related activities at Mr. Tubbs’ residence. Defendants were
    accompanied by two other officers who waited to the side of the house. When
    Officer Harrison identified himself and asked to come inside to talk, Mr. Tubbs
    responded, “If we’re gong to do this, we’re going to do it outside.” Aplt. App. at
    158. Mr. Tubbs opened the door partially and told Officer Harrison to “[h]old on.
    Let me get my wife.” Id. at 144. But defendants did not comply with this
    instruction. Instead, they forcibly entered the residence upon what they claim
    was probable cause and exigent circumstances based on the smell of marijuana
    coming from the home. Id. at 157. Plaintiffs dispute that there was any smell of
    marijuana present. Id. at 144-45, 157.
    Upon entering the house, defendants handcuffed Mr. Tubbs and, according
    to plaintiffs, violently forced him to the ground. Id. at 145, 172. When Mrs.
    Tubbs entered the living room, she was told to shut up and sit down. Id. at 146.
    1
    We set out the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the non-
    moving party. See Cortez v. McCauley, 
    478 F.3d 1108
    , 1115 (10th Cir. 2007).
    2
    A “knock and talk” is a consensual encounter between police officers and
    citizens. United States v. Reeves, 
    524 F.3d 1161
    , 1166, n.3 (10th Cir. 2008).
    -2-
    The two non-party officers then entered the house and performed a protective
    sweep, during which they claim they found some marijuana in plain view. To the
    contrary, Mr. Tubbs testified that there was no marijuana in plain view. Id. at
    228-29. At some point, Officer Harrison asked for Mr. Tubbs’ consent to search
    the residence. Mr. Tubbs initially refused, but consented to the search after
    Officer Harrison agreed not to charge Mrs. Tubbs. Id. at 141, 173. During the
    search, defendants discovered a duffel bag containing marijuana, which Mr.
    Tubbs says was locked in his closet, id. at 229, and arrested both plaintiffs, id. at
    405.
    The criminal charges against plaintiffs were dismissed when the state court
    granted their motion to suppress the evidence after concluding that defendants’
    entry into plaintiffs’ home was not justified by any recognized exception to the
    warrant requirement. Plaintiffs filed this 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action against
    defendants, asserting that they violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights when they
    entered and searched plaintiffs’ residence, used excessive force against Mr.
    Tubbs, and arrested plaintiffs. Defendants moved for summary judgment,
    contending the qualified immunity doctrine bars plaintiffs’ § 1983 action. The
    district court denied the motion. Aplt. App. at 404, District Court Order, July 23,
    2009 (hereinafter “Order”).
    Generally,
    a district court’s order denying a defendant’s motion for summary
    -3-
    judgment [is] an immediately appealable “collateral order” (i.e., a
    “final decision”) . . . where (1) the defendant [is] a public official
    asserting a defense of “qualified immunity” and (2) the issue
    appealed concern[s] not which facts the parties might be able to
    prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts show[] a
    violation of “clearly established” law.
    Armijo v. Wagon Mound Pub. Schs., 
    159 F.3d 1253
    , 1258 (10th Cir. 1998)
    (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 
    515 U.S. 304
    , 311 (1995)). But such “immunity
    appeals are limited to cases presenting neat abstract issues of law.” Armijo, 
    159 F.3d at 1258
     (quotation marks and internal alterations omitted). In considering
    abstract legal issues on collateral appeal from the denial of qualified immunity,
    we have recognized that we must consider
    whether, under plaintiff’s version of the facts, defendant violated
    clearly established law. In making this determination, we must
    scrupulously avoid second-guessing the district court’s
    determinations regarding whether plaintiff has presented evidence
    sufficient to survive summary judgment. Rather, we review only
    whether defendant’s conduct, as alleged by plaintiff, violated clearly
    established law.
    
    Id. at 1259
     (original citation and internal alterations omitted). Accordingly,
    where the district court has concluded that a plaintiff presented sufficient
    evidence to survive summary judgment on a defendant’s claim of qualified
    immunity, we do not “have jurisdiction to review the district court’s . . . finding
    that a genuine dispute of fact existed . . . .” 
    Id.
     Nor do we have jurisdiction to
    review a “district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
    [when it] is predicated on ‘evidence sufficiency,’ i.e. which facts a party may, or
    -4-
    may not, be able to prove at trial.” 
    Id. at 1258
     (citation omitted). Accord
    Fletcher v. Burkhalter, ___ F.3d ___, 
    2010 WL 2026621
     at *4 (10th Cir. May 24,
    2010).
    Turning to the legal questions in this case, the law is clearly established
    that a warrantless home entry “must be ‘(1) pursuant to clear evidence of probable
    cause, (2) available only for serious crimes and in circumstances where the
    destruction of evidence is likely, (3) limited in scope to the minimum intrusion
    necessary, and (4) supported by clearly defined indicators of exigency that are not
    subject to police manipulation or abuse.’” United States v. Carter, 
    360 F.3d 1235
    , 1241 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Aquino, 
    836 F.2d 1268
    ,
    1272 (10th Cir. 1988)). Defendants concede that the anonymous tips they
    received were not sufficient to establish probable cause. Applying Carter, and
    viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the district court
    concluded the record contains material issues of fact as to whether defendants
    gained probable cause to enter plaintiffs’ residence and whether exigent
    circumstances justified their warrantless entry. 3 Specifically, the court identified
    a significant disputed issue of fact as whether defendants could actually smell
    3
    The court also concluded plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that
    they did not voluntarily consent to the search, Order at 5 (citing United States v.
    Pena-Sarabia, 
    297 F.3d 983
    , 987 (10th Cir. 2002)), and that in light of the highly
    disputed circumstances surrounding the lawfulness of defendants’ entry into
    plaintiffs’ residence, defendants used excessive force against Mr. Tubbs, Order at
    4.
    -5-
    marijuana while they spoke with Mr. Tubbs. Order at 4. 4 Notably, if there was
    no smell of marijuana, there were no exigent circumstances warranting the
    intrusion into plaintiffs’ house, the subsequent handcuffing of Mr. Tubbs, the
    search of the house, or the arrest of plaintiffs.
    Defendants urge us to disregard the district court’s determinations
    regarding material factual disputes, contending, inter alia, that “there is no
    genuine material issue of fact as to whether Officer Harrison and Lt. Muzny had
    probable cause to believe a crime was being committed based on the smell of
    marijuana[,]” Aplt. Br. at 20, and that “[i]n the instant case, absent a plausible
    dispute regarding whether Lt. Muzny and Officer Harrison could smell marijuana,
    there is no jury question regarding the existence of probable cause. Therefore,
    the district court erred in denying the Appellant Officers’ motion for qualified
    immunity.” Id. at 31. But defendants cannot so easily ignore the evidence
    presented by plaintiffs. Where, as here, the district court determined that
    plaintiffs’ evidence presented material issues of fact regarding whether
    defendants violated their clearly-established constitutional rights, we easily
    conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review the court’s denial of
    defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Armijo, 
    159 F.3d at 1259
    . “Even
    4
    Alternatively, the court concluded that even if defendants did smell
    marijuana, this alone did not constitute a “serious crime” for the purpose of
    determining whether exigent circumstances were present in this case. See Order
    at 4 (citing Carter, 
    360 F.3d at 1242
    ).
    -6-
    if the district court erred in reaching that finding, we would not have jurisdiction
    to review that fact-based determination on an interlocutory appeal.” 
    Id.
    We therefore DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Circuit Judge
    -7-