Filed: Apr. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1677 CHRISTOPHER CASTAGNA; GAVIN CASTAGNA, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. HARRY JEAN; KEITH KAPLAN; DARAN EDWARDS, Defendants, Appellants. JEAN MOISE ACLOQUE; GARY BARKER; MICHAEL BIZZOZERO; TERRY COTTON; RICHARD DEVOE; JON-MICHAEL HARBER; CLIFTON HAYNES; GAVIN MCHALE; KAMAU PRITCHARD; WILLIAM SAMARAS; STEPHEN SMIGLIANI; ANTHONY TROY; JAY TULLY; BRENDAN WALSH; DONALD WIGHTMAN; JAMES DOE, Individually; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1677 CHRISTOPHER CASTAGNA; GAVIN CASTAGNA, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. HARRY JEAN; KEITH KAPLAN; DARAN EDWARDS, Defendants, Appellants. JEAN MOISE ACLOQUE; GARY BARKER; MICHAEL BIZZOZERO; TERRY COTTON; RICHARD DEVOE; JON-MICHAEL HARBER; CLIFTON HAYNES; GAVIN MCHALE; KAMAU PRITCHARD; WILLIAM SAMARAS; STEPHEN SMIGLIANI; ANTHONY TROY; JAY TULLY; BRENDAN WALSH; DONALD WIGHTMAN; JAMES DOE, Individually; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 19-1677
CHRISTOPHER CASTAGNA; GAVIN CASTAGNA,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
HARRY JEAN; KEITH KAPLAN; DARAN EDWARDS,
Defendants, Appellants.
JEAN MOISE ACLOQUE; GARY BARKER; MICHAEL BIZZOZERO; TERRY
COTTON; RICHARD DEVOE; JON-MICHAEL HARBER; CLIFTON HAYNES; GAVIN
MCHALE; KAMAU PRITCHARD; WILLIAM SAMARAS; STEPHEN SMIGLIANI;
ANTHONY TROY; JAY TULLY; BRENDAN WALSH; DONALD WIGHTMAN; JAMES
DOE, Individually; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN
DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; JOHN DOE 6; JOHN DOE 7; JOHN DOE 8; JOHN
DOE 9; JOHN DOE 10; JOHN DOE 11; JOHN DOE 12,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Indira Talwani, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Stahl, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Nicole M. O'Connor, Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel,
City of Boston Law Department, with whom Eugene L. O'Flaherty,
Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law Department, and Matthew M.
McGarry, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law
Department, were on brief, for appellants.
Paul J. Klehm, with whom Benjamin L. Falkner and Krasnoo,
Klehm & Falkner LLP were on brief, for appellees.
April 10, 2020
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This appeal raises the issue of
whether the three defendant Boston police officers were entitled
to qualified immunity for entering through the open door of a house
under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment's
warrant requirement. We hold that the officers are entitled to
qualified immunity under these circumstances. We reverse the
judgment for the plaintiffs and remand for the district court to
enter judgment for the defendants.
I.
Qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than
a mere defense to liability." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,
526 (1985) (emphasis omitted). As such, a typical § 1983 defendant
raises the qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss or
motion for summary judgment. Wilson v. City of Boston,
421 F.3d
45, 52 (1st Cir. 2005). The officers in this case did not raise
their specific qualified immunity defense until they filed a motion
for judgment as a matter of law at the end of the jury trial, to
which the jury ruled for the officers. But this case's "unusual
posture does not affect the viability of the qualified immunity
defense."
Id. at 53.
"[W]hen a qualified immunity defense is pressed after a
jury verdict, the evidence must be construed in the light most
hospitable to the party that prevailed at trial." Id. (quoting
Iacobucci v. Boulter,
193 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 1999)). We first
- 3 -
recite the facts in the light most favorable to appellants Daran
Edwards, Harry Jean, and Keith Kaplan. Then we discuss this
lawsuit's procedural history.
A. Facts
On March 17, 2013, the appellees, brothers Christopher
and Gavin Castagna, hosted a St. Patrick's Day party for their
friends at Christopher's apartment, located on the first floor of
a three-story building at the intersection of East 6th Street and
O Street in South Boston. The party was large enough that
Christopher and Gavin moved furniture in advance of the party's
start to accommodate the number of guests and purchased a keg of
beer. One of the police officers later estimated that when he
arrived at the scene there were as many as thirty guests there.
As one guest testified, St. Patrick's Day in Boston is basically
"a big party throughout the entire city."
By early evening, many of the guests at the Castagnas'
party were intoxicated. Different guests estimated that they drank
"between [twelve] and [fifteen] beers," eleven to thirteen beers,
"ten beers," and "seven or eight beers" that day, respectively.
At 5:54 p.m., someone called 911 to report a loud party
at the intersection of East 6th Street and O Street, the
intersection where Christopher's apartment was located. At 7:29
p.m., police dispatch directed a group of officers to respond to
the call. The officers sent were part of a unit composed of seven
- 4 -
officers, including Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan. Although the unit
normally worked in another neighborhood in the city, the officers
had been reassigned to South Boston for the St. Patrick's Day
holiday to supervise the parade in the morning and control "loud
crowds, partying, [and] fighting" in the afternoon and evening.
Many of the officers had done similar work on St. Patrick's Day in
prior years.
The seven officers arrived at the scene at approximately
7:38 p.m. At that point in the evening, Christopher's apartment
was the only one near the intersection with any observable signs
of a party.
When Kaplan arrived on the scene, he heard screaming,
music, and talking coming from Christopher's apartment. As he
approached the apartment, Kaplan saw two or three guests leave the
party. He thought one may have turned around and gone back inside,
possibly to warn the others. In Kaplan's opinion, "[t]hey looked
like they were underage." When he got close to the apartment,
Kaplan could see into it because the "door was wide open." He
also could see through the top of the window that there were people
drinking inside. He testified that his first objective after
arriving at the apartment was "to make contact with the owners."
Edwards gave a similar account. When he arrived, he
also heard loud music and, through an open window, saw people
drinking, some of whom he believed to be underage.
- 5 -
Jean arrived slightly after his fellow officers. He
also heard music, saw that the front door was open, and noticed
through the window that the people inside were drinking. He, too,
believed that some of the guests were underage.1 As he approached
the apartment, Jean "saw a young male come stumbling outside" onto
the public sidewalk. Jean testified that the young man "walked
around like -- you know, like a circle or half-circle, and then he
hurled over, vomiting, and he did that twice. And then he stumbled
back into the address that we were looking at."
Kaplan reached the apartment door and yelled "hello"
several times and then "Boston Police." No one answered.
According to Kaplan, "[w]hen no one answered, we kind of walked
in."
At that point, none of the officers were intending to
arrest anyone at the party, for underage drinking or any other
crime. Kaplan explained that this response was in line with the
police department's normal practice for responding to noise
complaints: "Typically, we would just knock on the door, try to
see who the owners are and tenants and have them turn the music
down, shut the doors, keep the windows up and keep everything
1 Christopher, the host, admitted that he did not know the
age of every guest at his party and did not ask to see anyone's
identification. In addition, many of the guests who were of legal
drinking age were only a few years older than twenty-one. One
guest admitted at trial that at the time of the party she could
have looked underage.
- 6 -
inside." Indeed, several of the officers did not have their
handcuffs on them, which would have been necessary to make an
arrest, explaining that they left them behind to lighten their
load during a long day walking the parade route.
The officers explained at trial that there were two
reasons for entering the home that evening: (1) to respond to the
noise complaint by finding the homeowners and having them lower
the volume of their music and (2) to make sure that any underage
drinkers were safe, including the young-looking man who had vomited
outside the home and returned inside.
Kaplan explained that "[o]f course, there's safety
involved when there's underage drinkers." His goal was "to make
sure everyone was safe, community caretaker, . . . trying to make
sure that there weren't any other underage drinkers in there or
that nobody was sick and nobody was throwing up." Jean testified
that his intention when entering the home "was strictly just . . .
the well-being check, . . . doing community caretaker work, and to
speak to the owner, . . . to locate him, speak to him what's going
on . . . because it was spilling onto the sidewalk."
The guests were in the middle of a dance competition
when the police entered through the open door, and they did not
immediately respond. Eventually, when they noticed the officers,
- 7 -
the guests turned off the music.2 Kaplan explained that there had
been a complaint of underage drinking and asked for the homeowners.
There was a lull in which no one answered. Eventually
some of the guests told the police that the owner's name was
"Chris," but he was not in the room and was "in the back or the
bathroom or something to that effect." Jean and another officer
went to look for Christopher while the others stayed in the kitchen
with most of the guests.
The officers explained at trial why it was important to
talk to the owner of the property even though there was no longer
any disruptive, loud music. Jean testified: "[H]e's the person
in control of the apartment . . . . He's the one who would probably
authorize all these people to be here. . . . I don't know if it's
an abandoned apartment and they're just throwing a party in it."
Edwards agreed that it was important to talk to the homeowner
"[b]ecause the homeowner is the person who's in charge of the
apartment."
As Jean and the other officer made their way down the
back hall, one of the guests heard them remark that they smelled
2 One party guest testified that that she thought the music
had been turned off. The police officers testified that their
general practice was to have the music turned down when responding
to noise complaints. The police officers were not asked at trial
if the music was turned off or merely down when they initially
entered the apartment. We assume arguendo the music was turned
off.
- 8 -
drugs. The two officers knocked on the door of what they thought
was the bathroom but was in fact Christopher's bedroom. According
to Jean, the officers thought, "[w]e're going to let this guy use
the bathroom, and then we'll talk to him, you know. We were
patient. We had no problem." Jean eventually realized that the
room they were waiting outside of was probably not a bathroom when
he heard multiple voices coming from inside it, so he knocked on
the door again. That was when Christopher and Gavin, who were
inside with two other guests, heard the knocking at the door.
Christopher opened the door for the officers. Christopher
testified that this was the first time he realized police were in
the apartment.
After Christopher opened the door for Jean, Jean
announced himself as "Boston Police." Jean observed that
Christopher appeared to have been drinking and noticed that there
was marijuana in the bedroom. Christopher saw Jean looking at the
marijuana, and in response he pushed Jean, slammed the door on
Jean's foot, and held the door there.3 Jean pushed the door back
open, freeing his foot, and walked into the room.
3 Under state law in 2013, possession of less than one
ounce of marijuana was a civil offense, subjecting the offender to
a fine and forfeiture of the marijuana. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C,
§ 32L (repealed 2017). The marijuana found in Christopher's room
was seized and he was cited for it.
- 9 -
Edwards and Kaplan, who noticed that Jean and the other
officer were missing, went to the back rooms to look for them. At
that point Edwards and Kaplan were still trying to figure out who
the homeowners were so that the officers could respond to the loud
party complaint.
In the bedroom, Christopher shoved Jean a second time
and the conflict between the officers and the party guests
escalated. Other officers were called as back-up. Eventually,
several of the guests and both brothers were arrested on various
charges. The rest of the details about what happened in the
bedroom and after the other responding officers arrived are not
relevant to this appeal.4
B. Procedural History
Christopher and Gavin sued the twenty Boston Police
Officers who were involved in breaking up the party and arresting
them, including Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan. The Castagnas brought
civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
12, §§ 11H and 11I, as well as state tort claims for false
imprisonment, assault and battery, false arrest, and malicious
prosecution. By the start of the trial, the district court had
4 The sole claim on appeal is the unlawful entry claim,
which was brought against only Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan and
relates just to the conduct described above.
- 10 -
dismissed several claims and removed from the lawsuit thirteen of
the twenty defendants.
The trial was held over eight days between June 11 and
21, 2018. The Castagnas each advanced seven claims, brought
variously against the seven remaining police officer defendants:
unlawful entry under § 1983, unlawful seizure under § 1983,
excessive force under § 1983, violation of the First Amendment
under § 1983, assault and battery, false arrest, and malicious
prosecution. The unlawful entry claim was brought against officers
Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan only.
As to the unlawful entry claim, the district court
declined to instruct the jury on the community caretaking exception
to the warrant requirement over the defense's objections,
explaining that it was not adequately defined in the law. Instead
the jury was instructed on the exigent circumstances exception
only, and the court stated that it would consider arguments about
community caretaking in the context of qualified immunity after
the jury returned its verdict.5
5 The jury instructions for the unlawful entry claim were
as follows:
Under the Fourth Amendment, no person shall be
subjected to a warrantless search of his or
her home except under exigent circumstances,
that is, circumstances requiring immediate
action and with probable cause.
Probable cause exists if the facts and
circumstances known to the Defendant are
sufficient to warrant a reasonable police
- 11 -
Before the jury returned with its verdict, Edwards,
Jean, and Kaplan filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law,
in which they argued that their entry into both the apartment and
the bedroom was justified by the community caretaking exception to
the warrant requirement. Further, they argued that were entitled
to qualified immunity on the same grounds and because the law on
community caretaking in 2013 did not clearly establish that their
entry violated either brother's constitutional rights.
The jury reached a unanimous verdict in favor of all of
the defendants on all counts. As to the unlawful entry claim under
§ 1983, the jury was asked on the verdict form if Christopher or
Gavin had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Edwards,
Kaplan, or Jean had violated their constitutional rights by
entering either Christopher's apartment or specifically his
bedroom on March 17, 2013. The jury responded "no" to each
question for each of the three officers. The district court denied
as moot Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan's motion for judgment as a matter
officer in believing that the plaintiff has
committed or is committing a crime.
Circumstances requiring immediate action
are limited to the following:
1. hot pursuit of a fleeing felon;
2. threatened destruction of evidence;
3. risk of escape; and
4. threat to the lives and safety of the
public, the police, or the plaintiff.
- 12 -
of law on the unlawful entry claim in light of the jury verdict in
their favor.
On July 20, 2018, the Castagnas moved for a new trial,
arguing that "the jury's finding that Defendants Kaplan, Edwards
and Jean are not liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
the unlawful entry into Christopher Castagna's home, or, at the
very least, into Christopher Castagna's bedroom," is "against the
law, the weight of credible evidence and constitutes a miscarriage
of justice."6
On January 17, 2019, the district court granted the
Castagnas' motion for a new trial, finding "that the verdict is
against the law as to the warrantless entry into the home and that
the warrantless entry on the facts at trial is not protected by
qualified immunity." The court said the entry into the bedroom
claim was merely a subset of the entry into the home claim, thereby
saying it was not an independent claim.
Because the only issues still to be resolved at that
point in the proceedings were legal issues, instead of holding a
6 The Castagnas also argued that a new trial was warranted
because "the Court improperly instructed the jury regarding
disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace" and "in her closing,
Defendants' counsel made improper references to Plaintiff
Christopher Castagna being a racist, even though there was no
evidence at trial that demonstrated that he was a racist, and the
Court's curative instruction to the jury failed to cure the error."
The district court rejected these arguments, and the plaintiffs
have not appealed these denials.
- 13 -
new trial, the court instructed the Castagnas to move orally under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 for the court to amend the judgment so that
Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan would be liable for the unlawful entry
claim. Without conceding their liability, the three officers moved
for a ruling that the Castagnas had not proven a right to any
damages beyond nominal damages.
On June 28, 2019, the district court amended its judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 so that it reflected a judgment in favor
of Christopher and Gavin and against Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan as
to the § 1983 unlawful entry claim. The court awarded the two
brothers one dollar in nominal damages from each of the three
officers. The court did not disturb any of the other jury
verdicts.
This timely appeal followed.7
7 Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan make two arguments on appeal
that we do not reach because we hold that they were entitled to
qualified immunity.
First, they argue that the Castagnas "made a strategic
choice" not to bring a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and
in fact, were the parties to initially suggest a jury instruction
on exigent circumstances. When the district court gave the
instruction, they did not object. Having made these strategic
choices, the officers argue, it was an abuse of discretion for the
district court to then grant the Castagnas a new trial to save
them from the consequences of those choices. Specifically, the
officers argue that the district court misapplied the legal
standards for granting a new trial by conducting a purely legal
analysis, rather than one "keyed to the trial's fairness." In
their view, the fact that the district court declined to actually
hold a new trial and instead heard oral cross-motions pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 only highlighted why the trial was fundamentally
- 14 -
II.
Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan were entitled to qualified
immunity for the unlawful entry claim under a community caretaking
theory.8 As we explain below, neither part of the test for
defeating qualified immunity has been met: the officers' entry
into the home was in fact constitutional under the community
caretaking exception and it was not clearly established at the
time of their entry that the community caretaking exception would
not give them an immunity defense.9
fair and the new trial motion never should have been granted in
the first place.
Second, the officers argue that, even assuming the
district court's premise that it could grant a new trial motion in
these circumstances, the court was wrong to find that the jury's
verdict was against the law or weight of credible evidence. There
was sufficient evidence for the jury to have considered and applied
the emergency aid part of the exigent circumstances exception to
the warrant requirement. Any finding to the contrary must have
been based on the court's own assessment of witness credibility,
which would be error. And even though the jury was never
instructed on the community caretaking exception to the warrant
requirement, "there was sufficient evidence for the jury to
consider and decide the applicability of the community caretaking
exception, [so] the jury's decision in [the officers'] favor was
not unfair and did not affect [the Castagnas'] substantial rights."
Again, we do not reach these arguments.
8 On appeal, the officers also argue that they are entitled
to qualified immunity because their entry fell within the emergency
aid exception to the warrant requirement. We need not reach this
argument.
9 As to qualified immunity for community caretaking, the
officers argue,
[q]ualified immunity impacts the instant case
in two ways. First, as a general matter, the
doctrine is "an immunity from suit" and so if
- 15 -
As to the claim made at trial that the entry into the
bedroom constituted a separate offense, it is waived. It is waived
because the district court did not grant a new trial on that ground
and plaintiffs have not cross-appealed. It is also waived because
it has not been briefed as required on appeal. See United States
v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
A. Qualified Immunity Framework
When sued in their individual capacities, government
officials like police officers Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan are immune
from damages claims unless "(1) they violated a federal statutory
or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct
was 'clearly established at the time.'" Eves v. LePage, 927 F.3d
575, 582-83 (1st Cir. 2019) (en banc) (quoting District of Columbia
it applied here, the District Court should not
have permitted Plaintiffs to proceed further
against Defendants. White v. Pauly, 137 S.
Ct. 548, 551 (2017). Second, qualified
immunity is intertwined with the standard for
a new trial; specifically, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 61 provides that no error "is
ground for granting a new trial [or] setting
aside a verdict" unless "justice requires
otherwise," and further, that "the court must
disregard all errors and defects that do not
affect any party's substantial rights."
Consequently, if Defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity, then a verdict in favor of
Defendants did not affect Plaintiffs'
substantial rights.
Because we hold that that the defendants were entitled
to immunity and thus should not have had judgment entered against
them, we do not analyze the issue in relation to the standard for
a new trial.
- 16 -
v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018)). Courts may analyze either
part of the test first. See
id. at 584.
The "clearly established" inquiry itself has two
elements. The first is focused on whether the law was
"'sufficiently clear' such that every 'reasonable official would
understand that what he is doing' is unlawful." Id. at 583
(alterations omitted) (quoting Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589).
Qualified immunity is supposed to "protect 'all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'"
Id.
(alteration omitted) (quoting White v. Pauly,
137 S. Ct. 548, 551
(2017)).
Because of that, the right that was allegedly violated
must be defined "in a particularized sense so that the contours of
the right are clear to a reasonable official." Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reichle v. Howards,
566 U.S.
658, 665 (2012)). "[E]xisting precedent must have placed the
statutory or constitutional question beyond debate."
Id. (quoting
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). In Eves v. LePage,
this court sitting en banc found that the defendant was entitled
to qualified immunity where "it is 'at least arguable'" that the
defendant's actions were constitutional,
id. (quoting Reichle, 566
U.S. at 669), and where "[t]here was no 'controlling authority'
or even a 'consensus of cases of persuasive authority,'"
id. at
584 (quoting Wilson v. Layne,
526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999)).
- 17 -
The second element "focuses on the objective legal
reasonableness of an official's acts," and "[e]vidence concerning
the defendant's subjective intent is simply irrelevant." Id. at
583 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted) (quoting
Crawford-El v. Britton,
523 U.S. 574, 588, 590 (1998)). This
element provides "some breathing room for a police officer even if
he has made a mistake (albeit a reasonable one) about the
lawfulness of his conduct." Gray v. Cummings,
917 F.3d 1, 10 (1st
Cir. 2019) (quoting Conlogue v. Hamilton,
906 F.3d 150, 155 (1st
Cir. 2018)).
B. The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because Under
the Community Caretaking Exception Their Entry Through the Open
Door of the Home Did Not Violate Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights
Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan are entitled to qualified
immunity for entering Christopher's apartment under the first
prong of the test for qualified immunity. See Eves, 927 F.3d at
584. The entry did not violate the Castagnas' constitutional
rights because the officers were allowed to enter the apartment
through the open door under the community caretaking exception to
the warrant requirement.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend.
IV. In general, "warrantless entries into a home 'are
presumptively unreasonable.'" Morse v. Cloutier, 869 F.3d 16, 23
- 18 -
(1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586
(1980)).
There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One is
the community caretaking exception, first described by the Supreme
Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). In Cady, police
officers searched a disabled car without a warrant because they
believed that there was a gun in the car's trunk and the car was
vulnerable to
vandals. 413 U.S. at 448. The Court held that the
search was constitutionally permissible because it was a
reasonable exercise of the officers' "community caretaking
functions," explaining that officers are often called on to act in
ways "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or
acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal
statute."
Id. at 441. This circuit has long applied the community
caretaking exception described in Cady in the context of
automobiles. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Morales,
929
F.2d 780, 785 (1st Cir. 1991).
This year, after the district court in this case issued
its decision, this court held that the community caretaking
exception could be used to justify police officers' entry into
homes as well. Caniglia v. Strom, 953 F.3d 112, 124 (1st Cir.
2020). Police are entitled to enter homes without a warrant if
they are performing a community caretaking function and their
actions are "within the realm of reason."
Id. at 123 (quoting
- 19 -
Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d at 786). We apply the analysis laid
out in Caniglia and hold that the officers' entry was justified
under the community caretaking exception to the warrant
requirement.
When determining whether the officers' actions are
protected by the community caretaking exception, we "look at the
function performed by [the] police officer." Id. at 125 (quoting
Matalon v. Hynnes,
806 F.3d 627, 634 (1st Cir. 2015)). The
function performed must be "distinct from 'the normal work of
criminal investigation'" to be within "the heartland of the
community caretaking exception."
Id. (quoting Matalon, 806 F.3d
at 634-35). Actions within that heartland include actions taken
to "aid those in distress, combat actual hazards, prevent potential
hazards from materializing, and provide an infinite variety of
services to preserve and protect community safety." Rodriguez-
Morales, 929 F.2d at 784-85 (citing Wayne LaFave, Search and
Seizure § 5.4(c) (2d ed. 1987)); see also Wayne LaFave, Search and
Seizure § 5.4(c) (5th ed. 2012) (similar).
Here, the function being performed by Edwards, Jean, and
Kaplan was a community caretaking one. When the officers arrived
at the scene, they saw intoxicated guests who appeared to be
underage entering and exiting a party freely through an open door.
Jean saw a guest that looked underage leave the house, throw up
twice outside, and then reenter the apartment. The party was loud
- 20 -
enough to be heard from the street. In their efforts to have the
music turned down and make sure any underage guests were safe,
they were aiding people who were potentially in distress,
preventing hazards from materializing, and protecting community
safety.
In determining whether the officers' actions are
protected by the community caretaking exception, we also must
"balance . . . the need for the caretaking activity and the
affected individual[s'] interest in freedom from government
intrusions" to determine if the officers' actions were
reasonable.10 Caniglia, 953 F.3d at 125.
The officers acted reasonably. The officers had an
implicit invitation to go up on the porch and knock on the
apartment's door. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013).
The officers did not enter the home until announcing themselves
and failing to get the guests' attention. They needed to get the
attention of the homeowner because he is the person ultimately
responsible for the impact of the party on the neighborhood.
Because they were responding to a 911 call reporting a noise
10 In Caniglia, this court declined to decide whether
probable cause or merely reasonableness was necessary to seize the
plaintiff under the community caretaking exception, noting that
the standard in that case might be higher because it is "of a
greater magnitude than classic community caretaking functions like
vehicle impoundment." Caniglia, 953 F.3d at 127. In this appeal,
we apply our traditional reasonableness test.
- 21 -
complaint, the officers knew that people in the neighborhood were
disturbed by the party. In addition, underage drinkers pose a
safety risk. This is especially true on a holiday known for
drinking and one that requires extra police officers to be deployed
throughout the city.
Given the open front door, the people coming in and out
of that open door at will, the evident lack of supervision by the
owner of who entered, and the owner's failure to respond, any
expectation of privacy was greatly diminished. It was objectively
reasonable for an officer to have on-going concerns about noise
complaints and underage drinking and determine that they might be
easily resolved by entering through an open door (the same one the
guests were coming and going through freely) to bring these
complaints to the owner's attention.11
The officers' actions do not implicate any of the
"limitations" on the community caretaking doctrine. Caniglia, 953
F.3d at 126. Nothing the officers said or did reasonably raises
the possibility that they were relying on concerns about the noisy,
11 In a 28(j) letter, the plaintiffs argue that Caniglia
allows warrantless entry into homes under the community caretaking
exception only when there is immediate danger. Not so. Caniglia
happened to implicate the specific community caretaking function
of trying to prevent someone in a state of crisis from using
firearms. 953 F.3d at 125. That serious risk of harm was balanced
against relatively serious government incursions on the
individual's personal freedoms.
Id. Police officers perform a
variety of functions when in their community caretaking role, not
all of which must implicate a risk of imminent harm.
- 22 -
open, and unsupervised party as "a mere subterfuge for
investigation" of a crime. Id. (quoting Rodriguez-Morales, 929
F.2d at 787). Even if they had been motivated in part to enforce
underage drinking laws, for example, "the possible existence of
mixed motives will not defeat the officer's . . . entitlement to
the exception."
Matalon, 806 F.3d at 635; see also
Caniglia, 953
F.3d at 128 (applying the community caretaking exception where the
plaintiff was "imminently dangerous" to others and thus had the
potential to commit a criminal offense).
The officers were able to give "specific articulable
facts," Caniglia, 953 F.3d at 126 (quoting United States v. King,
990 F.2d 1552, 1560 (10th Cir. 1993)), to show their actions were
"justified on objective grounds," id. (quoting
Rodriguez-Morales,
929 F.2d at 787). They were able to describe specific observations
about the party, its effect on the neighborhood, and their reasons
for being concerned about at least some of the guests' safety.
They could articulate why it was necessary to enter the home to
talk to the homeowner when they could not get anyone's attention
from outside of the house. The plaintiffs try to undermine this
by arguing that the officers' actions, such as not immediately
searching out the vomiting teenager, for example, show a subjective
lack of concern for the party guests' safety. But the proper test
is objective, and people who are below the legal drinking age and
apparently sick from alcohol are an objective safety risk.
- 23 -
Further, the officers' actions "dr[e]w their essence"
from "sound police procedure." Id. (citing Rodriguez-Morales, 929
F.2d at 785). As said in Caniglia, "sound police procedure" is
defined "broadly and in practical terms."
Id. The definition
"encompasses police officers' 'reasonable choices' among available
options."
Id. (quoting Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d at 787). There
is no requirement that the officers had to have waited for a longer
period outside the door, for example, in the hopes that someone
eventually would hear them and fetch the owners without them ever
entering the home. There is "no requirement that officers must
select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community
caretaking responsibilities."
Id. (quoting Lockhart-Bembery v.
Sauro,
498 F.3d 69, 76 (1st Cir. 2007)).
C. The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because in
2013 the Law Was Not Clearly Established that Entering the Home
Was Unconstitutional Under the Community Caretaking Exception
The officers are entitled to qualified immunity under
the second prong of the qualified immunity test as well. See Eves,
927 F.3d at 584. In 2013, there was no clearly established law
that the officers' entrance into the apartment fell outside of the
scope of the community caretaking exception.
As said, this circuit had not explicitly held until this
year that the community caretaking exception could be applied to
homes. Before 2013, some circuits had held that Cady's community
caretaking exception applies only to automobiles, not homes. See
- 24 -
Ray v. Twp. of Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 176-77 (3d Cir. 2010)
(collecting cases). But three other circuits before that date had
applied the exception to homes as well as automobiles. See United
States v. Quezada,
448 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 2006); United
States v. Rohrig,
98 F.3d 1506, 1520-23 (6th Cir. 1996);12 United
States v. York,
895 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (5th Cir. 1990). And
neither the First Circuit nor the Supreme Court had held that the
exception was limited to automobiles. In Lockhart-Bembery, this
circuit did not limit the exception's application to the mere
search of a car; it upheld an order by police officers to move a
car off the side of a public road for safety
reasons. 498 F.3d at
75-77.
There was no consensus of persuasive authority at the
time of the officers' entry that the community caretaking exception
could only apply to automobile searches. We reached the same
conclusion in MacDonald v. Town of Eastham, 745 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.
2014), an opinion that post-dates the Castagnas' party by a year
but relies on precedents that all pre-date the party. In
MacDonald, this court explained that "the scope and boundaries of
12 The Sixth Circuit wrote about "exigent circumstances" as
well as community caretaking, but we still understand this case as
applying a version of the community caretaking exception. As we
discussed in MacDonald v. Town of Eastham, 745 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.
2014), "courts do not always draw fine lines between the community
caretaking exception and other exceptions to the warrant
requirement."
Id. at 13.
- 25 -
the community caretaking exception [were] nebulous [in 2014]," but
precisely because of this legal uncertainty, the court determined
that the law was not clearly established that community caretaking
could not apply to searches of a home. Id. at 14.
Nor was there a consensus of authority in 2013 that the
specific circumstances surrounding the officers' entry into
Christopher's apartment made their entry an unreasonable
application of the community caretaking doctrine. This circuit's
pre-2013 community caretaking decisions had established a
framework for when the exception might apply to officers' searches.
These decisions were the basis for the law applied in Caniglia.
The community caretaking exception is a recognition that
[t]he policeman plays a rather special role in
our society; in addition to being an enforcer
of the criminal law, he is a "jack-of-all-
emergencies," W. LaFave, Search and Seizure
§ 5.4(c) (2d ed. 1987), expected to aid those
in distress, combat actual hazards, prevent
potential hazards from materializing, and
provide an infinite variety of services to
preserve and protect community safety. . . .
The rubric is a catchall for the wide range of
responsibilities that police officers must
discharge aside from their criminal
enforcement activities.
Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d at 784-85.
The imperatives of the Fourth Amendment are
satisfied in connection with the performance
of non-investigatory duties, including
community caretaking tasks, so long as the
procedure involved and its implementation are
reasonable. [Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.3d at
785.] The community caretaking doctrine gives
- 26 -
officers a great deal of flexibility in how
they carry out their community caretaking
function. See id. The ultimate inquiry is
whether, under the circumstances, the officer
acted "within the realm of reason." Id. at
786. Reasonableness does not depend on any
particular factor; the court must take into
account the various facts of the case at hand.
Lockhart-Bembery, 498 F.3d at 75 (some citations omitted). In
2013, like today, "[t]here [was] no requirement that officers must
select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community
caretaking responsibilities."
Id. at 76.
The officers in 2013 also could have looked to other
circuits that had had applied the community caretaking exception
to warrantless entries into homes in circumstances analogous to
this case. The Sixth Circuit, in Rohrig, held that police officers
were permitted to enter a home without a warrant to search for the
homeowner where they were responding to a noise complaint, knocked
on the door and received no response, the door was open, and the
officers announced their presence. 98 F.3d at 1509. The court
understood this entry as an example of the officers exercising
their "community caretaking functions,"
id. at 1521 (citing
Cady,
413 U.S. at 441), and said that their actions were reasonable
"because nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires us to set aside
our common sense,"
id.
Similarly, in York, the Fifth Circuit held that the
community caretaking exception applied to officers' entry into a
- 27 -
home when they were protecting guests who were removing their
belongings from the house of a host who had become abusive and
threatening. 895 F.2d at 1029-30. The court in York found it
relevant that the host was exhibiting drunken behavior and was
posing a risk of harm to others.
Id. at 1030.
The Eighth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Arnold,
affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, holding that
the community caretaking exception provided the police officer
with a lawful basis for entering a home. Quezada, 448 F.3d at
1007-08. In that case, an officer attempting to serve a child
protection order became concerned that the homeowner was in the
house but somehow unable to respond.
Id. at 1008. He knocked on
the apartment door, which swung open on his knocking, and announced
himself by yelling into the apartment several times.
Id. at 1006.
When he heard no response, he entered the home.
Id.
Given this legal background, the officers could not have
been on notice that their actions would clearly violate the
Castagnas' constitutional rights. The officers testified that
they were not intending to arrest anyone at the party; as in
Rohrig, they merely wanted to make sure the music was turned down
so it would stop disturbing the neighbors. As in York, they were
concerned with mitigating the risk of harm of excessive
drunkenness. Like the officer in Quezada, the police officers
here knocked on the door and announced themselves before entering.
- 28 -
Their actions were at least arguably within the scope of the
community caretaking exception. And for many of the same reasons
discussed earlier in the opinion, their actions were at least
arguably reasonable under the law in 2013.
As this circuit held in MacDonald, a similar case in
which officers announced their presence at an open door, received
no reply, and entered a home without a warrant, "neither the
general dimensions of the community caretaking exception nor the
case law addressing the application of that exception provides the
sort of red flag that would have semaphored to reasonable police
officers that their entry into the plaintiff's home was illegal."
745 F.3d at 15. "Qualified immunity is meant to protect government
officials where no such red flags are flying, and we discern no
error in the application of the doctrine to this case."
Id.
(citation omitted).
D. Plaintiffs Waived the Argument that the Officers Violated
Their Rights by Remaining in the House After the Music Was Turned
Off
We briefly address the claim that the officers are
separately liable for violating the Castagnas' constitutional
rights, not only by entering the apartment originally, but by
remaining in the apartment after the music was turned off and going
toward the bedroom to look for the homeowner.13 Although the
13 The testimony taken in the light most favorable to the
defendants shows that the officers knocked on the bedroom door and
- 29 -
officers' decision to remain in the apartment is more problematic
than their decision to enter the apartment originally, the
Castagnas have waived the argument that this is a separate
violation of their rights.
The argument that there are two separately actionable
Fourth Amendment claims in this case was made in the district
court, but in its new trial order, the district court did not
analyze the unlawful entry claim that way. The plaintiffs did not
take a cross-appeal from the ruling that the entry into the bedroom
claim was not independent of the entry into the home claim.
Regardless, the argument is waived for lack of developed
argument on appeal. The plaintiffs' statement of issues only
discusses the claim about the initial unlawful entry into the
home.14 The only legal support provided by the plaintiffs for
their contention that these should be analyzed as separate claims
are two inapposite district court opinions. See Barbosa v. Hyland,
Christopher answered it. When Christopher saw Jean looking at the
marijuana in his bedroom, he intentionally slammed the door on
Jean's foot. Once he did that, Jean would have been entitled to
enter the bedroom to arrest Christopher.
14 Plaintiffs' briefing suggests there are potentially two
actionable claims where they argue in the alternative that
"[a]ssuming arguendo that Defendants' initial minimal entry was
permissible for the purpose of gaining the attention of the guests,
they could go no further after doing so" because "they had
accomplished their goal" of turning off the music and were not
trying to help the teenager who had twice vomited outside.
- 30 -
No. 11-11997-JGD, 2013 WL 6244157 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2013); Walker
v. Jackson,
952 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D. Mass. 2013).15 Arguments made
perfunctorily and without developed argumentation are waived.
See, e.g., Jordan v. Town of Waldoboro,
943 F.3d 532, 546-47 (1st
Cir. 2019) (citing
Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17).
III.
We reverse the judgment for the Castagnas and remand
for the district court to enter judgment for Edwards, Jean, and
Kaplan.
15 Walker discussed the emergency aid exception, not the
community caretaking exception. The district court in Walker found
that an officer who searched the home after two other officers had
already completed a search was not covered by the exception. 952
F. Supp. 2d at 349-50. In Barbosa, the district court specified
that the officers "did not enter or remain in the house for any
reasons supported by the community caretaking doctrine," but both
aspects of the claim are analyzed together.
2013 WL 6244157, at
*7-9.
- 31 -
