Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1987

Anderson v. Creighton

483 U.S. 635 | 107 S. Ct. 3034 | 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 | 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2894 | 55 U.S.L.W. 5092

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case requires courts to define the asserted right with factual specificity: even when a warrantless search ultimately violates the Fourth Amendment, an officer avoids personal damages if a reasonable officer could have believed the search lawful under clearly established law and the information available at the time.

Background

FBI agent Russell Anderson joined state and federal officers in a warrantless search of Robert and Sarisse Creighton’s home on the night of November 11, 1983. Anderson believed that Vadaain Dixon, a suspected bank robber, might be inside. Dixon was not found there. The Creightons sued Anderson for damages under Bivens, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.

Before discovery, the District Court granted Anderson summary judgment. It concluded that undisputed facts established probable cause to search the home and exigent circumstances excusing the lack of a warrant. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the legality of the search. It also denied qualified immunity because the general right to be free from a warrantless home search absent probable cause and exigent circumstances was clearly established.

The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Anderson could nevertheless obtain qualified immunity by showing that a reasonable officer could have believed this particular warrantless search was lawful.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an officer sued for a Fourth Amendment violation may receive qualified immunity when clearly established law states the general warrant-and-probable-cause rule, but a reasonable officer could have believed the particular search was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.

Holding

Yes. Qualified immunity turns on whether, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer, a reasonable officer could have believed the particular search lawful.

Reasoning

Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from damages liability when their conduct was objectively legally reasonable under clearly established law. The doctrine seeks to preserve a remedy for constitutional violations while protecting officials from the costs and hesitation produced by insubstantial damages suits.

A court cannot define the allegedly violated right at an excessively abstract level. If the right were framed only as a general right to due process or to be free from unreasonable searches, every constitutional violation would automatically defeat immunity. The right instead must be particularized enough that its contours would make the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct apparent to a reasonable official.

The Eighth Circuit therefore erred by stopping at the general proposition that warrantless home searches require probable cause and exigent circumstances. That proposition did not itself answer whether, under the facts confronting Anderson, a reasonable officer could have concluded that probable cause and exigent circumstances existed.

The inquiry remains objective, even though it is fact-specific. The relevant question is not Anderson’s personal belief or intent, but whether a reasonable officer possessing the information available to the searching officers could have believed the search lawful under clearly established Fourth Amendment principles.

The Court did not decide that Anderson was in fact immune. On remand, the lower court was to determine first whether the conduct alleged by the Creightons could reasonably have been thought lawful. If Anderson’s asserted facts materially differed from the Creightons’ account, narrowly tailored discovery might be necessary to resolve the immunity question.

Issue #2

Whether the Fourth Amendment’s use of the word “unreasonable” bars qualified immunity for an officer whose search is ultimately found unconstitutional.

Holding

No. Qualified immunity applies to alleged Fourth Amendment violations, including warrantless searches.

Reasoning

The Creightons argued that an officer cannot reasonably commit an unreasonable search. The Court rejected that semantic argument because Fourth Amendment reasonableness and qualified-immunity reasonableness serve different functions: the first defines whether the Constitution was violated, while the second determines whether an official should personally pay damages for an objectively reasonable legal mistake.

Fourth Amendment doctrine often requires difficult judgments about probable cause and exigency. Officers who make objectively reasonable mistakes in applying those standards should receive the same qualified-immunity protection afforded officials making reasonable mistakes in other constitutional settings.

Prior cases had already applied qualified immunity in cases alleging Fourth Amendment violations, including unconstitutional arrests and warrantless wiretaps. The Court declined to create a categorical rule withholding immunity whenever an officer conducts an unlawful warrantless search.

Issue #3

Whether officers conducting warrantless searches of an innocent third party’s home for a fugitive should be denied qualified immunity as a special exception.

Holding

No. The Court declined to create a special exception for fugitive searches of third parties’ homes.

Reasoning

The Creightons relied on an asserted English common-law rule imposing strict liability when officers unsuccessfully searched a third party’s home for a fugitive. The Court held that modern qualified immunity is not mechanically controlled by old and often intricate common-law rules.

Harlow had already replaced common-law inquiries into subjective malice with an objective legal-reasonableness standard applicable across the board. Creating fact- and claim-specific exceptions based on historical tort rules would make immunity doctrine complex and unpredictable.

Qualified immunity is meant to let officials reasonably anticipate when personal damages liability may arise under current American law. Requiring officers and courts to sort through varying common-law rules for each form of official action would undermine that objective.

Dissents

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, viewed the Court’s decision as creating an unjustified second layer of reasonableness. In his view, an officer whose conduct is constitutionally unreasonable should not also escape damages merely because another officer could have thought the conduct reasonable. The probable-cause standard itself already gives officers appropriate room for reasonable mistakes.

He argued that Harlow’s pre-discovery qualified-immunity framework was developed chiefly to protect high-level executive officials from the burdens of litigation when the governing legal rule was unsettled. Those concerns do not translate automatically to officers making warrantless entries in the field, where court testimony and fact development are ordinary features of the job and where the Fourth Amendment supplies concrete, long-established limits.

Stevens maintained that the constitutional rules at issue were clearly established: a warrantless home entry requires probable cause, and exigent circumstances excuse a warrant only in narrowly defined situations. Anderson did not contend that those legal principles were novel; instead, he disputed whether the facts he faced fit within them. Because the parties disputed those facts, the Creightons were entitled to discovery before the court could resolve either the constitutional claim or any good-faith defense.

The dissent accepted that an officer might assert a reasonable-good-faith defense at trial in an appropriate case, but rejected converting that fact-dependent defense into Harlow immunity that could terminate the action before discovery. It stressed the especially serious privacy invasion alleged here: armed officers forcibly entered an innocent family’s home at night without a warrant and, on the Creightons’ account, without probable cause or a valid emergency.

In Stevens’s view, the majority counted the law-enforcement interest twice—once in the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause standard and again in the immunity rule—while giving insufficient weight to the home’s special constitutional protection. The government could train or indemnify its officers rather than leave innocent homeowners to bear the full cost of an unconstitutional intrusion.