REHN V. CITY OF SEATTLE, ET AL. – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity, holding that the officers' mistaken entry and use of force were not clearly established as unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Standard: Clearly established law and robust consensus test for qualified immunity
Vote: Unpublished memorandum disposition reversing the district court's denial of qualified immunity.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces that qualified immunity protects officers in novel or fact-specific situations where the unlawfulness of their conduct is not clearly established by binding precedent, even when they make significant errors like entering the wrong residence.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that denied qualified immunity to police officers who mistakenly entered the wrong apartment. The court held that the officers' actions were not clearly established as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment given the exigent circumstances and lack of binding precedent.

Background

Plaintiff Elisabeth Rehn sued the City of Seattle and three police officers after they mistakenly entered her apartment with weapons drawn. The officers had responded to a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute and suicidal ideations. They observed broken glass matching the report but entered the wrong building, which adjoined the correct one. The district court denied the officers’ motion for qualified immunity at summary judgment.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the case de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Regarding the warrantless entry, the court applied the standard from Maryland versus Garrison, which asks if the mistake was objectively understandable and reasonable. The court found that existing precedent did not establish a robust consensus that such a mistaken entry was unconstitutional, especially given the exigent circumstances present. Regarding the excessive force claim, the court noted that while pointing a weapon at a compliant suspect can be unreasonable, the officers held their weapons in a low-ready position and never pointed them at the plaintiff. The court distinguished prior cases where weapons were drawn and pointed at suspects who were already secured.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that qualified immunity protects officers in novel or fact-specific situations where the unlawfulness of their conduct is not clearly established by binding precedent, even when they make significant errors like entering the wrong residence.