LUER v. II (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-06-03No. No: 18-3512

Summary · law.co

Holding. The motion to recall and stay the mandate is denied because Caniglia v. Strom, decided after the events at issue, does not address what rights were clearly established as of July 2016, the relevant date for the qualified immunity analysis.

The appellees sought to recall and stay the court's mandate following the Supreme Court's decision in Caniglia v. Strom, which eliminated the community-caretaking exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements. The appellees argued that the court's prior precedent recognizing a community-caretaking exception to the home aligned with the circuit court decision disapproved in Caniglia. However, the court denied the motion because the qualified immunity analysis turned on what constitutional rights were clearly established in July 2016, not on whether Caniglia's later ruling would have changed that earlier determination. The officers had acted consistently with circuit precedent available at the time of the events in question.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Application of clearly established law standard in qualified immunity analysis after intervening Supreme Court precedent
Community-caretaking exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement
Whether retroactive application of Caniglia affects prior qualified immunity determinations

Procedural posture

Appellees moved to recall and stay the mandate in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent decided after this court's judgment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER

Appellees move to recall and stay the mandate in light of Caniglia v. Strom, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 209 L.Ed.2d 604 (2021), which held that there is no “freestanding community- caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, we held that the appellant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity in certain respects because the officers did not violate rights of the appellees that were clearly established as of July 2016—long before Caniglia was decided. Appellees’ motion recognizes that this court had issued “prior opinions extending the community-caretaking exception to the home,” and argues that this courts precedent aligns with the decision of the First Circuit that was disapproved in Caniglia. The police officers were acting in light of pre-existing circuit law, and this appeal required us to determine what rights were clearly established as of July 2016. Because Caniglia did not address that issue, the motion is denied. There is no merit to appellees’ suggestion that recall of the mandate is necessary to permit the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari.

Judge Kobes concurs in the result.