Hawkins v. Mitchell

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-police officers’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s 4th Amendment rights by entering defendant’s home without permission or warrant and arresting plaintiff after responding to 911 call indicating that plaintiff was potentially involved in domestic dispute, and where 911 caller apologized for making said call and merely requested defendants to obtain her car keys from plaintiff. Ct. rejected defendants’ claim that they could properly enter plaintiff’s home without warrant for purpose of preventing serious injury or to merely ask plaintiff about 911 call, since defendants failed to establish exigent circumstance for doing so where there was no report of physical attack. Moreover, plaintiff could properly establish 1st Amendment claim based on assertion that defendants arrested him in retaliation for calling his attorney during his exchange with defendants, where said attorney repeatedly advised him to inform defendants to leave his home. Plaintiff was also entitled to new trial on his excessive force and willful and wanton battery claims, where Dist. Ct. gave erroneous instruction indicating that lawfulness of defendants’ presence plaintiff’s home was not issue in case, and where defendants’ counsel repeatedly misled jury into thinking that defendants’ presence in plaintiff’s home without warrant was lawful.