White v. Hefel

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants-police officials violated plaintiffs’ 4^th Amendment rights by using excessive force and searching plaintiffs’ home during police chase when third-party whom defendants were chasing abruptly entered plaintiffs’ home, Dist. Ct. did not err in refusing plaintiffs’ request to admit GPS evidence that purported to track path that defendants took during chase of third-party, where: (1) said evidence would have been too confusing for jury; (2) witness used by plaintiffs to explain said evidence was undisclosed expert for purposes of Rule 702; and (3) plaintiffs failed to explain relevance of determining how defendants arrived at their home during police chase. Moreover, defendants had probable cause to enter plaintiffs’ home without warrant, where: (1) third-party was spotted on street corner in known area having significant drug trade; (2) third-party fled from defendants when one defendant approached him; (3) defendants had probable cause to believe that third-party was trespassing when he entered plaintiffs’ home at end of police chase; and (4) defendants did not need to obtain warrant to enter plaintiffs’ home when they were in hot pursuit of third-party. Also, while Dist. Ct. erred in taking judicial notice of acts underlying third-party’s guilty plea when determining whether defendants had probable cause to enter plaintiffs’ home, any error was harmless or waived when plaintiffs invited said error by insisting at trial that entire guilty-plea transcript be introduced into evidence.