Edwards v. Jolliffe-Blake

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officers’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ section 1983 action alleging that defendants obtained warrant that lacked probable cause to search plaintiffs’ home for drugs and third-party (where police did not find any drugs or third-party after executing warrant), and that defendants performed unreasonable search and used excessive force during said search. Defendants had probable cause to search plaintiffs’ home, where: (1) tipster claimed that he made recent purchase of heroin from third-party in plaintiffs’ home; (2) tipster alleged that during said purchase he saw 100 similar baggies containing heroin and that third-party offered to sell tipster more heroin; (3) police confirmed with tipster location of plaintiffs’ home and identity of third-party; and (4) day after police obtained above information from tipster, defendants obtained warrant to search plaintiffs’ home during procedure where tipster testified in front of trial court that issued warrant. Fact that tipster had no prior relationship with defendants or had no track record of providing reliable information did not require different result. Moreover, minor discrepancies in description of plaintiffs’ home would not have given defendants good reason to believe that they were searching wrong home. Also, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity when procuring and executing warrant, and plaintiff failed to show that defendants entertained serious doubts as to accuracy of information reported to trial court. (Dissent filed.)