It was in this way that Sgt. Walker and Deputy Harvey ended up knocking on the back door of Mrs. D’Anna Bates’ residence at 9 a.m. in the morning. Mrs. Bates’ 14 year-old daughter, “S.B.”, answered the door and, when the officers asked if J.T. was in the house, informed them that he wasn’t. Not to be deterred, the officers asked S.B. if they could come in and, when she responded “I don’t know,” walked in anyway. Sgt. Walker and Deputy Harvey proceeded to enter the bedroom of Mrs. Bates’ 18 year-old step-daughter, “H.B.”, and asked her whether J.T. was in the house. H.B. replied that she did not know, and when the officers asked if they could look around, responded “I guess so.”
Sgt. Walker and Deputy Harvey continued their warrantless tour of the Bates residence by entering the bedroom of Mrs. Bates’ 19 year-old son, “C.L.”, where they found C.L. and the elusive J.T. asleep. The officers roused the sleeping youths and instructed J.T. to get dressed. Unfortunately for them, they also roused the formidable Mrs. Bates by shouting at the boys.
Mrs. Bates came to investigate and, upon discovering the officers, demanded to see a search warrant. Deputy Harvey retorted that he had a court order, which Mrs. Bates demanded to see, however, the order had been left in Sgt. Walker’s patrol car. Mrs. Bates then demanded that the officers leave her home. Deputy Harvey then threatened to arrest Mrs. Bates for obstruction of justice if she continued to impede the officer’s execution of the civil commitment order.
When Mrs. Bates would not desist in her demands that the officers show her a search warrant or leave her home, Deputy Harvey made the mistake of grabbing Mrs. Bates and attempting to handcuff her. However, Deputy Harvey’s cuffs got caught on his watch, and Mrs. Bates freed herself and ran for the bathroom. Deputy Harvey overtook Mrs. Bates, grabbed her and struck her in the face. Sgt. Walker joined Deputy Harvey and pinned Mrs. Bates to the floor.
At this point, Gary Bates arrived home through the front door to the spectacle of two officers pinning his wife face-down on the floor. In the same instant, Deputy Harvey caught a glimpse out of a window of J.T. running across the field behind the Bates’ home. Deputy Harvey, who had had the foresight to call for back up on this challenging assignment, instructed an officer to remain with Mrs. Bates, while he rushed off on foot in pursuit of J.T.
Mrs. Bates managed to slip out of one of the handcuffs and move freely about the home, while her husband called Pike County Sheriff Thomas, with whom he was acquainted, and informed him of the happenings at his home.
Meanwhile, Deputy Harvey’s foot chase of J.T. came up empty-handed, and Deputy Harvey headed back to the Bates residence with the intention of arresting Mrs. Bates for obstruction of justice. Mr. and Mrs. Bates were talking in the driveway and, upon noticing Deputy Harvey’s approach, went inside the home. Deputy Harvey entered the Bates residence a second time and handcuffed and arrested Mrs. Bates. Mrs. Bates was booked and released on bond later that day. J.T. was later found sitting by the side of a road by another officer.
Mrs. Bates filed an internal affairs complaint against Deputy Harvey. Deputy Harvey proceeded have a warrant sworn out for Mrs. Bates’ arrest for allegedly violently kicking him in the groin during the incident at the Bates residence. Mrs. Bates was arrested a second time, and the Pike County Grand Jury indicted her on one count of felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b). A jury ultimately acquitted her of the charge.
Mrs. Bates responded by filing an action against Deputy Harvey pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he falsely arrested her. The district court denied Deputy Harvey’s motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, and he appealed. Which brings us to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Bates v. Harvey, No. 07-10570, 2008 WL 565774 (11th Cir. 2008), which sets forth the preceding facts.
In determining whether Deputy Harvey was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the Court held that that Deputy Harvey’s warrantless search of the home could not be justified under the consent exception to the warrant requirement by Mrs. Bates’ daughter’s equivocal statement “I guess so,” or that the commitment order’s statement that J.T. “present[ed] a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others…” provided exigent circumstances to search the home, and concluded that “his warrantless entry, search and arrest in Mrs. Bates home, he violated Mrs. Bates's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. at *12. However, the Court stopped just short of finding entirely for the profoundly wronged Mrs. Bates by holding that:
[A] reasonable officer could have believed, at the time Deputy Harvey acted, that the averments in the civil commitment order about a person presenting a substantial imminent threat of danger to himself or others presented a sufficiently emergent situation, justifying the warrantless entry and search of a third party's home for that person. Because the contours of the exigent circumstances exception were not sufficiently clear, prior to this case, to give a reasonable officer fair and clear warning that a warrantless entry and search such as this one was not justified, Deputy Harvey is entitled to qualified immunity.
Id. at *14.
Mrs. Bates' only relief against an egregious Fourth Amendment violation of home and hearth by roving officers was apparently an alleged kick in the groin.
