Der, et al. v. Connolly, et al., No. 11-1162 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their son, sued, inter alia, the Isanti County Deputy Sheriff in his individual and official capacity under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and relevant state law, seeking damages for alleged injuries suffered when the deputy entered their home without a warrant. The deputy was dispatched to plaintiffs' home to conduct a "welfare check on a five-year-old son and an intoxicated mother." The jury returned a verdict in favor of the deputy and the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. On appeal, plaintiffs sought a new trial, arguing that the district court gave erroneous jury instructions and made erroneous evidentiary rulings. The court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on who bore the burden of proof; in instructing the jury on the emergency aid exception; in admitting the preliminary breath test result for the limited purpose of determining the reasonableness of the deputy's actions after he administered the test; and in excluding the proffered testimony of a subsequent home-entry incident involving the deputy. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. In a Section 1983 action for a warrantless arrest, the district court correctly instructed the jury that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving that she did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to a police officer's entry into her home and that it was objectively unreasonable for the officer to believe that an emergency justifying his entry existed; "emergency-aid-doctrine" instruction was not erroneous; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results of plaintiff's preliminary breath test for the limited purpose of determining the reasonable of the officer's actions after the administered the test; no error in excluding evidence of a subsequent home-entry event involving the officer.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.