Lane v. Boyd, No. 18-2194 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an Arkansas state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against his former parole officer and another police officer, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the officers' motions to dismiss, holding that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity. The court held that, even assuming the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to knock and announce their presence before entering plaintiff's dwelling, it was not clearly established in January 2015 that failing to knock and announce before entering the dwelling of a parolee was unlawful. The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that there was a robust consensus of persuasive authority on the question.
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - civil rights. In a case where state officers entered a parolee's motel room without knocking and announcing their presence, the district court erred in finding the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights; even assuming that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established at the time of their actions that failing to knock and announce before entering the dwelling of a parolee was unlawful; plaintiff's argument that there was a robust consensus of persuasive authority on the question is rejected.
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.