Benedda Cotten v. Ryan Miller, No. 22-2872 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs sued police officers under Sec. 1983 after the officers made warrantless entry into their apartment. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs and Defendants appealed.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed. While warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, there is an exception when officers act with probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and an objectively reasonable basis to believe that exigent circumstances exist.
Here, the officers were dispatched to the scene in response to a report of domestic violence. The report received by the officers explained that the 911 call came from a neighbor who thought “abuse” was occurring and heard a “verbal argument,” “someone being thrown around,” and “yelling and screaming” in the upstairs apartment. The neighbor stated that a woman, her boyfriend, and a child lived in the apartment. This created anm exigency, justifying warrantless entry.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiffs claimed the defendant police officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by making a warrantless search of plaintiffs' apartment, and the district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs. Reversed, as the officers had probable cause, based on a 911 call and information gathered from plaintiffs' neighbors, to believe than domestic violence had occurred in the plaintiffs' apartment; further the circumstances created an exigency which justified warrantless entry; plaintiffs' denial through a closed door that anything had happened was not sufficient to dispel the officer's concern that a potential victim was injured or threatened with future harm; additionally, the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the domestic violence suspect was still in the home with the putative victim; under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable officer in defendants' position could have concluded that that entry was necessary to provide assistance or prevent future harm; the entry did not violate plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, and the officers were entitled to summary judgment.
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.