This is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action where the plaintiff alleged police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they forcibly made a warrantless entry into his house to render medical assistance as a result of a 911 call. The plaintiff also alleged excessive use of force when the officers used pepper spray to gain entrance when the plaintiff refused to allow them inside and again when they restrained him. Applying the two-prong analysis for qualified immunity under Pearson v. California, the Fifth Circuit held that: 1) the plaintiff had pleaded facts to support the argument that no emergency exigency existed, but 2) the plaintiff did not show that this right was clearly establish and therefore granted qualified immunity to the officers. The court further held that the pepper spray was administered by an officer that was not a party to the suit and that the restraint used by the officers was not unreasonable and therefore no Constitutional violation took place.
- Post published:May 8, 2019