Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
Chelsea Knighton was married to Rob Graves. Kathy Graves, Rob’s mother and Knighton’s then-mother-in-law, is the Circuit Clerk of Benton County. Knighton and Kathy have had a long and difficult relationship. This incident took place after several years of drug-related issues. According to Kathy, she received a phone call that Rob was passed out in his car at a gas station. She went looking for him and, after not finding him there, went to Rob and Knighton’s home. She initially received no answer, so Kathy began loudly banging on the door until Rob and Knighton emerged.
Kathy told Rob to get in the car, and she left with him. Knighton, in her deposition, could not recall this initial interaction and did not remember Rob coming home at all the night before. Kathy drove towards the town square of Ashland, Mississippi and decided to stop at the office of Mississippi Department of Corrections Officer Steve Belew. As the Circuit Clerk, she knew Belew and that he had worked with drug offenders in his role as a probation officer. Belew met with Rob in his office while Kathy remained outside. In this meeting, Belew said that Rob confessed to using drugs and stated that Knighton was passed out at the house where their kids were. Rob, Kathy, and Belew all returned to the house.
As the district court noted, “[h]ere the facts diverge.” According to Knighton, she was making coffee when the three arrived. Either Belew or Kathy demanded she take a drug test, but Knighton told them to leave. Belew “aggressively forced her into a bathroom and stood over her while she tried to provide a urine sample” but she could not, so Belew took her to the living room and “pinned her down with his knee, grabbed her face, pried open her mouth and forced an oral swab into her mouth.” Belew announced that the test was positive for opiates but refused to show Knighton the test results. Belew and Kathy then left with the children and “told her that she would be arrested.”
Defendants recall the events very differently. According to them, Rob was loudly knocking on the door to get Knighton’s attention and after receiving no response, they looked in the window and saw Knighton unconscious on the couch. She finally woke up and “crawled” to the door. When they entered the house, she and Rob began arguing and Kathy went to care for the children. Kathy was concerned specifically for the infant, who was breastfeeding and so could have been exposed to drugs from Knighton. Belew told Knighton that she did not need to take the drug test, but Rob forced her into the bathroom. She then agreed to take the oral drug test produced by Belew. According to him, Rob and Knighton both admitted to using fentanyl.
The parties agree, however, that Kathy requested Sheriff Robert Goolsby go to Knighton’s home. Belew told Goolsby that she had tested positive for drugs and admitted to using fentanyl. Goolsby arrested Knighton and swore in an affidavit that she and Rob had used drugs in the presence of their kids. Knighton was tested for drugs multiple times after her arrest but never tested positive. As a result of these allegations, Knighton lost custody of her children for over a year and was briefly jailed before the charges against her were dropped.
The district court denied qualified immunity for all claims against Belew, and Goolsby. The 5th reversed some claims and dismissed others as seen below.
Analysis
A. Unlawful Seizure
Knighton argues that Defendants committed an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment when she was forced to take the drug test. A seizure of a person must be based on probable cause particularized with respect to that person unless a constitutionally adequate substitute for probable cause exists. See Club Retro.
Officer Belew asserts that the seizure was justified under the exigent circumstances and community caretaker doctrines. Because Knighton’s baby was breastfeeding and nonresponsive, Belew argues, he was justified in forcibly testing Knighton to ensure that her baby did not need medical attention. We disagree.
Officials investigating possible child abuse must satisfy the typical Fourth Amendment standards of a court order, consent, or exigent circumstances. See McMurry. It is clear that, according to Knighton’s version of the facts, neither a court order nor consent applies here. The well-recognized exception for exigent circumstances applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Exigent circumstances exist when a child faces immediate danger. Belew’s decision to force Knighton to take a drug test is not excused by exigent circumstances because, if he believed the children to be in danger, the correct course of action would be to remove them from the home—which he did. But he also chose to essentially begin gathering evidence against Knighton rather than simply removing them from the situation. So even if Belew had a reasonable basis to believe the children were in danger because of Knighton’s drug use, a drug test does not assist him in resolving that danger. After all, there is, of course, no longer any exigency if the emergency has dissipated. By removing the children from the home, he was removing them from immediate harm, so he had no cause to force Knighton to take the drug test.
Furthermore, the law was clearly established by McMurry that officials investigating alleged child abuse or neglect had to comply with applicable Fourth Amendment principles. This is sufficient to put Belew on notice that it would be a constitutional violation to force Knighton to take a drug test when doing so was unrelated to any danger the children might face. And McMurry “foreclosed the possibility of a lower standard justified by community caretaking,” so that doctrine is inapplicable as well. Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Belew’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment.
Sheriff Goolsby, however, is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. He was not present during the drug test and Knighton points to no evidence that he played any role in it.
B. False Arrest
A constitutional claim for false arrest requires a showing that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.
Sheriff Goolsby argues that he had probable cause to arrest Knighton for child neglect based on Kathy and Belew’s statements to him that she had tested positive for opioids and admitted to using fentanyl, as well as the Chancery Court testimony of a Family Protection Specialist named Kayla Reno. While Reno’s testimony does support the inference that Knighton had used drugs in the past, she did not testify until November of 2021, nine months after Knighton was arrested. So, this testimony is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis.
A police officer may rely on the statements of other officers and is entitled to qualified immunity if it was reasonable for him to believe, on the basis of the statements, that probable cause for the arrest existed. Knighton has not argued as to why it would not have been reasonable because, even if Belew made up the results as she contends, there is no evidence that Goolsby would have known this, at least at that point. So, it was reasonable for Goolsby to rely on Belew’s statements.
The question then is whether Kathy and Belew’s statements to Goolsby are enough to establish probable cause. Child neglect under Mississippi law is defined as “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly commit[ing] any act or omit[ting] the performance of any duty, which act or omission contributes to or tends to contribute to the neglect or delinquency of any child.” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-39(1)(a). Putting aside whether Knighton’s alleged conduct would meet this standard, her claim fails on the clearly established prong. She points to no case that “obviously resolve[s] whether the circumstances” in this case “constituted probable cause.” And since it is at least plausible that drug use in the home would meet the statutory definition of child neglect, she has not shown that the law was clearly established that Goolsby did not have probable cause to arrest her. So, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Officer Belew did not participate in the arrest itself or assist in the preparation of the arrest affidavit, so he should also be granted summary judgment on this claim.
C. Excessive Force
Knighton next brings an excessive force claim. However, Knighton admitted that Sheriff Goolsby did not use any force against her, so he should be granted summary judgment on this claim.
Since we are bound to accept Knighton’s version of events, we agree that the force used was excessive and clearly unreasonable. A reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Belew’s actions violated clearly established law. Under Knighton’s version of events, he barged into her home, refused to leave, and forced her to take a drug test. Indeed, under these circumstances, any use of force would have been excessive. Police cannot simply enter someone’s home, command them to submit to a drug test, and “pry” their mouth open to effectuate their demand. If the jury believes Knighton’s version of events, this would be an “obvious” case under Graham.
D. Fabrication of Evidence
There is a genuine dispute regarding whether Sheriff Goolsby fabricated evidence against Knighton because he admitted that statements made in the post-arrest affidavit were incorrect. He initially stated under oath that Knighton neglected her children by “using drugs in the presence of the child and passing out.” But later in his deposition, Goolsby stated that Knighton had admitted to using drugs during the last 48 hours, but that he “never said that [she was] using them while the kids were in the house.”
These statements are at least possibly contradictory, so it could lead a reasonable jury to infer that he lied in the affidavit. Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he fabricated the evidence in his affidavit.
Next, if a jury believes Knighton’s version of events, it could conclude that Officer Belew fabricated evidence against her. Sherriff Goolsby relied on Officer Belew’s statements that Knighton admitted to drug use and that she tested positive for drugs when he arrested her. Knighton contends that these were all lies. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriately denied as to Goolsby and Belew.
Conclusion
As to Steve Belew, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the false arrest. We DISMISS the appeal as to the unlawful seizure, excessive force, and fabrication of evidence.
As to Robert Goolsby, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the unlawful seizure, false arrest, and excessive force. We DISMISS the appeal as to the fabrication of evidence.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60383-CV0.pdf