Qualified Immunity in Joint Administrative Searches and Emergency Evictions

1. Introduction

Belinda Marie Fitzpatrick owns two adjacent homes in Lansing, Michigan. In September 2021, a neighbor’s tip to Ingham County Animal Control led Officer Kyle Hanney to obtain a warrant for animal-neglect and cruelty evidence. Hanney enlisted Matthew Simon, a local housing-code official, to accompany him. Upon seeing extreme chicken-feces accumulation and hazardous conditions, Simon “red-tagged” both houses as unfit for human occupancy and evicted Fitzpatrick without prior notice or hearing. Fitzpatrick sued under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court denied Simon’s motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, triggering this interlocutory appeal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit reversed.

Fourth Amendment (Searches): It held that Simon was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a housing-code official needs a separate warrant when he joins a valid search warrant issued to another agency, provided both officers search for the same items or conditions.
Fourteenth Amendment (Evictions): It found that Simon plausibly faced exigent circumstances justifying immediate eviction from the severely unsanitary 218 S. Holmes Street. But as to 224 S. Holmes Street—Fitzpatrick’s actual residence—the record was too sparse to rule out less drastic remedies or a pre-eviction hearing. The court remanded that claim for further fact development.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Garcia (6th Cir. 2007): Established that a second official may join a warranted search without a separate warrant if (1) he did not need probable cause for a new warrant, (2) he had no opportunity to seek a separate warrant, and (3) he searched for the same authorized evidence.
United States v. Castro (6th Cir. 2018): Reaffirmed Garcia—federal officers could rely on a Texas warrant to search in Michigan so long as they sought identical evidence.
Gardner v. Evans (6th Cir. 2019): Held that a housing inspector may not rely on a drug-search warrant to investigate unrelated housing-code violations. The decision, however, did not displace Garcia’s three-part rule for joint searches of the same evidence.
Wilson v. Layne (U.S. 1999): Prohibited media rides-along during warrant service, but did not address intra-governmental warrant use.
Qualified Immunity Framework: Bell v. City of Southfield, District of Columbia v. Wesby, and Pearson v. Callahan guided the two-pronged test for clearly established rights and unreasonable searches or seizures.
Fourteenth Amendment Evictions: Flatford v. City of Monroe allowed emergency eviction where occupants faced imminent danger (e.g., fire risk). Fuentes v. Shevin and Harris v. City of Akron defined due-process notice and hearing requirements and their “exigent circumstances” exception.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

Fourth Amendment Joint Searches: The court applied qualified immunity’s “clearly established” standard. Because neither Garcia nor Castro drew a bright line prohibiting a housing‐code official from joining a warranted animal‐cruelty search, Simon had no notice that he needed a separate warrant for identical conditions. Gardner’s bar on cross‐purpose searches did not extend to joint searches for the same evidence or conditions.

Fourteenth Amendment Emergency Evictions: Pre-eviction notice and hearing are generally required. Exigent circumstances can excuse notice if the official reasonably concludes a person’s health or safety is in immediate peril and no less drastic remedy suffices. The fatal filth—widespread ammonia odors, walkways coated in chicken feces, personal items smeared with waste—clearly endangered residents at 218 S. Holmes. But for 224 S. Holmes, facts were limited to outdoor observations and a “messy” interior. The record did not conclusively show an imminent threat justifying no-notice eviction there.

3.3. Impact

This decision will guide both law enforcement and administrative officials:

Joint Warrant Searches: Clarifies that qualified immunity shields officials joining a colleague’s warrant when pursuing identical evidence or conditions—so long as it was not clearly established otherwise.
Housing-Code Enforcement: Reinforces the narrow scope of emergency evictions without notice. Severe unsanitary or unsafe conditions may justify immediate action, but lesser or ambiguous hazards require at least expedited hearings or warning notices.
Litigation Strategy: Emphasizes the need for plaintiffs to develop factual records on interior conditions and potential alternative remedies before challenging emergency-eviction qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: Protects government officials from lawsuits unless they violated a “clearly established” constitutional right that every reasonable officer would know.
“Clearly Established” Law: Requires precedent on point—mere general principles are insufficient. The rule must “dictate” that the conduct was unlawful in the exact circumstances.
Joint Search Warrant Rule: One officer’s valid warrant can extend to another official partnering on the search, so long as they seek the same evidence or conditions and the law does not clearly require a separate warrant.
Exigent Circumstances Exception: Allows immediate government action without notice when a person’s life or health is in imminent danger, but does not justify every emergency without exploring lesser remedies or providing a hearing.

5. Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Fitzpatrick v. Hanney clarifies two critical points of administrative constitutional law:

A housing‐code official may join a valid warrant served by another agency without a separate warrant for identical evidence—qualified immunity applies unless precedent clearly prohibits it.
Emergency evictions without notice are defensible only when unsanitary or unsafe conditions pose an imminent threat and no less drastic process (warnings or expedited hearings) would suffice.

These holdings will shape future challenges to cross-agency searches and code-enforcement evictions, providing both guidance and caution to officers and property owners alike.