## Facts

- A hospital nurse reported that a mother brought her two-year-old child for evaluation and relayed the child’s statement that the babysitter’s “boyfriend” had “hurt her pee pee.”
- Deputies went to the babysitter’s home, where Tina Cortez lived with her husband, Rick Cortez.
- Rick Cortez complied with officers’ instructions, was handcuffed, given Miranda warnings, and placed in a locked patrol car where he was questioned for about an hour; he was barefoot and minimally clothed.
- Tina Cortez was taken by the arm from the home, placed in a separate patrol car, and questioned; she was permitted to place a call.
- Officers entered and searched the home without a warrant, asserting child-safety and officer-safety reasons.
- Medical examination did not implicate Rick Cortez, and no criminal charges were filed.
- The Cortezes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for unlawful arrest/seizure, excessive force, and unreasonable search; the district court denied qualified immunity for several officers, and denied without prejudice discovery-related motions by a supervisor and the county.

## Issues

1. Whether the officers’ restraint of Rick and Tina Cortez constituted an arrest requiring probable cause, rather than an investigatory detention requiring only reasonable suspicion.
2. Whether the officers had probable cause (or arguable probable cause for qualified-immunity purposes) to arrest Rick Cortez based on a vague, second-hand report without minimal corroboration.
3. Whether an excessive-force claim is automatically subsumed within an unlawful-arrest claim when both arise from the same seizure.
4. Whether the warrantless entry and search of the home were justified by exigent circumstances and, if so, whether the scope was properly limited.
5. Whether qualified immunity (and related summary judgment) was available to the individual officers, supervisor, and county at the summary-judgment stage.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s qualified-immunity rulings.
- The court held that the restraint used—handcuffing and confinement in patrol cars for an extended period—constituted an arrest requiring probable cause.
- Viewing the record in the plaintiffs’ favor, the court held the officers lacked probable cause (and lacked arguable probable cause) to arrest Rick Cortez based solely on the uncorroborated, generalized accusation.
- The court rejected the rule that an excessive-force claim is subsumed within an unlawful-arrest claim; force must be analyzed separately under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court held that child-safety concerns may justify limited warrantless entry, but the entry/search must be strictly limited to the exigency; factual disputes prevented blanket immunity on aspects of the search claim.
- The court left supervisory and municipal-liability questions for further development and upheld the denial without prejudice of summary judgment for the supervisor and county based on the need for additional discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Handcuffing and prolonged confinement in a patrol car ordinarily transform a seizure into an arrest, which must be supported by probable cause.
- For qualified immunity, the relevant question is whether a reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed; vague, second-hand allegations without basic corroboration may be insufficient to create arguable probable cause.
- Excessive force and unlawful arrest are analytically distinct Fourth Amendment claims; the legality of the seizure does not automatically resolve whether the force used was objectively reasonable.
- Objective reasonableness of force depends on the totality of circumstances (including the severity of the suspected offense, threat level, and resistance) and may include the manner and duration of handcuffing and detention.
- Warrantless entry and search require a recognized exception such as exigent circumstances supported by specific facts; any search must be narrowly confined to the emergency that justifies it.

## Conclusion

The en banc court treated the Cortezes’ seizure as an arrest requiring probable cause and held that, on the summary-judgment record, a vague, uncorroborated child-abuse report did not provide probable cause (or arguable probable cause) to arrest Rick Cortez. It also required separate Fourth Amendment analysis of excessive force and limited warrantless entry, allowing several claims to proceed because the record presented factual disputes and the governing law was clearly established.


Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc)