## Facts

- Late at night, a county deputy observed 17-year-old Joshua Burchett driving without taillights and attempted to initiate a traffic stop.
- Burchett did not stop immediately; he drove a short distance to his parents’ home, parked, and went inside.
- The home had a single front door; the parents alleged the deputy loudly demanded entry and kicked at the door.
- When the father opened the door, the deputy allegedly drew a firearm, pointed it at the father’s head, and ordered him to his knees.
- Officers entered the home without a warrant; several family members were arrested for obstructing an officer.
- Criminal charges against the parents were later dismissed.
- The parents sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful entry and related Fourth Amendment violations.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on several individual-capacity claims; the officers filed an interlocutory appeal from that denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction to review qualified-immunity denials that turned on disputed facts.
2. Whether, taking the plaintiffs’ version of events as true, hot pursuit of a minor suspected only of misdemeanor traffic offenses created exigent circumstances permitting warrantless entry into a home.
3. Whether the unlawfulness of such a warrantless entry was clearly established in 2007 for qualified-immunity purposes.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction as to fact-dependent claims (including excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution).
- The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on the unlawful-entry claim.
- Accepting plaintiffs’ facts, the court held the warrantless entry was not justified by hot pursuit of a misdemeanor traffic offender.
- The case returned to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent a recognized exception, such as exigent circumstances.
- Hot pursuit may constitute an exigency, but its recognized application is tied to serious offenses; pursuit of a misdemeanant, without additional emergency factors, generally does not justify home entry.
- In an interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity, appellate jurisdiction extends to legal questions, not disputes about which version of contested facts is true.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable when (1) the alleged facts show a constitutional violation and (2) the violated right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful.
- By 2007, it was clearly established that officers could not enter a home without a warrant based solely on pursuit of a suspect for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that officers could not rely on hot pursuit to justify warrantless entry into a home when pursuing a suspect for minor misdemeanor traffic violations, and it affirmed denial of qualified immunity on the unlawful-entry claim while dismissing the remainder of the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


Mascorro v. Billings, 656 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2011)