## Facts

- A Bernalillo County Sheriff’s deputy was shot and killed during a traffic stop; investigators identified Michael Paul Astorga as the primary suspect.
- Astorga lived at 31 Lark Road; his wife Marcella (the Poolaws’ daughter) was associated with her parents’ home at 22 Lark Road, where Rick and Cindy Poolaw lived.
- Rick Poolaw, a retired law enforcement officer, contacted authorities and reported that Marcella stayed overnight at the Poolaw home around the time of the homicide and had called in sick to work, which he viewed as unusual.
- Detective Timothy Hix sought and obtained a search warrant for the Poolaw property, asserting that Marcella resided there at least part-time and that Astorga might possibly have access to the property.
- Officers executed the warrant, searched the residence and surrounding property, and handcuffed Rick and Cindy during the search; no incriminating evidence and no suspect were found there.
- Days later, Lieutenant Gregg Marcantel learned that Marcella’s sister, Chara Poolaw, had asked Cindy whether she could “get in trouble” for having a gun.
- Marcantel ordered officers to locate and stop Chara while she drove; officers pulled her over, detained her, and searched her car, finding a firearm that was not the murder weapon.
- The Poolaws sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations; the district court granted partial summary judgment for the Poolaws and denied qualified immunity to Marcantel and Hix, who took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Rick and Cindy Poolaw’s property under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Chara Poolaw for an investigative detention.
3. Whether the asserted Fourth Amendment violations were clearly established such that Marcantel and Hix were not entitled to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Marcantel and Hix.
- The court held the warrant lacked probable cause because it relied largely on the Poolaws’ familial connection to the suspect and speculative assertions about the suspect’s access to the property.
- The court held the stop and detention of Chara violated the Fourth Amendment because the familial relationship and her ambiguous inquiry about a gun did not create reasonable suspicion tied to criminal activity or evidence.
- The court held the governing Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized, particularized suspicion was clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause requires a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place; speculative access and association with a suspect are insufficient.
- Reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention must be based on specific, articulable facts that are particularized to the person stopped; mere familial association does not satisfy this standard.
- The Fourth Amendment generally rejects “guilt by association”; searches and seizures must rest on individualized suspicion rather than status-based inferences.
- Qualified immunity does not apply when clearly established law would have made it apparent to a reasonable officer that the search or seizure lacked the required individualized suspicion.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that officers violated the Fourth Amendment by searching the Poolaw home and detaining Chara Poolaw based primarily on their familial relationship to a homicide suspect and minimal additional facts, and it affirmed the denial of qualified immunity because these limits on association-based searches and seizures were clearly established.


Poolaw v. Marcantel, 565 F.3d 721 (10th Cir. 2009)