## Facts

- Dana Price-Cornelison owned a farm in Garvin County, Oklahoma, and was in a same-sex relationship with Vickie Rogers; Price-Cornelison also kept an apartment in Texas for work.
- After the relationship deteriorated, Price-Cornelison obtained an emergency protective order on October 16, 2003 requiring Rogers to leave the farmhouse by the next day.
- While Price-Cornelison was away, a farmhand reported that Rogers was removing Price-Cornelison’s property; Price-Cornelison contacted the sheriff’s office and spoke with Undersheriff Steve Brooks.
- Viewing the record in Price-Cornelison’s favor, Brooks refused to intervene, stated Rogers could take property until the next day, made a degrading comment about Price-Cornelison’s sexual orientation, and threatened to arrest Price-Cornelison if she returned to stop the removal.
- Many personal items were missing when Price-Cornelison returned.
- On October 31, 2003, Price-Cornelison obtained a permanent protective order against Rogers.
- A few days later, Rogers allegedly violated the permanent order by entering the farm while Price-Cornelison was away; Price-Cornelison sought enforcement, and the sheriff’s office, through Brooks, allegedly refused.
- Price-Cornelison sued Brooks individually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) discriminatory nonenforcement of protective orders in violation of equal protection and (2) facilitation of an unlawful property seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied Brooks qualified immunity at summary judgment, and Brooks took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Brooks was entitled to qualified immunity on an equal-protection claim based on refusal to enforce the October 16, 2003 emergency protective order.
2. Whether Brooks was entitled to qualified immunity on an equal-protection claim based on refusal to enforce the permanent protective order in early November 2003, allegedly due to Price-Cornelison’s sexual orientation and as compared to enforcement for a heterosexual complainant.
3. Whether Brooks was entitled to qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim that he affirmatively assisted or facilitated Rogers’ seizure of Price-Cornelison’s property by refusing to act and threatening arrest if Price-Cornelison returned.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of qualified immunity.
- Brooks was granted qualified immunity on the equal-protection claim to the extent it rested on nonenforcement of the emergency protective order (reversing that portion).
- Brooks was denied qualified immunity on the equal-protection claim to the extent it rested on discriminatory nonenforcement of the permanent protective order (affirming that portion).
- Brooks was denied qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim alleging he aided an unlawful seizure of property by a private party (affirming that portion).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity turns on (1) whether the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.
- Equal protection forbids intentional discriminatory law-enforcement decisions, including selective nonenforcement of protective orders based on sexual orientation, when compared to similarly situated complainants.
- For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established” requires existing law that would make the unlawfulness apparent to a reasonable officer under the specific circumstances.
- Officers may be liable under § 1983 when they affirmatively assist or facilitate a private party’s unlawful taking of property, converting private conduct into state action.
- The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures of property, including seizures accomplished through state assistance or coercive threats that prevent the owner from protecting property.

## Conclusion

The court held that Brooks received qualified immunity for alleged discriminatory nonenforcement of a just-issued emergency protective order, but not for alleged discriminatory refusal to enforce a permanent protective order or for allegedly facilitating a private party’s unlawful seizure of Price-Cornelison’s property through threats and inaction.


Price-Cornelison v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2008)