Hero Cops Break and Enter to Tell Homeowners to Lock Their Door: Qualified Immunity?

Añadido: 2026-05-14

[00:00:45]Constable's office, come out with your hands up.

[00:00:49]Please lock your doors. Yeah, okay. Cuz we see we we see a door unlocked like that, we're going to come in and make sure that everything's safe. We're going to come in and make sure that everything's safe.

[00:00:58]Let's give it up for these hero cops from the Harris County Constable Precinct 2. Specifically, you have James Lancaster, and then you have Jared Lindsey, and Nathaniel Cano, all with Precinct 2.

[00:01:11]Still employed today uh with Precinct 2.

[00:01:14]So, again, another round of applause for these heroes for saving these homeowners uh because these homeowners, as you heard, left their door unlocked. So, it's it's their fault. And these ungrateful homeowners, what do you think they decided to do? Well, they sued these heroes.

[00:01:33]And when the federal court in the Southern District of Texas got a hold of this complaint, what do you think it did?

[00:01:44]Let's talk about it.

[00:01:50]Uh what we just saw were Harris County Constable deputies on their own body camera talking to a couple that they just held at gunpoint while they were standing outside of their own bedroom while they were standing in their underwear.

[00:02:04]And of course these deputies, their explanation was well, it's your fault the door was unlocked.

[00:02:12]Now of course they didn't immediately jump to that. There was actually something interesting that happened if you were paying attention.

[00:02:31]Do you think this is the right address?

[00:02:32]I don't know.

[00:02:37]What the [ __ ] Go back out to the kitchen.

[00:02:47]These deputies realized what they did was wrong. Human instinct kicked in, right? They They looked and they were like, wait a second, there's someone in this bed. This isn't consistent with the information that we have. So we're going to walk out, but then wait, our training kicked in.

[00:03:06]And when our training kicked in, we realized that we have a gun, a badge, authority, and a system that protects us.

[00:03:16]So let's let's go back in and let's hold them at gunpoint. Let's of course demand their ID. I didn't show you that part yet, but I'll put it here.

[00:03:25]Do you have your ID with you?

[00:03:27]Huh? Do you have your ID? Yes.

[00:03:29]Can you grab your ID and come out to the door? And then in the end, it's the homeowner's fault. Please lock your doors. Yeah, okay. Cuz we see we we see a door unlocked like that, we're going to come in and make sure that everything is safe. And it must be the homeowner's fault because when the homeowner sued and there was a motion to dismiss before the parties could even get any discovery, the trial court dismissed the case on basis of qualified immunity. Thankfully though, that's not the end of the story and I want to talk about it. The case Harrington V. Lancaster. Before I get too far into it, if you don't know me, I'm Brandon Grebel, Texas civil rights attorney and I sue governments and government officials and I also like to break down these types of cases. So, let's talk about what happened here.

[00:04:12]Harris County Precinct 2 dispatch, this is Jennifer. But I had a my parents next door neighbor those somebody came out in the backyard over here next to 9823 Sagemark over here on Blackhawk. Uh-huh. And my neighbor just called me up and he's not there. He said somebody came messing around in the back of their house.

[00:04:30]There's a guy and a girl. They got their truck on and then they got the doors open. Looks like they're trying to do something there. Okay, what's the address? Uh it's 98 I think it's 9818 Sagemark s a g e m a r k. 9818?

[00:04:44]>> My parents live next door. It's 9820 I seen them in my camera uh up in the front of my in my parents house. Mhm. I don't know what they're doing but What kind of vehicle is it?

[00:04:54]It's hard to tell. It looks like a truck. Hang on just a second for me.

[00:04:58]Harris County Precinct 2 dispatch, this is Jennifer. Do you have an emergency?

[00:05:01]Yes, yes, we've been having some people knocking on our doors in our house.

[00:05:05]We're at 9819 Sagemark. Okay, I think your son is on the your neighbor is on the other line giving the information from his camera.

[00:05:13]Can you hold on? Yes, and I'm the homeowner and cops came earlier they couldn't find but on my camera I see two people a man and a woman coming again.

[00:05:21]They're there now. There's a truck in the front. If you can't send somebody ASAP, please. Okay.

[00:05:26]Give me just a second.

[00:05:29]9818 Sagemark. I've got the homeowner.

[00:05:31]He's fixing to update me with information. It's going to be a male and female and a truck parked in his driveway. The homeowner is out of town.

[00:05:38]They just left the neighbor is saying, yeah. So, we need some help. Okay. It seems like they come and go. Okay, I've got officers in route. Let me get more information for them, okay?

[00:05:47]Sir?

[00:05:48]Yes, yes, it's a black truck. They just left. And I'm about to head home, but I'm afraid to approach the house.

[00:05:54]And my wife is driving around.

[00:05:58]My wife is calling me on the other line.

[00:06:00]She left the house. She's afraid to be there. And I'm about to leave the south first part of town, 30 minutes away or so. Okay, so your ETA is 30 minutes? And we going to want a deputy to come to the house to meet us because we are afraid to be there.

[00:06:12]I will have a deputy come and clear your house.

[00:06:15]Um your wife left, correct? She left the house and she's driving around. She's afraid for her life to be there, so.

[00:06:22]Okay. Does she want my deputy to meet in her and clear the house?

[00:06:26]Uh yeah, I think so.

[00:06:30]Uh she called me. Uh that would be great if uh if they can go the cops and park in the front of our house. Yeah, definitely we want you to be safe. So, I will let my deputies know that you want your house cleared. And if you want to have your wife meet my officers back at the house so that they can make entry.

[00:06:47]Uh I see like uh maybe a police car just pulled in. Is that a police car? Can you ask them? Yes, sir. It is a poli- it's my um sergeant. Yes, sir.

[00:06:56]Okay, if he can wait there, uh can you have him wait there and I'll send my wife to go back and if they can sit there till I get home?

[00:07:04]You said the back door is unlocked.

[00:07:07]Front door locked? I didn't check the front door.

[00:07:11]Did you check the front No, like I've I've never been to this house.

[00:07:15]It was the one across the street I checked before.

[00:07:18]Same thing?

[00:07:19]All right. It's probably the same thing.

[00:07:20]She said so she has like four cameras. Husband won't give her access.

[00:07:26]>> It's unlocked. It's unlocked. They unlocked the doors.

[00:07:31]Okay.

[00:07:33]If we're going to search it, we're going to need to have someone on the front.

[00:07:35]Copy. I'm checking.

[00:07:38]It's going to be 29 on 1.

[00:07:42]Copy.

[00:07:45]>> All right, so who's the one calling it in?

[00:07:51]So, we have homeowner calling it in and then we have a neighbor calling it in. Okay.

[00:07:57]Which means Jen is So, the first one to call it in was the homeowner or the Homeowner saw it on the video and then the neighbor who was watching called it in. Okay.

[00:08:08]All right.

[00:08:11]8265 Who is the last person you talked to about the house?

[00:08:28]That's her. Did they advise anybody who is supposed to be in the house right now?

[00:08:38]Last name? Both the front and the back door are unlocked.

[00:08:41]Going to hold the channel. We're going to search it now before she gets here.

[00:08:55]We need someone to go to the back cuz it's unlocked. One of you guys go to the back. What? One of you guys go to the back. One of you guys go to the Hello.

[00:09:09]Hi, this is Jennifer 362.

[00:09:11]Yes, ma'am. Let your wife know to stay in her vehicle. Both your front door and your back door were unlocked. My deputies are inside clearing the house now. Possible's office, with your hands out.

[00:09:24]They did get into your house. Your front door and your back door were left unlocked.

[00:09:29]Okay, so the front door and the back door were unlocked? Yes, sir.

[00:09:34]Oh, we didn't I don't know how those that happened. Uh just to let you know, ma'am, the last two people I saw on camera about 10-15 minutes ago, I just learned my daughter sent me a message.

[00:09:46]It was her and a friend guy. They came to check on my wife on her mom. And that was my daughter and her friend, a guy.

[00:09:54]That was not no stranger. But the the first knocking at the door at 11:40, it was Hang on. Hang on. Just a second.

[00:10:10]Is your daughter in the house now?

[00:10:12]No, my daughter and her friend came.

[00:10:15]I saw them on the camera.

[00:10:16]>> Yes, sir.

[00:10:17]>> That was my daughter and her friend.

[00:10:18]They came to check on my wife and they they came to check That's the ones I seen walking in the driveway, but they left.

[00:10:27]But just let them know that wasn't no stranger.

[00:10:31]My wife is sleeping in the house right now. She be there in 10 minutes. She was driving in friends was just to get away from the house. She was scared. Right.

[00:10:38]Okay.

[00:10:39]They are They're clearing the house now.

[00:10:41]So, tell her to stay in her car if she gets there before they're done.

[00:10:46]I'm going to call her and tell her, but I'm not sure how the house doors were unlocked, which is unbelievable unless she left them unlocked.

[00:11:00]What's your What's your ad What Is yours the 9818?

[00:11:04]Yes. 9818 is for the house with a Dodge Ram pickup, Toyota 4Runner, and a trailer in the front of it in the driveway. Okay. It's got a what a trailer and what?

[00:11:16]A green trailer. A Toyota 4Runner, white.

[00:11:21]And the Dodge Ram pickup.

[00:11:30]Can And Can you call back on this. Can you give me your phone number?

[00:11:34]Put it on the phone now. Yes, yes, we got your number. Okay. All right.

[00:11:38]You guys don't lock your front and back door?

[00:11:41]Um You should.

[00:11:44]And can you spell your name for me?

[00:11:45]>> looking around at people's houses trying to break into them.

[00:11:49]You you're not aware of that?

[00:11:51]All right.

[00:11:53]All right, we're going to check on this, see what happened.

[00:11:55]>> Another thing, ma'am, I want to mention Can I get your name? I don't know if it Tyler. Uh what had happened, whoever was knocking [clears throat] on the door 11:30 or 40, our neighbors, they're very very close to us. The man is like 75 and >> Hang on a second. My phone is trying to talk to me.

[00:12:10]805-215-2011.

[00:12:13]Give me the actual address.

[00:12:17]9818 Sage Walk.

[00:12:20]9819. 19.

[00:12:23]>> [clears throat] >> 9819.

[00:12:35]9819.

[00:12:37]Yes, sir. Go ahead and release your chill. All right.

[00:12:41]Our dispatch gave us the wrong address.

[00:12:45]I apologize.

[00:12:46]You have like this It's actually your neighbor's house. Okay. All right.

[00:12:50]All right, so we'll we'll leave you alone. Please lock your doors. Yeah, okay. Cuz we see we we see a door unlocked like that, we're going to come in and make sure that everything's safe.

[00:12:58]All right.

[00:13:02]The vehicle This The husband just talked to her.

[00:13:05]Uh-huh. The vehicle was her daughter and her the daughter's boyfriend coming to check on her earlier.

[00:13:14]Okay.

[00:13:15]So Okay.

[00:13:17]We're All right.

[00:13:21]So if there's one piece of advice that you should take from these officers, it's that you don't leave your front and back doors unlocked so the criminals can't come in. Anyway, what I want to do next is show you exactly how the Southern District the trial court found qualified immunity to basically throw this case out in its entirety. [music] And then I want to show you what the Fifth Circuit did. They handled it differently. While I'm not completely pleased with it because qualified immunity as we all know is a court-made doctrine that should not exist, they at least gave a pathway to the plaintiffs here to hopefully recover and get some relief, to get some justice. So pending before the court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b6. So essentially that's the very beginning. The operative facts relied on is what was in the complaint.

[00:14:08]And so based on the complaint what the defendants are telling the court is, "Hey look, if you were to construe everything in the complaint as true, we still get qualified immunity." And if you're familiar with qualified immunity, you understand that even if officers or government officials or dispatchers screw up by not relaying information, that's not enough. It doesn't matter.

[00:14:27]You have to go a step further and show that the conduct was so unconstitutional that every government official would have known that it was beyond debate.

[00:14:35]And the way you do that is you have to find a prior case on point. And so based on that foundation these officers moved to dismiss just based on the complaint saying it doesn't matter what they asserted. Even if it were true, we still can't be sued. We still have immunity.

[00:14:50]And what did the court say? Well, after reviewing the motion, the pleadings, the exhibits, applicable law, the court determines that the motion should be granted meaning that the officers should get and did get qualified immunity. So the court starts with the factual background. It's a civil rights case that centers around the action of three Harris County Deputy Constables. It began with the call from a woman, Ms. H, who reported hearing knocking on her door at residence 9819 Sage March Drive.

[00:15:16]Deputy Lancaster had responded earlier.

[00:15:19]He searched the property. He found no one and he cleared the call and left the location.

[00:15:24]Approximately an hour later, dispatch informed the deputies that the homeowner's husband, Mr. H, stated that two people, a male and female, were banging on the front and back doors and he could see them on camera. Now, as we eventually learned, but wasn't available to the officers at the time, was that was the homeowner's daughter and her friend. So, when the deputies arrived, they checked the front and back doors to see if they were secure and found them to be unlocked. The dispatcher then informed the homeowners that the door was unlocked. Mr. and Mrs. H gave permission for the deputies to search the house because the door should have been locked. I would disagree with that contention. It was clear that the homeowner, Mr. H, was willing to allow them to search the property, but he wanted he wanted to be there or he wanted his wife to be there, right? And he said, "Just hold on. Let me get there first." But the officers didn't wait. I will have a deputy come and clear your house. Does she want my deputy to meet and her and clear the house?

[00:16:17]Uh yeah, I think so. Uh she called me. Uh that would be great if uh if they can go the cops and park in the front of our house. Yeah, I'll let them come and clear the house.

[00:16:29]Uh let me call her and tell her to meet them at home.

[00:16:37]They couldn't believe the doors were unlocked and they felt compelled to go in, especially when they thought the property was vacant. They weren't expecting anything crazy.

[00:16:46]But because of their training and just in case, they drew their firearms anyway. When they searched 9818, who's plaintiff's residence, they found a man and wife in bed. It was the plaintiff's address. The deputies allegedly held the plaintiff and wife at gunpoint and allegedly displayed reckless conduct in a disregard for their federal constitutional rights. When the deputies realized their mistake, they allegedly failed to apologize or explain their actions to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. So, plaintiff suffered lasting psychological harm, sues for violation of Fourth Amendment against unlawful search and seizure and due process equal protection. Well, yeah, lasting psychological harm. Think about it. You're supposed to be safe in your own home and then you have criminals >> [clears throat] >> sorry.

[00:17:25]Uh you have police officers who have their firearms out going through your house in the middle of the night when they really shouldn't have been doing that to begin with when they all knew that they were supposed to wait for the homeowner who would have cleared this up immediately. If they waited for the wife Mr. Mrs. A to show up, they would have said, "Hold on. Why are you guys over there?" But they just they couldn't help themselves. I just got any bean poles.

[00:17:47]Becoming a cop is not something that happens overnight.

[00:17:51]It takes one solid weekend of training to get that badge.

[00:17:54]>> Forget about the badge. When do we get the freaking guns? Hey, I told you. You don't get your gun until you tell me your name. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants seized him unlawfully ordered him at gunpoint and used excessive force when waking him up screaming and holding him at gunpoint despite the non-violent non-emergency nature of the situation.

[00:18:11]And the actions traumatized them.

[00:18:13]Defendants' contentions, here's my problem with the 12 B6. Defendants at that stage at the very beginning, they don't get to assert their own facts or information. They simply just say qualified immunity and then the burden shifts to the plaintiff.

[00:18:26]But when it comes to a factual contention about who is right or wrong at this stage, the court is always supposed to give credit to the plaintiff to the non-movant. They're not supposed to be considering any factual allegations of a defendant. Not here.

[00:18:42]But I guess the the court did it.

[00:18:44]They're like, "Look, the force used was objectively reasonable and didn't result in injury." Yeah, pointing a firearm at a police officer. Now, God forbid, but imagine if these homeowners realized there were people inside their homes and then had a firearm with them. Would it have resulted in injury to the law enforcement officers if firearms were pointed at them? You know, this incident did happen in Houston or in Harris County. In Harris County, just like many other places in the country is not a stranger to officers showing up and going into houses that they don't belong in and almost every time it has resulted in injury, arrest, or death of the homeowner. So, how could they say that when they do it because they have a gun and badge, it didn't result in injury, no harm, no foul.

[00:19:31]But, flip the script. So, regarding the unlawful entry and search claims, the defendants argue the touchstone is reasonable and is under the circumstances. They claim they had an exception because they said they reasonably relied on the dispatcher and the consent of the complaint and the search the premises. Again, I would argue they didn't have consent because everyone was on the same page that they had to wait for the homeowner even if they weren't at the right home. But, they didn't wait. After realizing that the doors were unlocked, they took it upon themselves to exercise what they've been trained to do to barge in.

[00:20:03]Nobody told them to do that. They didn't ask dispatch if it was okay that they go in now and that they talk to the homeowner. No, what they did was dispatch called the homeowner while they were going into the house and said, "Hey, by the way, the doors were unlocked, but the cops are already clearing it." And what did Mr. H say on that call? "Hold on, but my wife isn't even there yet."

[00:20:23]So, he understood that they shouldn't have been in there. Apparently, it didn't matter because the cops were allowed to think that maybe they did have consent at least for that first entry and we'll get to that. I want you to realize here that there were two entries that you have to look at. The first entry when they went in initially and then the second entry after they realized, "Oh crap, do we have the right address?" and then they backed out and then they went back in.

[00:20:47]So, for at least the first entry is the contention that they thought they had consent even though they didn't wait for the homeowner. Tell me what you think. The court is of the view that the mistaken entry into the plaintiff's home is excused. So, therefore, plaintiff can't state a plausible cause of action.

[00:21:05]The defendants were under the mistaken belief that they had consented to the homeowners to enter the premises. And the defendants were merely following orders. So now the defendants are taking the approach, right? You're not supposed to construe what the defendants were doing, not at this stage, but what the court credited was the defendants were just doing what they were told to do.

[00:21:24]But you watched the same body camera footage that I watched. They obviously made that decision themselves to go into the house and not wait. They're the ones directing dispatch to hold the traffic.

[00:21:35]The radio traffic. Then they're like, well, the dispatcher confirmed they were at the correct address and they received consent to the owners to enter the home.

[00:21:42]Therefore, the act of entering, although in error, was reasonable.

[00:21:47]And the crazy thing is, had the homeowners been armed or they didn't comply, for example, they didn't give their ID cards or they told the cops to get the F out of their house, this result would not have been any different. If anything, it could have been worse. The homeowners could have been injured, killed, or or arrested.

[00:22:05]And the cops still would have been presented with a similar argument, that their conduct in that instance, with the purported information they had, it was reasonable. And there's no case law out there to say otherwise. So then the court goes on to give us the qualified immunity standard. So for a Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff has to show he was seized and suffered an injury that was the result of a use of force that exceeded the force necessary in the circumstance. And that the force was objectively unreasonable. Look at that.

[00:22:35]The trial court forgot to tell us that.

[00:22:37]But essentially just applying the Graham standard, the Graham v. Connor standard.

[00:22:40]So in the case at bar, the evidence shows the officers believe they were at the correct address and they had consent. So again, the court's relying on that in back-to-back paragraphs. The court really likes this idea of this perceived consent because the court goes on to say, well, the search and seizure were based on this perceived consent, which appeared valid given the information provided. And consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment. And so, the defendants' actions ordering the plaintiff to put his hands up and holding him at gunpoint while questioning him were justified under the circumstances. The defendants were responding to reports of suspicious activity in the area. Now, keep in mind, the reported information was that the suspicious people were no longer in that area. Regardless, in light of this information, seizing the plaintiff and his wife were aimed at protecting both.

[00:23:25]So, again, hero cops are protecting these homeowners by holding them at gunpoint. That's what we expect our law enforcement to do. Finally, the court finds the actions taken by the defendants were reasonable under the circumstances and did not constitute use of excessive force. There was no factual proffer that any force used exceeded what was required in order to take control of the situation. Remember, the officers, they're trained to take control of any situation, regardless how absurd, without using common sense. And they're allowed to do that because you have courts that are going to protect that conduct. And then the court says, "In fact, no physical harm was reported by plaintiff." It doesn't matter.

[00:24:05]Psychological harm is a valid harm. So, the court's standard here, I thought, utterly fails. So, the court here is applying the incorrect standard. So, from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, the actions taken were justified. They were confronted with a potentially dangerous situation because there were armed criminals inside the Harringtons' house. And so, the officers acted swiftly to ensure the safety of themselves and of the residents. Therefore, the claim fails.

[00:24:33]So, even though we had a finally up here, I just want to point out, the court does another finally and just says, "Finally, defendants get qualified immunity. The end." So, what did the Fifth Circuit do with this? Well, they just reached this decision a couple of weeks ago, May 4th, 2026, Harrington v.

[00:24:48]Lancaster. And it was per curiam. What this means is they're not going to tell you who wrote this opinion. They're also saying, "We're not going to designate this for publication. We don't think it's that important. So, essentially they're trying to hold this under the radar and just saying, "Look, we're writing this opinion anonymously. We're not going to tell you what the vote is, but there's no dissent. So, presumably it's three and oh, but we're not going to tell you who wrote it." So, what do they say? Well, the fourth amendment case begins with neighbor's mistake. The neighbor called 911 to report a possible home invasion, but gave officers the wrong address. Acting on the information, officers entered the wrong home to do a uh protective sweep expecting to find either a vacant house or an intruder. Instead, they found Tyler Harrington and his wife asleep in bed. The officers then wondered out loud whether they had the right address. But instead of confirming where they were, they stepped back to the front door, knocked, and reentered moments later.

[00:25:41]During that second entry, they awoke the underwear-clad couple, ordered them at gunpoint to put their hands up and stay right there, and then questioned them.

[00:25:50]What a great introduction to recap this case and already demonstrate what the operative facts are if you were to construe them in favor of the plaintiff as the trial court was supposed to do.

[00:26:01]The district court erred in dismissing the unlawful entry, search, and seizure claims arising from the second entry, which as you saw from the trial court completely dismissed altogether. The trial court only viewed this as a one entry issue. On the facts alleged, apparent consent justified the officers' initial entry and sweep, but not their return moments later. A warrantless entry may be valid when the officers acted reasonably, though mistakenly, in relying on consent to enter. But the question is whether the facts available to the officer at the moment weren't a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises. So, the facts available at the time of the first entry support that conclusion. The officers knew there were two 911 calls reported a possible home invasion. Dispatch had identified Harrington's address as the home in question, and dispatch confirmed the owner's consent. But what is missing? Well, the fact that they were supposed to wait, but the facts look very different by the time the officers entered again. Just before the second entry, they opened a bedroom door and found the Harringtons asleep in bed.

[00:27:04]Officer Lindsey whispered, "There's somebody asleep on the bed. Did they give us the right address?" Officer Cano answered, "I don't know." At that point, the officers knew the house was not vacant as they had expected, but occupied by a sleeping couple instead.

[00:27:19]And they knew enough to question whether they were in the right place. Yet, rather than confirm the address before going further, they exited, reentered, and seized Harrington and his wife.

[00:27:30]Indeed, they did not confirm the address with dispatch until after they reentered the home, awakened the Harringtons, and questioned them at gunpoint. Apparent consent did not therefore justify the second warrantless entry, search, and seizure. Qualified immunity does not change that conclusion. We held that qualified immunity does not provide a safe harbor for police who remain in a residence after they are aware that they have entered the wrong residence by mistake in that Simmons v. City of Paris, a 2004 case. Right? So, for qualified immunity, you have to point to a prior case on point. The Fifth Circuit is highlighting, "Hey, look, we have this Simmons v. City of Paris case." So, once the officers found the Harringtons asleep in bed and questioned whether they had the correct address, they had to immediately terminate the search.

[00:28:13]They did not. Qualified immunity therefore does not shield officers from those claims. But the excessive force claim is different. That claim rests on the allegations that the officers woke them up by screaming and holding them at gunpoint. But by pointing a gun, it could be reasonable in circumstances even when the plaintiff does not pose an immediate threat. In Crane v. City of Arlington from 2022, we rejected an excessive force claim where an officer pointed a gun and shouted orders at car passengers who were not suspects. We have likewise held that the momentary fear experienced by the plaintiff when a police officer pointed a gun at him does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Now, I want to point out this is where I disagree with what the Fifth Circuit did. The Crane case, obviously, the officers had a legitimate purpose, presumably, to pull over the vehicle, even if they don't exercise domain over the car passengers.

[00:29:01]Here, though, the Fifth Circuit has already found that these officers don't even belong in the house for that second entry. So, how do they come back and say, "Well, it's still reasonable."

[00:29:11]That's what they did. That's what they found. And they did it without actually doing the Graham analysis. So, they go on, though, for the excessive force.

[00:29:18]They say, "Right is clearly established only if every reasonable official would have understood what he was doing with violates that right." Harrington alleges no force beyond the officer shouting commands and brandishing firearms responding to a late-night home invasion call. They're classifying the call as a home invasion call. There was no report of anyone actually going in. Matter of fact, the report was people had left.

[00:29:42]But, you see, framing is everything. And because they don't actually answer the question for excessive force, are law enforcement officers who enter a home when they shouldn't have entered a home based on consent or apparent consent they no longer have, are they allowed in the future to brandish firearms? Well, the court skipped by that. They didn't even answer that question. So, this case could maybe be used in a future instance. And they obviously intended not to answer that question, hence why they designated it to not be published.

[00:30:13]On these allegations, we cannot say that every reasonable officer would have understood the conduct violated clearly established law. What if this happens again tomorrow, or the next day, or next year? Well, this case still does not satisfy or resolve what a reasonable officer, according to the court, would have understood violates clearly established law. Does this mean that officers can go into homes that they're not supposed to be going into and still brandish their firearms? That's what this sounds like. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the excessive force claim and all the other claims arising from the initial entry, but we reverse the dismissal for the claims related to the second entry. And so then it's remanded. So, the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the first entry. If a reasonable officer in the moment would have believed he had consent, then the entry stands. That's what we call apparent consent. And the panel, based on the complaint, applied that doctrine here. Their contention is, well, there were two 911 calls about a possible home invasion. A dispatcher confirmed the address. A homeowner, through dispatch, agreed to let officers clear the house and unlock door at what dispatch said was the right house. The panel said a reasonable officer could have believed he had consent. Honest mistakes get protected. [music] Case dismissed. I saw what Tyler's counsel, Civil Rights Court, argued on appeal, and they argued pretty convincingly, in my opinion, that the first entry was also unconstitutional.

[00:31:40]The argument tracks what we already heard on the audio, that the consent Mr. H gave to dispatch wasn't a blanket, go ahead, you can go ahead. It was a conditional, wait for my scared wife to get back home and clear it for her. The officers themselves acted like they knew that condition existed. Remember, they said, "Hey, control, we're waiting on the homeowner." But then, for whatever reason, they entered anyway. I think that hesitation and that change is what we should be examining, but the Fifth Circuit threw it out. They said it doesn't matter. There was apparent consent. I would have actually liked to see the Fifth Circuit kick that back to allow discovery, to allow record to be built, but they chose the cleaner path, and so that's where the first entry landed. Now, let's talk about excessive force. The Fifth Circuit kicked that case, too. Three officers loaded firearms in someone's home in the middle of the night. How does that not, on its own, count as excessive force? [music] Tyler argued that it was, but the trial court disagreed, the Fifth Circuit disagreed, and [music] I think that the Fifth Circuit panel got this wrong as well. It's undisputed that pointing a loaded firearm at a person is force.

[00:32:46]It's not a new thing. The Fifth Circuit has said so since 1986. There was a case called Checki v. Webb where an officer terrorized a civilian by brandishing a cocked gun in their face, and that laid the building blocks for a civil rights claim. [music] The threat of deadly force is force. That part's been settled for at least 40 years. So, how did the Fifth Circuit maneuver to get this case dismissed, or at least that claim dismissed? Well, they applied a 2022 case called Crane v. City of Arlington.

[00:33:14]Crane held that pointing a gun [music] can be reasonable for cops depending on the circumstances, even when the person on the other end of that firearm isn't a threat. Now, my problem, of course, is [music] excessive force is held by the Supreme Court standard Graham v.

[00:33:28]O'Connor. Courts have to look at the facts on the ground. If you're not familiar with Graham, the factors are how serious was the law crime? Was the person an immediate threat? Were they resisting or fleeing? And these are all factual questions. It's fact intensive.

[00:33:42]This case, though, got dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage without discovery, without a record, and just the complaint. Now, here's the deeper problem. Crane, the case that the panel relied on, came out of summary judgment, meaning after discovery, right before trial, when the Fifth Circuit or the trial court is saying, "Uh we can decide whether there's a judgment or not without a jury." So, there's a developed record of what the officers knew and when they knew it. So, I hope that makes sense. The Crane case, where they said brandishing a firearm was okay, came after all this discovery, when you got to depose the officers, figure out what they knew and when. But, here in the Harrington case, it's at the very beginning before any of this discovery.

[00:34:24]And the Fifth Circuit said, "Well, we're going to apply it anyway." My problem with that, of course, is that with with excessive force claims under Graham, seeing if the standards applied it's fact intensive. How do you do fact intensive analysis without discovery?

[00:34:38]So, of course the Fifth Circuit should have allowed the discovery path, especially if they're already going to let the second entry claim proceed forward, why not allow discovery into the excessive force claim based on the pleadings crediting the facts to the plaintiff as you're supposed to do. Now, I know what some of you are asking, can the gunpoint claim or other claims get added in if discovery shows additional information? Well, there is a narrow path, you know, you've got to seek permission from the trial court and this court already remember dismissed everything to where they had to be appealed, so I think that's going to be a hard burden. Is it worth a shot though if the information turns out that these officers knew more than what they did going in and that they understood that there was really no danger? Absolutely.

[00:35:23]Does it mean they're going to be successful? Who knows. [music] Again, it's narrow, but it's definitely worth a shot. So, out of all of that though, here is the good news and here's why I'm sharing the story with you. Tyler Harrington's case isn't over, even though the trial court said it was, the Fifth Circuit, the most conservative officer protecting, qualified immunity affirming appellate court in the country, sent this case back to the trial court on the unlawful entry, on the unlawful search, and on the unlawful seizure, all arising from the second entry. So, now if the case doesn't settle, [music] discovery opens. They're going to get all the body camera, the dash dispatch records, the dash camera, the training records, the dress confirmation protocols, all of it. It's all now squarely in play. For any officers who are watching this, and I know that some of you do, when you doubt the address, stop. It's human instinct. [music] Don't just go into random houses, especially in the middle of the night, especially without announcing yourselves and with your weapons drawn. Confirm before you you to escalate. In this case, a radio call would have ended this case before it began. So, this is the part where I'm supposed to do the YouTube thing where I'm like, "Hey, if you like the video, want to see updates, you want to like and subscribe, and do the notification thing." You know what? I If you want to do it, great. I appreciate the support. Just you watching, I appreciate that. Anyway, this is clearly established. Thanks for watching.