Federal Judiciary

A Fourth Amendment Case With an Ethical Twist

By Robert Loblaw

Eidson v. Owens, 07-7007 (10^th Cir., Feb. 13, 2008)

This Tenth Circuit decision involves a deputy sheriff who coerced the plaintiffs into allowing deputies to search their property. Defendant Floyd Wesley Owens is a reserve sheriff in rural Oklahoma. News travels quickly in a small town, and Owens heard that plaintiff Kim Eidson had been involved in a fight. So he decided to put on his uniform and pay Eidson a visit to make sure she was all right. After Owens began talking to Eidson, several other deputies arrived and told Owens that they had received reports of marijuana growing on the Eidsons? property.

Owens persuaded Eidson to let the officers search, telling her that the officers could obtain a warrant; that they would hold her in her driveway for as long as it took to get a warrant ? even if it meant sitting there for three days; and that the judge would go easier on her if she consented. So she and her husband consented to the search. The deputies found marijuana and arrested the pair. But charges were eventually dismissed after the state court tossed out the evidence as the product of an unlawful search.

The Eidsons turned around and sued Owens, claiming among other things that he violated their constitutional rights by coercing them into allowing the search. The district court denied Owens? motion to dismiss, but the Tenth Circuit reverses, concluding that Owens is entitled to qualified immunity.

Here?s where it gets interesting: In § 1983 cases alleging illegal searches or seizures, courts sometimes justify a grant of qualified immunity by explaining that police officers are not lawyers and therefore are not expected to understand every nuance of constitutional law. Well, that justification won?t fly in this case, because when Owens isn?t serving as a reserve sheriff, he is a practicing attorney. In fact, Owens was the Eidsons? lawyer, having assisted in drafting their will two years before the search. Indeed, when officers were arresting Kim Eidson, she said, “If you have any questions, ask [Owens], he?s my lawyer.” According to the plaintiffs, Owens did not disavow the attorney-client relationship until the Eidsons were on their way to jail.

But these added facts are not enough to sway the Tenth Circuit from its conclusion that a reasonable officer would not have known that these coercive tactics were unconstitutional. The Court notes that the prior relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is a unique circumstance that has not been addressed in the case law, so Owens had no way to know that he was violating his clients? constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Owens is entitled to qualified immunity for these constitutional claims. All is not lost for the plaintiffs, as their malpractice claim against Owens remains.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).