ng the home) of a home without a warrant was not entitled to qualified immunity, and that he could be held personally liable for his violations of constitutional rights.

Since the District Court had held that the curtilage was protected from entry without a warrant, and that the officer could be held liable for violating Fourth Amendment rights for entering without a warrant, The 11th Circuits affirmation of that order was a huge step forward for private property rights.

Entry without a warrant is considered “reasonable” (that’s the Constitutional term) by the courts under a few circumstances… and those circumstances have been ever increasing over the years. None that are well established in the law applied to this case, so they simply weren’t argued. (The courts allow an officer to trespass for instance if he’s in the process of chasing a criminal, and the criminal runs onto private property, or if the officer can see criminal activity in progress before he enters the property, or in the event of an emergency, etc.)

On the other hand what was argued is that the officer in this case claimed he should be immune from suit for several reasons. 1) He claimed that the municipal ordinance code authorized him to enter without a warrant. Case law was presented however which showed that an officer is required to know that a municipal ordinance cannot over-rule the US Constitution. 2) He claimed that he should be immune because officers shouldn’t have to be in fear of personal financial ruin. This claim was shown to be a fraud. Regardless of what the court ruled on personal liability, Municipal ordinances have already established that the City will be footing the bill for their little criminals. Furthermore, fear of consequences is a good reason to not commit crimes, but it has never been a reason for not enforcing the law after crimes have been committed. 3) The officer claimed that he should be immune from suit because the law wasn’t clear that the area immediately surrounding the home was protected by the Fourth Amendment. In fact the arguments on appeal got even bolder in oral arguments, claiming a “right” to invade even a garage without a warrant. The response to that was simply quoting the cases that have shown the area is protected… all of them cases from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court issued its order affirming the lower courts ruling without opinion, and it did so just five days after hearing oral arguments. The law is now very clearly established: A government official who invades private property without a warrant can be held personally liable for Constitutional Violations. He is not immune from suit.

Strictly speaking, the 11th circus court upheld the Constitutional right to keep private property private, and denied that law enforcement officers were above the law.

Strictly speaking our victory before the 11th was a major victory for all oppressed by the ever-expanding power grab of zoning and code enforcement departments across the country.

Strictly Speaking – we all won.

Robert Marlett, Plaintiff/ Appellee pro se

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------