Shawn T. Swindell v. Kenneth Bailey

This §1983 qualified immunity case involves the legality of entry into a residence by Petitioner Swindell, a Florida Sheriff’s Deputy, to arrest Respondent Bailey. Bailey committed a misdemeanor in Swindell’s presence, on the porch to the home, and Swindell immediately followed Bailey into the home to arrest him. The district court granted Swindell summary judgment on Bailey’s §1983 claim of unlawful arrest, but in Bailey v. Swindell, 940 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Bailey I”), the Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the entry might have been unconstitutional under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), if the arrest was initiated while Bailey was inside the home. A jury subsequently rendered a general verdict for Bailey but determined that the arrest was initiated outside the home. The district court thus granted judgment to Swindell based on qualified immunity, citing United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) and Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2011 (2021). In Bailey v. Swindell, 89 F.4th 1324 (11th Cir. 2024) (“Bailey II”), however, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the conclusion that Bailey was outside the home when the arrest was initiated and determined that Swindell’s entry into the home to complete the arrest of Bailey was a violation of clearly established law under Payton. Id., pp. 1330-31. Against this backdrop, the instant matter presents the following questions for the Court’s review: 1. Was it clearly established in 2014 that a law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he witnesses a person commit