Caril Simmons, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estates of Charles Griffin and Geraldine Griffin, Deceased, et al. v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre, New York, et al.

Warrantless Entry Based on an “Objectively Reasonable” Possible Hazard Theory Whether the Fourth Amendment recognizes a non-emergency hazard exception permitting a full multi-departmental forced entry into private curtilage when no occupant is present, entering officials testified that they perceived no emergency requiring immediate action, but entered to determine what they would confront if at a later time they had to respond to a fire, and whether those officials are entitled to qualified immunity based upon the conclusion that an objectively reasonable firefighter or building inspector could have believed that an immediate search of the premises for hazardous conditions was necessary to protect the public from an exigent risk of fire.

Curtilage and the Administrative Inspection Implied License Exception “Mailman’s View Standard” Whether government officials who go to residential property for the sole purpose of conducting an admin­ istrative inspection within privately maintained and fenced curtilage where an expectation of privacy exists may circumvent the Fourth Amendments warrant and consent requirements by characterizing such inspec­ tion observations as made within “publicly accessible areas,” affording the same implied license as ordinary visitors, delivery personnel, or mail carriers.

Summary Judgment and Disputed Facts Whether courts at summary judgment may place upon plaintiffs the burden of disproving an emergency, weigh evidence, and resolve disputed facts in favor of government officials in determining qualified immunity and determine the applicability of exceptions to the warrant requirement for intrusions into the home and its curtilage based on disputed facts and inconsistent assertions by government officials.

Fourth Amendment Standing and New “Temporal Context” Whether an individual accepted into a household must provide “temporal context” detailing the exact timing and frequency of occupancy to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy and Fourth Amendment standing, contrary to this Court’s decisions recognizing that social guests, family members, and regular occupants possess constitutionally protected privacy interests arising from their relationship with the household.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Heightened Pleading Standards Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 permits dismissal of civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as “too vague” despite allegations describing specific governmental conduct, identifying the consti­ tutional rights at issue, and impheating both the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.