The opinion
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 25a0236p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
┐
MATTHEW HOWELL; ALISHA BROWN,
│
Plaintiffs-Appellants, │
│
v. > No. 24-5570
│
│
JUSTIN MCCORMICK; JAMES JENSEN; JOSHUA VAUGHN; │
WALLIS MASSEY; LUIS LOPEZ ALDEA; DANIEL POLK; │
LIELA AVILA; METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF │
NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, │
Defendants-Appellees. │
┘
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:15-cv-01428—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: March 18, 2025
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2025
Before: THAPAR, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Drew Justice, JUSTICE LAW OFFICE, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for Appellants.
Melissa Roberge, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON
COUNTY, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees McCormick, Jensen, Massey, Lopez Aldea,
Polk, and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.
ON BRIEF: Drew Justice, JUSTICE LAW OFFICE, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for Appellants.
Melissa Roberge, Michael R. Dohn, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE &
DAVIDSON COUNTY, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees McCormick, Jensen, Massey,
Lopez Aldea, Polk, and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee. John M. L. Brown, JOHN M. L. BROWN, PC, Whites Creek, Tennessee, for
Appellee Vaughn.
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 2
_________________
OPINION
_________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This case about feuding housemates raises a host of Fourth
Amendment questions. A woman called 911 from outside her residence claiming that her
housemate, Matthew Howell, had pointed a gun at her and refused to give her access to (what
she said was) her car. In response, the Nashville police knocked on Howell’s front door to speak
with him. When Howell opened the door, the officers smelled an illegal drug. They entered
Howell’s home and arrested him for assaulting his housemate. They also temporarily handcuffed
Howell’s girlfriend, Alisha Brown, while they walked through the home.
Howell and Brown allege that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering
their home without a warrant, by arresting them without probable cause, by allowing the
housemate to take the car, and by maliciously prosecuting Howell. They also allege that the
officers’ municipal employer had a policy or custom of condoning warrantless home entries. But
the claims against the officers all fail either because the officers’ conduct comported with the
Fourth Amendment or because Howell and Brown have not shown that the officers violated
clearly established law. And Howell and Brown lack adequate evidence to show an
unconstitutional municipal policy or custom. We thus affirm the grant of summary judgment to
the officers and municipality.
I
In 2014, Howell lived with his girlfriend, Brown, in a home outside Nashville,
Tennessee. That October, Howell met Liela Avila, an aspiring musician, at a karaoke bar. Avila
had recently moved to Nashville and needed a place to stay. Howell and Brown let Avila live
with them for a modest rent. Avila stayed at Howell and Brown’s home for a month or two. But
Avila and Howell soon had a falling out over “an incident that happened with his dog.” Avila
Tr., R.254-6, PageID 1235. When Avila visited her parents in California for a few weeks around
Thanksgiving, Howell texted her that she could not live at his home any longer.
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 3
Avila returned to Nashville on the evening of December 8. When Avila visited her
parents, she had left some of her things at Howell and Brown’s home. She also claims that she
had parked her Chevy Lumina there. Yet a dispute of fact exists over who owned this car. Avila
asserts that she bought the car from Howell’s friend and possessed a title to it in her name. At
the same time, Howell claims that he bought the Lumina from the friend and owned the car.
Either way, Avila traveled to Howell and Brown’s home to pick up her things after
getting back into the city around 8:00 p.m. Avila and Howell have different recollections of
what happened next. According to Avila, she took a taxi to the home by herself. When she got
there, Howell was drunk, unstable, and still upset with her. She packed up most of her
possessions in the Lumina. After gathering a few final items from her upstairs bedroom, she
spotted Howell at the bottom of the staircase. He “walk[ed] up the stairs towards” Avila while
“pointing [a] gun at” her and yelling at her to get out in a profanity-laden tirade. Avila Tr.,
R.254-6, PageID 1236. She “ran out of the house” and left the Lumina parked in the garage with
her things. Id., PageID 1237.
According to Howell and Brown, Howell was not intoxicated. Rather, “Avila was the
one who was high as a kite that night[.]” Howell Decl., R.277–2, PageID 1585. The couple also
claims that Avila brought a “male accomplice” into their home. Id. Believing that Avila had
already moved out, Brown found it strange that Avila felt free to walk right in with this friend
and go “upstairs, to where she had been staying.” Brown Tr., R.277-8, PageID 1774. Howell
and Brown repeatedly asked Avila and her friend to leave, but Avila “insisted on staying” for
several hours. Id. Howell asserts that he later forced Avila’s friend out when this man “put
hands on” Howell. State v. Howell, 2018 WL 385505, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2018).
Yet Howell disputes pointing a gun at (or otherwise threatening) Avila. She left on her own a
short time later.
Whatever took place inside the home, an audio recording leaves no doubt what happened
next: Avila called 911 around 1:00 a.m. on December 9. She told the dispatcher that Howell, her
“crazy” and “drunk” housemate, had “her” car in their “garage” and was “refusing to let her have
it.” 911 Call, at 0:54–1:05, 1:29–:30. She alleged that he had “pointed a gun at [her] face,”
although she did not “think it was loaded.” Id. at 1:06–:09. After he did so, Avila also
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 4
explained, she “ran outside of the house” and called 911 from there. Id. at 1:12–:16. Avila
opined that she was “safe” standing in the street some five houses down. Id. at 03:21–30. She
later added that she did not think Howell would shoot at the officers but reiterated that he did
have a gun. Id. at 1:36–:41. Avila further noted that another female in the home (Brown) was
sleeping in the bedroom. She answered “no” when asked if she thought this woman was in
danger. Throughout the call, Avila repeatedly returned to her main concern: getting her car from
the garage. As she put it, she just wanted “to get [her] car” and “get the heck out of here.” Id. at
4:06–:13. Avila stayed on the line until the police arrived.
A dispatcher relayed Avila’s allegations to the responding officers. The dispatcher
explained that an intoxicated Howell had pointed a gun at Avila, that Avila did not know if the
gun was loaded, that Avila was now standing in the street, and that another woman was sleeping
in the bedroom. This information triggered a “Code 3” response reserved for emergencies that
may involve a risk to life.
Six police officers—Justin McCormick, James Jensen, Joshua Vaughn, Wallis Massey,
Luis Lopez Aldea, and Daniel Polk—made their way to the scene. An “unnerved and shaking”
Avila reiterated to some of these officers that Howell “was intoxicated and acting very crazy,”
that he had screamed at her about “owing money or rent,” and that he had pointed a “small black
handgun” at her. McCormick Decl., R.254–1, PageID 1190.
McCormick and two others approached the front door of Howell and Brown’s home.
Howell opened the door with Brown by his side. The parties disagree over Howell’s demeanor.
McCormick claims that Howell had “watery and glassy eyes,” was “agitated,” “spoke loudly,”
and “kept saying . . . that [Avila had been] in here but he had not laid a hand on her.”
McCormick Decl., R.254–1, PageID 1191. Howell and Brown counter that Howell had “acted
reasonably calm,” was not “aggressive,” and only “asserted his constitutional rights.” Howell
Decl., R.277-2, PageID 1585; Brown Decl., R.277-1, PageID 1582.
Although the parties dispute Howell’s behavior, they agree that the officers could smell
the “aroma” of marijuana from the house. Undisputed Facts, R.276, PageID 1549. They also
agree on what was said. Howell admitted that he had guns in the house but added that he did not
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 5
have one on his person. Because Howell could have been hiding a gun “in his clothing,”
McCormick repeatedly asked him to step onto the porch so that the officers could frisk him. Id.,
PageID 1551. Howell refused, but he did lift his shirt to show that he did not have a gun under
his waistline. Howell also told Brown not to step outside. And he handed the officers his
lawyer’s business card.
At this point, Officers McCormick, Aldea, and Vaughn entered the home to handcuff and
frisk Howell. The officers suggest that Howell resisted their efforts, so they had to push him
against a wall to get the necessary leverage. They then arrested Howell for aggravated assault
and resisting a frisk. Howell responds that he did not “physically resist a ‘frisk’” and that
McCormick suddenly “twisted [him] around in a martial-arts style maneuver” while the others
“piled on top of” him. Howell Decl., R.277-2, PageID 1585. He claims that they “slamm[ed]”
him into a wall with one arm held behind him, injuring his shoulder. Id.
The officers took Howell to a patrol car, patted him down, and placed him inside. Officer
Polk interrogated Howell in the cruiser. Howell told Polk where the officers could find his small
black handgun that matched Avila’s description. He also ostensibly gave consent for them to
enter the home to seize this weapon. But Howell claims that he did so only because the officers
threatened to harm Brown if he did not.
At some point, McCormick, Vaughn, and Polk returned to the front door to question
Brown. They tried to persuade her to admit that Howell had pulled a gun on Avila. Brown
refused, reiterating that Avila had barged into their home and refused to leave. The officers
allegedly decided that Brown was uncooperative and put her in handcuffs “right on the
threshold” of the front door. Brown Dep., R.254-3, PageID 1211. She remained cuffed for
about 30 to 45 minutes.
During this time, officers conducted a “protective sweep” of the home but saw no other
occupants or any “narcotics related evidence in plain sight.” McCormick Decl., R.254-1, PageID
1196. Officer Vaughn then searched for Howell’s gun and found it in the spot that Howell had
identified. Other officers accompanied Avila into the home to gather her belongings. They also
allowed Avila to access the Chevy Lumina. When she tried to drive the car out of the garage,
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 6
though, the engine would not start. Avila recalls asking the officers for help with pushing the car
to the street so that she could call a tow company. But they responded that “it was out of their
jurisdiction and they would not be able to help [her] push the car[.]” Avila Dep., R.254-4,
PageID 1225. She thus allegedly had to push it herself. Howell recalls things differently. He
claims that he “saw the police pushing [the] car out of the driveway for Ms. Avila” while he sat
detained in the police cruiser. Howell Decl., R.277-2, PageID 1586. In any event, Brown
remembers that the car remained on the premises even after the officers had left. Brown Dep.,
R.254-3, PageID 1217.
A Tennessee grand jury indicted Howell for committing an aggravated assault of Avila
and resisting the officers’ arrest. See Howell, 2018 WL 385505, at *1. Howell stood trial. See
id. At the close of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury that it could convict Howell of
various lesser-included offenses to aggravated assault, including reckless aggravated assault and
simple assault. Id. at *4. The jury found Howell guilty of reckless aggravated assault but
acquitted him of aggravated assault and resisting arrest. Id. at *5. After the trial, however, the
state court recognized that it should not have instructed the jury that reckless aggravated assault
qualified as a lesser-included offense for aggravated assault. Id. The court “amended” the guilty
verdict to simple assault and sentenced Howell to 30 days in jail. Id. An appellate court then
reversed this conviction on double-jeopardy grounds because simple assault required an intent
mindset that the jury had rejected by convicting Howell of reckless aggravated assault. Id. at *7–
9.
While these criminal proceedings progressed, Howell and Brown filed this civil suit
against (among others) the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
(“Nashville”) and the officers involved in the confrontation. Relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
complaint alleged that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment in several ways. The
complaint also asserted tort claims under Tennessee law.
The district court granted summary judgment to Nashville and the officers. See Howell v.
McCormick, 2024 WL 2278335, at *15 (M.D. Tenn. May 20, 2024). It rejected the federal
constitutional claims on the merits. See id. at *4–14. And it declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state tort claims. See id. at *14. We must review the court’s summary-
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 7
judgment decision de novo and resolve the many evidentiary disputes in the light most favorable
to Howell and Brown. See Pineda v. Hamilton County, 977 F.3d 483, 489 (6th Cir. 2020).
II
On appeal, Howell and Brown renew their federal constitutional claims against the
officers. And the officers renew their request for qualified immunity. So Howell and Brown
must complete two steps to obtain their requested damages. See District of Columbia v. Wesby,
583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018). At step one, Howell and Brown must show that the officers violated
the Constitution. See id. On that front, they argue that one or more of the officers violated the
Fourth Amendment in four ways: by entering their home without a warrant; by arresting them
without probable cause; by seizing the Chevy Lumina; and by maliciously prosecuting Howell.
At step two, Howell and Brown must show that the relevant judicial decisions “clearly
established” these constitutional violations “at the time” of the encounter. Id. at 63 (citation
omitted). Howell’s and Brown’s various claims all fail at either the first or second of these
qualified-immunity steps.
A. Warrantless Entry
Howell and Brown first argue that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by
entering their home without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “house[]”
from “unreasonable searches[.]” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Because the home sits at the “core” of
the Amendment’s protections, Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013) (citation omitted),
officers generally must obtain a warrant from a neutral magistrate before they may cross its
threshold, see Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295, 301 (2021). This requirement applies no
matter the reason for the entry. Officers thus typically must obtain a warrant if they want to
enter a home to arrest a suspect—even when they have probable cause to believe that the suspect
committed a crime. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980). And they typically must
obtain a warrant if they want to enter a home to search for contraband—even when they have
probable cause to believe that the home contains the contraband. See Brigham City v. Stuart,
547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). In short, warrantless entries into a home presumptively violate the
Fourth Amendment. See id.
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 8
But this rule comes with exceptions. The Fourth Amendment’s text prohibits only
“unreasonable searches and seizures,” and not every warrantless entry into a home can be
described as unreasonable. See Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194, 197–98 (2021). Most
commonly, officers need not obtain a warrant if “exigent circumstances” require them to enter
the home immediately without taking the time necessary to track down a judicial officer. Lange,
594 U.S. at 301. Different factors can create these exigent circumstances. Perhaps the officers
fear for the safety of individuals trapped in the home. See Caniglia, 593 U.S. at 198; Brigham
City, 547 U.S. at 406. Or perhaps they fear for their own safety from a potentially dangerous
suspect barricaded inside. See Lange, 594 U.S. at 301. Or maybe the officers fear that the
homeowners will destroy evidence of a crime hidden there. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452,
460 (2011).
What evidence suffices to create these exigencies? Like most questions under the Fourth
Amendment, this exigent-circumstances question triggers a fact-specific test that evaluates
whether an emergency existed from the perspective of a reasonable officer. See id. at 464. So
the officers’ subjective reasons for entering the home do not affect the validity of the entry. See
Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 404; cf. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). And when
deciding whether an emergency existed, courts must objectively consider the totality of the
circumstances from just before the entry. See Lange, 594 U.S. at 301–02.
The government bears the burden to prove these exigent circumstances. See Johnson v.
City of Memphis, 617 F.3d 864, 868 (6th Cir. 2010). When considering whether it has met this
burden at the summary-judgment stage, we must resolve all evidentiary disputes about the
historical facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovants (typically, the plaintiffs). See
Gambrel v. Knox County, 25 F.4th 391, 404 (6th Cir. 2022). Once we determine these facts, we
are left with the “ultimate” or “mixed” question: did the facts rise to the level required to create
exigent circumstances? Our cases have long treated this question as one reserved for the jury in
civil suits. See Jones v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 1125, 1130 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also Reed
v. Campbell County, 80 F.4th 734, 743 (6th Cir. 2023); Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d
492, 501 (6th Cir. 2002). But we have added that (as with any question of historical fact) we
may resolve this question at the summary-judgment stage if a reasonable jury could give only
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 9
one answer. See Ewolski, 287 F.3d at 501; Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1375 (6th Cir.
1992).
Here, the officers claim that they had exigent circumstances for two reasons: “the risk of
danger to the police or others” and the risk of “imminent destruction of evidence” in the home.
Johnson, 617 F.3d at 868 (citation omitted). We need only consider their second reason. That
reason requires us to ask: when may police officers immediately enter a home out of concern that
suspects inside might destroy evidence of a crime? This question often arises in the drug context
because suspects may easily dispose of the evidence down a drain when police officers knock on
the door. See King, 563 U.S. at 461; United States v. Radka, 904 F.2d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 1990).
Our precedent on the question has taken a fact-bound approach. On the one hand, we
have held that exigent circumstances exist if officers have a “reasonable belief” both that
someone inside the house possesses contraband and that these parties might soon destroy the
contraband to cover their tracks. United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1512 (6th
Cir. 1988). Applying these factors, we have found exigent circumstances when officers knocked
on a suspected drug trafficker’s door, alerted him to their presence, and heard him make noises
consistent with “destroying evidence.” United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 569, 575 (6th Cir.
1980); see also United States v. Ashbourne, 571 F. App’x 422, 424–25 (6th Cir. 2014); United
States v. Elkins, 732 F.2d 1280, 1285 (6th Cir. 1984). We have also held that officers could enter
a suspected drug trafficker’s home when they arrested his colleague, whose failure to return to
the home could have tipped off the trafficker that something was awry. See Sangineto-Miranda,
859 F.2d at 1512–13; see also United States v. Elkins, 300 F.3d 638, 655–57 (6th Cir. 2002).
And in a vacated opinion, we have held that exigent circumstances existed when officers
knocked on a hotel room door and saw a marijuana blunt because there was “little doubt” that the
suspect would dispose of the blunt before the officers could get a warrant. United States v.
Carter, 315 F.3d 651, 656 (6th Cir. 2003), aff’d en banc on other grounds, 378 F.3d 584 (6th
Cir. 2004).
On the other hand, we have refused to find exigent circumstances when the officers did
not have a reasonable belief of one or the other of our factors. So we have held that the police
did not have exigent circumstances to enter a house that contained drugs because they had no
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 10
reason to believe anyone was at home when they entered. See United States v. Haddix, 239 F.3d
766, 768 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 338 F.3d 535, 541, 549 (6th Cir.
2003). And we have held that the police did not have exigent circumstances to enter a home that
contained drugs because they had no reason to believe that the suspects in the home had learned
of the police “activity outside” and obtained an incentive to destroy the drugs. See Radka, 904
F.2d at 362–63.
The facts of this case sit somewhere in between the facts of these cases. Both sides agree
that, after McCormick and two other officers knocked on the front door, they smelled the
“aroma” of marijuana wafting out of the home. Undisputed Facts, R.276, PageID 1549. At that
time (as today), Tennessee criminalized marijuana possession. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-
415(a)(1), 39-17-418(a). So Howell and Brown do not dispute that the officers had probable
cause to believe that the home contained illegal narcotics. Cf. United States v. Sheckles, 996
F.3d 330, 341 (6th Cir. 2021). As for the exigency of an immediate entry, the officers also
reasonably believed that someone was inside the house because they spoke to Howell and
Brown. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d at 1512. This case thus boils down to whether the officers
could reasonably believe “that the loss or destruction of evidence [was] imminent” from the mere
fact that they smelled marijuana and had alerted Howell and Brown to their presence. Radka,
904 F.2d at 362.
We need not answer this question. We will instead jump to the “easier” issue at step two
of the qualified-immunity analysis: Did Howell and Brown prove that the officers violated their
“clearly established” rights under the Fourth Amendment? Gradisher v. City of Akron, 794 F.3d
574, 584 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Even if exigent circumstances did not exist, the
officers could still rely on their qualified-immunity defense. See O’Brien v. City of Grand
Rapids, 23 F.3d 990, 999–1000 (6th Cir. 1994). To overcome that defense, Howell and Brown
must show that any “reasonable officer” would have recognized the illegality of the entry.
Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63 (citation omitted). In other words, the officers here must have been
“plainly incompetent” or must have “knowingly violate[d] the law.” Id. (citation omitted).
Howell and Brown cannot meet this “demanding standard” for two reasons. Id. For one
thing, the parties do not identify any caselaw from our court answering this Fourth Amendment
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 11
question. Cf. Carter, 315 F.3d at 656. And the lack of precedent about the “specific conduct” at
issue generally dooms a plaintiff’s effort to show that the conduct violated clearly established
law. Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 6 (2021) (per curiam). Plaintiffs instead must
identify the legal rule that the officers violated with “a high ‘degree of specificity’” to ensure that
the officers had notice that their conduct exceeded constitutional bounds. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63
(citation omitted). The Court has especially stressed this requirement when considering Fourth
Amendment questions that require officers to consider all the circumstances (such as whether
they had probable cause or used excessive force). See Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 6; Wesby, 583
U.S. at 64. Courts must likewise take a “case-by-case” approach to the exigent-circumstances
question by evaluating all the facts. Lange, 594 U.S. at 302 (citation omitted). So one could
argue that the same need for specificity should apply in this exigent-circumstances setting too.
See Gradisher, 794 F.3d at 584; Aragon v. City of Albuquerque, 423 F. App’x 790, 794 (10th
Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640–41 (1987).
For another thing, several courts have found exigent circumstances on similar facts. See
Tolliver v. Sheets, 594 F.3d 900, 916 n.6 (6th Cir. 2010). In these courts, an officer’s smell of
marijuana—when combined with the residents’ knowledge of the officer’s presence—justifies
entry into a residence. See United States v. McMillion, 472 F. App’x 138, 140–41 (3d Cir.
2012); Hardy v. Broward Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 238 F. App’x 435, 441–42 (11th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam); United States v. Grissett, 925 F.2d 776, 778 (4th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); State v.
Hughes, 607 N.W.2d 621, 623–24 (Wis. 2000) (Sykes, J.). Take Grissett. There, a motel called
the police about a man with a gun. 925 F.2d at 778. Officers found this man without a photo ID.
Id. The man told them that an individual in a motel room could identify him. Id. The police
knocked on the door to this room and announced their presence. Id. When someone opened the
door, they smelled marijuana. Id. The officers entered and found drugs. Id. The Fourth Circuit
held that exigent circumstances justified this entry. Id. It reasoned that the officers could
reasonably believe that the guests would have tried to destroy the evidence while the officers
sought a warrant because the officers “had identified themselves before smelling the
marijuana[.]” Id. Here, then, we cannot describe the officers as “plainly incompetent” when
these many other courts would have permitted their conduct. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63 (citation
omitted). And while other courts have come out differently on this issue, the “fractured” nature
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 12
of the “case law” confirms that the legality of the officers’ actions was subject to reasonable
dispute. White v. Stanley, 745 F.3d 237, 241–42 (7th Cir. 2014); see Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3,
6–11 (2013) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
To be sure, a separate line of our cases has sometimes rejected a qualified-immunity
defense based on the clearly established nature of the general rule that warrantless entries into a
home without exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment. See Reed, 80 F.4th at 745–
46; Williams v. Maurer, 9 F.4th 416, 437–38 (6th Cir. 2021); Barton v. Martin, 949 F.3d 938,
949–50 (6th Cir. 2020). These cases start by finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that
no exigent circumstances existed on the facts presented. See Reed, 80 F.4th at 746. They next
reason that, if a jury could find that no exigent circumstances existed, the court must accept that
purported fact (or, more accurately, that mixed question of law and fact) as true when deciding
whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. See id. They then hold that every
reasonable officer would know that a warrantless entry without exigent circumstances violated
the Fourth Amendment. See id. That said, in another exigent-circumstances case, we held that
this rule (that warrantless entries presumptively violate the Fourth Amendment) “frame[d] the
issue at too high a level of generality.” Gradisher, 794 F.3d at 584; see also Anderson, 483 U.S.
at 640–41.
We need not reconcile our cases on this topic here. At the least, the chain of reasoning
from these cases cannot apply where, as here, a well-established body of law from other courts
would permit the conduct at issue. See, e.g., Grissett, 925 F.2d at 778. Even if the jury ruled for
Howell and Brown, this out-of-circuit precedent would continue to exist next to the jury’s
verdict. So it would continue to show that a “reasonable official”—indeed, a reasonable court—
could have found that the officers did not violate the law (even if the jury thought otherwise).
Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63 (citation omitted); see Stanton, 571 U.S. at 10–11; White, 745 F.3d at
241–42.
Howell and Brown’s contrary arguments lack merit. They first suggest that the officers
entered their home with the intent to arrest Howell rather than to search for drugs. But the
officers testified that they engaged in a “protective sweep” of the home during which they did
not spot “any narcotics related evidence in plain sight.” McCormick Decl., R.254-1, PageID
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 13
1196; see Jensen Decl., R.254-2, PageID 1200. Besides, this argument misunderstands the
nature of the exigent-circumstances exception. Under that exception, the officers’ “subjective
motivation” for their entry “is irrelevant.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 404. As long as a
reasonable officer could have concluded that a concern with the destruction of evidence created
exigent circumstances, qualified immunity would protect the officers no matter their reasons for
the entry.
Howell and Brown next highlight the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United
States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948). There, the officers smelled illegal narcotics emanating from a hotel
room. Id. at 12. Rather than get a warrant, they immediately knocked on the door and entered
after a short conversation with one of the occupants. Id. They opted to approach the occupants
immediately rather than get a warrant because of the “inconvenience” and “delay” involved in
drafting up the necessary “papers” and offering them “to a magistrate.” Id. at 15. The Court
held that these bureaucratic reasons did not suffice to overcome the warrant requirement. Id.
Yet the officers here could have reasonably concluded that “Johnson is distinguishable” from
this case. Hughes, 607 N.W.2d at 628. The officers in Johnson learned of the smell at a time
when the individuals in the hotel room were “unaware of their presence” (and so those
individuals had no incentive to destroy the drugs). Id. Here, by contrast, the officers did not
learn of the drug smell until after they announced their presence and created the incentive to
destroy the drugs. See id.
Howell and Brown lastly turn to the Supreme Court’s more recent opinion in King to
argue that exigent circumstances cannot exist without evidence suggesting that people in the
home are actively destroying drugs. But King declined to opine on the existence of exigent
circumstances. 563 U.S. at 470–71. It instead overruled “the so-called ‘police-created exigency’
doctrine.” Id. at 461. The many versions of this doctrine all flowed out of the premise that the
police cannot manufacture the emergency that lets them enter a home without a warrant (say, by
revealing themselves to the suspects). See id. at 461–62. The Court rejected this rule and held
that the usual exigent-circumstances standards should apply whenever the police actions that led
to the emergency did not themselves violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 462. And here, the
officers’ decision to announce their presence and knock on the door (the conduct that created the
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 14
emergency) was one that any “private citizen” could undertake. Id. at 469. So it did not violate
the Fourth Amendment. Id. King thus offers Howell and Brown no assistance. And because the
officers did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity protects them.
B. Warrantless Seizures
Howell and Brown next suggest that the officers committed an “unreasonable”
“seizure[]” of “their persons” when the officers arrested Howell and restrained Brown. U.S.
Const. amend. IV. Yet the officers had probable cause to arrest Howell, so he has failed to show
a constitutional violation at step one of the qualified-immunity analysis. And caselaw at the
relevant time did not show that the Fourth Amendment barred the officers from temporarily
detaining Brown, so she has failed to establish a violation of clearly established law at step two.
1. Howell’s Arrest
Howell claims that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting him. Yet
officers may make warrantless arrests if they have probable cause to believe that a suspect
committed a crime. See United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 414–24 (1976). And officers
need not surmount a “high bar” to establish this probable cause. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 57 (quoting
Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014)). They need to show only “a probability or
substantial chance of criminal activity[.]” Id. (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 243–44
n.13 (1983)).
When does this probable cause exist based on an eyewitness’s firsthand account that a
suspect committed a crime? We have long held that this evidence alone generally can establish
the probable cause required to arrest the suspect. See Farris v. Oakland County, 96 F.4th 956,
963 (6th Cir. 2024); Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir. 1999). To show otherwise, a
suspect must point to evidence that would have led reasonable officers to believe that the
eyewitness was lying or mistaken. See Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 429–30 (6th Cir.
2015). And a suspect’s mere denial generally will not suffice to satisfy this burden. Fisher v.
Jordan, 91 F.4th 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2024). Rather, the officers can credit the eyewitness’s
account over the suspect’s competing narrative. See Farris, 96 F.4th at 964. That rule makes
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 15
sense because probable cause does not require the same amount of evidence that the government
must produce to get a conviction at trial. See Fisher, 91 F.4th at 425.
This caselaw shows that the officers had probable cause here. They arrested Howell for
committing an aggravated assault of Avila (in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-
102(a)(1)(A)) and for resisting their frisk (in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-16-
602(a)). Unlike a malicious-prosecution claim, see Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S.
556, 562–64 (2024), a claim alleging an unconstitutional false arrest will fail as long as the
officers had probable cause for one of these offenses, see Howse v. Hodous, 953 F.3d 402, 409
(6th Cir. 2020); see also Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg, 124 F.4th 295, 303–04 (3d
Cir. 2024). We thus will address only the aggravated-assault charge. In particular, we must ask
whether there was a “substantial chance” that Howell “intentionally or knowingly cause[d]
[Avila] to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury” through the “display of a deadly weapon[.]”
Wesby, 583 U.S. at 57 (citation omitted); Tenn. Code §§ 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii), 39-13-
101(a)(2).
This substantial chance existed. Recall that Avila had told the 911 dispatcher that
Howell, while acting “crazy” and “drunk,” had “pointed a gun at [her] face” in a threatening
manner. 911 Call, at 0:54–1:08. When the officers reached the scene, they found Avila
“unnerved and shaking.” McCormick Decl., R.254-1, PageID 1190. She reiterated to them that
an “intoxicated” Howell had “pointed a small handgun at her” while “screaming at her about
owing money or rent” and “acting very crazy[.]” Id. These “eyewitness” allegations alone likely
created probable cause to believe that Howell had committed an aggravated assault because
nothing at the scene suggested that Avila had been lying or mistaken about the events. Farris,
96 F.4th at 964. The officers also corroborated aspects of Avila’s account because Howell
admitted that he owned guns and that Avila had been in the home. And while Howell denied
pointing a gun at Avila, the officers did not need to “credit [his] account over” Avila’s when
deciding whether they had probable cause for the arrest. Id.; see Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544,
552 (6th Cir. 2001).
Howell’s responses lack merit. He first claims that the arresting officers lacked probable
cause because they did not personally talk to Avila before arresting him. Under our caselaw,
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 16
though, one officer may reasonably rely on information obtained from other officers. See
Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t, 785 F.3d 1128, 1134 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Humphrey
v. Mabry, 482 F.3d 840, 847 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also United States v. Baker, 976 F.3d 636,
642–43 (6th Cir. 2020). And the record here leaves no doubt that other officers confirmed what
Avila had told the 911 dispatcher by speaking to her at the scene. It also leaves no doubt that
Officer McCormick (an arresting officer) “heard” this information. McCormick Decl., R.254-1,
PageID 1190. So the arresting officers’ failure to speak to Avila makes no difference.
Howell next compares his circumstances to those in Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837 (6th
Cir. 2005). But Fisher looks nothing like this case. There, an anonymous tipster called 911
about a potentially suicidal man who appeared to have his feet tied to train tracks in rural Ohio.
Id. at 839–40. In reality, this “retired farmer” had set up on the tracks to “shoot groundhogs” for
his neighbors. Id. at 839. When the officers arrived, the farmer did everything they told him to
do. Id. at 840. But the officers arrested him anyway. See id. at 840, 845. We held that the facts
the officers learned at the scene contradicted the anonymous tip and rebutted any basis to suspect
that the farmer was suicidal. Id. at 843–45. The officers here, by contrast, learned information
from Avila at the scene that confirmed (rather than rebutted) what she had told the 911
dispatcher.
Howell lastly argues that Avila failed to provide enough information to establish probable
cause that Howell committed an aggravated assault. He notes, for example, that Avila suggested
that she did not think that the firearm had been loaded. And he contends that the officers should
have considered whether he had acted in self-defense. Howell’s theories may have raised good
defenses at trial to convince a jury that he did not commit this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Lester v. Roberts, 986 F.3d 599, 610 (6th Cir. 2021). But the theories fall short of showing
that there was not even a “substantial chance” that Howell committed an aggravated assault—all
that the officers needed for probable cause. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 57 (citation omitted).
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 17
2. Brown’s Detention
Brown claims that the officers arrested her without probable cause when they kept her in
handcuffs for 30 to 40 minutes. Because we find this claim debatable, we opt to resolve it at the
second step of the qualified-immunity analysis.
Brown identifies no “body of relevant case law” that would have told the officers that this
detention exceeded constitutional bounds. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64 (citation omitted). To the
contrary, officers may temporarily detain a suspect when they have reasonable suspicion that the
suspect has committed a crime. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22 (1968). And the officers
here could have reasonably believed that they at least had reasonable suspicion of Brown’s
illegal marijuana possession given the smell emanating from her home. Cf. Fisher, 91 F.4th at
426–28.
Citing Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2006), Brown responds that the officers’
decision to handcuff her turned this “Terry stop” into a full-fledged arrest. But we have held that
officers may use handcuffs during Terry stops when the circumstances warrant. See, e.g., United
States v. Atchley, 474 F.3d 840, 849 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Jacob, 377 F.3d 573, 579–
80 (6th Cir. 2004); cf. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98–100 (2005). And Smoak would not
have clearly established that the handcuffing turned Brown’s detention into an arrest. In that
case, officers stopped a family on the side of a freeway because of a mistaken belief that they
had committed a robbery, forced the family to get on the ground with guns drawn, handcuffed
them, and ultimately shot their dog. 460 F.3d at 774–76. We held that this force turned the
temporary detention into an unreasonable arrest. Id. at 781–82. Yet the officers in Smoak had no
basis to believe that the family might have weapons, see id. at 781, while Avila had just told the
officers that Howell had pointed a gun at her and Howell had admitted that he kept guns in the
home. Brown thus has identified no precedent that “addresses facts like the ones at issue here.”
Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 6. That failure entitles the officers to qualified immunity.
C. Car Seizure
Howell next argues (in all of a page and a half of the appellants’ brief) that two officers
committed an “unreasonable” “seizure[]” of one of his “effects” by helping Avila “steal” his
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 18
Chevy Lumina. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Appellants’ Br. 40. At the outset, this claim implicates
two factual disputes. Dispute one: Who owned the car? The criminal case shows that the car’s
“certificate of title” lists Avila as the owner. Howell, 2018 WL 385505, at *1. But the officers’
counsel did not put this evidence into our record. And Howell asserts in an affidavit that he
owned the car. At this summary-judgment stage, then, we must assume that the car belonged to
Howell even if he might face an uphill battle persuading a jury of this fact. See Gambrel, 25
F.4th at 404. Dispute two: Did the officers help Avila push the car out of the garage? The
officers and Avila have testified that they refused to assist her. But Howell claims that he saw
unidentified officers pushing the car down the driveway. So again, we must accept his
account—regardless of whether he could convince a jury. See id. Putting these two facts
together, then, we must assume that some officers helped Avila push the car out of the garage
even though Howell owned it. At the same time, it is undisputed that Avila told the officers she
owned the car.
Did the officers violate the Fourth Amendment on these facts? Because of the parties’
cursory briefing, we opt to resolve this question by again jumping to the second step of the
qualified-immunity analysis. Howell has identified no “legal principle” that establishes beyond
doubt that the officers committed an unreasonable seizure. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63. Indeed, we
see much uncertainty over the controlling legal standards. Suppose a 911 caller claims that
another person has stolen the caller’s property and asks for police assistance in getting it back.
How should responding officers sort out this property dispute? Must they simply do nothing (as
the officers claim they did here)? May they help the 911 caller retake the property if the caller
presents enough proof confirming ownership? Must they allow the other person to present
competing evidence? How does state property law affect the Fourth Amendment calculus? Cf.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-30-101. The parties do not address these questions—let alone offer input
on their answers. Howell thus has fallen well short of showing that “every reasonable” state
official should have known that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the officers from helping
Avila. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63. We likely could affirm on this basis alone. See Mosier v. Evans,
90 F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024).
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 19
In any event, our own research has uncovered little “relevant precedents” on these
questions. Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 512, 516 (1994). Start with the Supreme Court’s
cases. In Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), the Court did clarify that state actors
engage in a “seizure” when they interfere with an owner’s possessory interests in property. Id. at
61–62. But all agreed that the plaintiffs in Soldal owned the property at issue: a trailer home.
See id. at 57, 61–62. And all agreed that the police had violated state law by assisting a trailer-
park owner in removing the home from the park. See id. at 58, 72. The Court also did not offer
any guidance over when property seizures qualify as “unreasonable” under the Fourth
Amendment. See id. at 71–72. So Soldal did not clearly establish anything useful for how the
officers in this case should have handled the ownership dispute that they confronted. See Wesby,
583 U.S. at 64.
Turn to our precedent. In a case that Howell does not cite, we have held that officers can
violate the Fourth Amendment by helping a private party take the plaintiff’s personal property.
See Cochran v. Gilliam, 656 F.3d 300, 307–09 (6th Cir. 2011). In Cochran, a tenant claimed
that officers worked with a landlord to seize the tenant’s property as a self-help remedy for the
tenant’s failure to pay rent, even though “there was no apparent legal basis for such action.” Id.
at 303–04, 309. Yet a reasonable officer could have distinguished Cochran from this case on
two grounds. See Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64. The officers in Cochran knew that the property
belonged to the tenant. See 656 F.3d at 303. Here, by contrast, Avila told the officers that the
car belonged to her. And the officers in Cochran helped the landlord remove the property from
the premises. See id. at 304, 308. Here, by contrast, the officers at most pushed the car out of
the garage. Brown provided undisputed testimony that the car remained “on the premises” after
the officers had left. Brown Dep., R.254-3, PageID 1217. So an unassisted Avila took the car
only later.
Howell fares no better with his citation to Collins v. Nagle, 892 F.2d 489 (6th Cir. 1989).
There, a truck owner’s son used the truck to block the gate to an illegal mining operation while
mining officials were on site investigating the operation. Id. at 491–92. After arresting the son,
the officials called a tow truck to impound the truck. Id. at 492. The truck owner argued that
this impoundment amounted to an unreasonable seizure because the officials could have simply
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 20
moved the truck a small amount to open the gate. See id. at 493. Applying a totality-of-the-
circumstances test, we disagreed and found that the officials had behaved reasonably. Id. at 493–
94. Collins thus does not clearly establish a violation in this case either. See Wesby, 583 U.S. at
63.
In sum, no decision would have given the officers “fair notice” that their conduct violated
the Fourth Amendment. Lawler ex rel. Lawler v. Hardeman County, 93 F.4th 919, 926 (6th Cir.
2024) (citation omitted). So qualified immunity protects them from liability for their alleged
interference with Howell’s possessory interests in the Lumina. See id.
D. Malicious Prosecution
Howell next seeks to hold Officer McCormick liable for “malicious prosecution” under
the Fourth Amendment. See Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36, 42 (2022). We find his argument
difficult to evaluate because Howell does not identify the claim’s basic elements—let alone the
disputed ones. Instead, he argues that McCormick’s affidavit in support of an arrest warrant and
his police report both contained knowingly false statements. Which element(s) of a malicious-
prosecution claim does this factual allegation implicate? Neither Howell nor McCormick says.
Perhaps the “cursory” nature of the briefing on the claim would again suffice to allow us to
affirm. Mosier, 90 F.4th at 548. Regardless, Howell’s claim flunks a basic element of this
claim.
Under controlling caselaw, a malicious-prosecution claim requires plaintiffs to prove four
things. They must connect the sued officer to the prosecution by showing that the officer “made,
influenced or participated in” the prosecutorial decision. Lester, 986 F.3d at 606 (citation
omitted). They must show a “lack of probable cause” for the challenged charge or charges in the
indictment. Id.; cf. Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556, 562–64 (2024). They must
prove that the prosecution caused a “deprivation of liberty” (or “seizure” in the words of the
Fourth Amendment) apart from the initial arrest. Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308–09 (6th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Chiaverini, 602 U.S. at 562. And
they must show that the prosecution ended without a conviction. See Thompson, 596 U.S. at 44,
49.
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 21
We opt to resolve this dispute based on the second element: the lack of probable cause.
As we have said, officers need not surmount a “high bar” to show probable cause for a
prosecution. Lester, 986 F.3d at 608 (citation omitted). They need only establish “a probability
or substantial chance” that the suspect committed the charged crimes. Id. (quoting Wesby, 583
U.S. at 57). That said, this element comes with an added wrinkle here because a grand jury
indicted Howell on two counts: aggravated assault and resisting arrest. The grand jury’s decision
to indict creates a presumption that probable cause supported these charges. See Price v.
Montgomery County, 72 F.4th 711, 725 (6th Cir. 2023). And Howell can overcome this
presumption only by showing, among other things, that McCormick made false statements that
were “material” to the prosecution. See id.; King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 587–88 (6th Cir.
2017).
Howell has not overcome the presumption. Avila, an “eyewitness” to his alleged assault,
testified at a preliminary hearing that Howell pointed a gun at her in a threating manner. Farris,
96 F.4th at 964. This testimony alone likely provided probable cause to prosecute the
aggravated-assault charge—as a state judge found when sending the case to a grand jury. See id.
At the least, Howell offers no reasons why the testimony should fall short—and so he has
forfeited any contrary claim. See Coleman v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 130 F.4th
593, 601 (6th Cir. 2025).
In response, Howell seeks to overcome the probable-cause presumption by suggesting
that McCormick falsely suggested in his warrant affidavit and police report that he (rather than
other officers) interviewed Avila. Yet Avila’s live testimony stood “independent” of anything
that McCormick put in those documents. McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418, 444 (6th
Cir. 2005). So these alleged false statements were not “material” to the aggravated-assault
prosecution. King, 852 F.3d at 587–88. We need say no more to reject Howell’s malicious-
prosecution claim.
Admittedly, the Supreme Court has now clarified that courts must take a charge-by-
charge approach to malicious prosecution (unlike false arrest). See Chiaverini, 602 U.S. at 562.
That is, a plaintiff in multicount cases might still have a viable malicious-prosecution claim on
one charge even if the plaintiff lacks a viable claim on another one. See id. And the grand jury
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 22
also indicted Howell for resisting arrest. Still, Howell has not explained why Chiaverini’s
reasoning would help him. Indeed, the Court recognized that an invalid charge might still fall
short if it did not cause a defendant’s deprivation of liberty because, for example, the defendant
would have remained in jail for the same amount of time based on the valid charge alone. See id.
at 564–65. Howell makes no claim that he spent even a single hour in jail based solely on the
resisting-arrest charge. Like Chiaverini, though, we can ultimately leave the proper causation
test for another day. See id.
Why? Because a more basic qualified-immunity principle bars Howell from relying on
Chiaverini. Before that 2024 decision, we had established the opposite legal rule: that probable
cause on one charge categorically forecloses malicious-prosecution claims in multicount cases.
See id. at 560–61. And the conduct in this case arose before Chiaverini. That case thus had not
clearly established its new approach “at the time” of Howell’s prosecution. Lawler, 93 F.4th at
927 (citation omitted). Our old approach—under which the probable cause on the aggravated-
assault charge automatically doomed Howell’s malicious-prosecution claim—would have barred
Howell from relying on the resisting-arrest charge. In short, because probable cause supported
“at least one of the charges,” Howell cannot establish that McCormick infringed “clearly
established law” and so “qualified immunity” protects him. Rasawehr v. Grey, 2025 WL
1639164, at *5 (6th Cir. June 10, 2025); see also Rivera-Guadalupe, 124 F.4th at 299–303.
III
Howell and Brown lastly seek to hold Nashville liable for its officers’ alleged
constitutional violations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–95 (1978). But
they cannot impose vicarious liability on Nashville for the illegal actions of its officers under
§ 1983. See Coleman, 130 F.4th at 599. Rather, they must prove that one of Nashville’s
“policies or customs” caused the Fourth Amendment violations. Id. at 599–600; see Monell, 436
U.S. at 694.
Plaintiffs can prove this type of unconstitutional policy or custom in different ways. See
Mosier, 90 F.4th at 548. A city, for example, might have had an official policy that instructed
officers to engage in conduct that violated the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Tennessee v. Garner, 471
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 23
U.S. 1, 4–6, 22 (1985). Or the city might have followed an unofficial custom of tolerating this
illegal conduct. Cf. Pineda, 977 F.3d at 495.
Howell and Brown rely on both theories. They allege that Nashville’s policies condoned
unlawful entries into people’s homes and that, at the least, Nashville followed a custom of
permitting these unlawful entries. At the same time, they concede that their evidence showed
only a “tenuous” connection between Nashville and the other constitutional violations that they
allege. Appellants’ Br. 42. So they have forfeited any other Monell claims. See Coleman, 130
F.4th at 601. And the two remaining theories fall short.
Start with Nashville’s official policies. Howell and Brown claim that two policies violate
the Fourth Amendment. They first note that Nashville’s policy on domestic-abuse cases instructs
its officers that the “preferred response” is to “arrest a person committing domestic abuse unless
there is a clear and compelling reason not to arrest.” Policy, R.254-9, PageID 1335. Because
domestic abuse typically occurs in the home, Howell and Brown reason, this policy instructs
officers to routinely enter homes to conduct arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Yet
officers may enter homes in many legal ways, such as if they obtain the victim’s consent, see
Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292, 298–300 (2014), or if they fear for the victim’s safety,
see Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 406. And nothing in this recommendation tells officers to illegally
enter someone’s home to effect the domestic-abuse arrest. To the contrary, the policy elsewhere
tells officers that they generally may not enter homes to make “a routine felony arrest” under the
Supreme Court’s precedent. Policy, R.254-9, PageID 1308 (citing Payton, 445 U.S. at 576).
Howell and Brown next note that Nashville’s policy on warrantless searches and seizures
identifies the specific “circumstances” in which officers may search a home (or seize an
individual) without a warrant, but the policy adds that the authority to conduct these warrantless
searches and seizures is “not limited to” the specific examples. Id., PageID 1296. Howell and
Brown read this “not limited to” disclaimer as giving Nashville officers free rein to enter any
home or seize any person at will. But we do not read the disclaimer in this absurdly broad
manner. Howell and Brown do not dispute that the specific examples all comport with the
Fourth Amendment. Basic interpretive rules thus tell us to read the suggestion that officers may
No. 24-5570 Howell, et al. v. McCormick, et al. Page 24
conduct other non-listed warrantless searches as reaching only those that also comply with that
amendment. Cf. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246, 252 (2024).
Turn to Nashville’s informal customs. Howell and Brown claim that Nashville has
condoned an abusive “knock-and-talk” practice in which officers approach people’s homes late
at night. Appellants’ Br. 42. But this theory of liability required them to establish “a clear and
persistent pattern” of Fourth Amendment violations. Pineda, 977 F.3d at 495 (citation omitted);
see Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005). Yet Howell and Brown
identify only three vague examples—some of which do not appear to have involved
unconstitutional conduct. These three conclusory examples would not allow a reasonable jury to
find an unconstitutional custom. See, e.g., Burley v. Sumner Cnty. 18th Jud. Drug Task Force,
2023 WL 9894461, at *3 (6th Cir. 2023); Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 F.3d 557, 568 (6th Cir.
2007).
We affirm.