# Wilson v. Layne

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 8, 1998 · 141 F.3d 111

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6966894

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles H. WILSON Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, next friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a minor v. Harry LAYNE, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo, and Raymond M. Right, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriffs Deputies John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Eric E. Runion Mark A. Collins Brian E. Roynestad, Defendants Charles H. WILSON Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, next friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a minor v. Mark A. COLLINS Eric E. Runion Brian E. Roynestad, and Raymond M. Right, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriffs Deputies Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 8, 1998
- **Citations:** 141 F.3d 111; 1998 WL 159673
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Widener
- **Judges:** Ervin, From, Hamilton, Luttig, Michael, Motz, Murnaghan, Niemeyer, Widener, Wilkins, Wilkinson, Williams
- **Cited by:** 111 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6966894

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding officers entitled to qualified immunity where the law was not clearly established and officers could have believed their conduct justified by legitimate law enforcement interests
- explaining that controlling authority derives from decisions by the Supreme Court, this Court, or “the highest court of the state”
- noting that entry into a home without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement exists

## Opinion text

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result obtained by the majority.
I also concur in all of the majority opinion except the four sentences commencing with “and” on page 116, line 12, and ending with “warrant” on page 116, line 33. The conclusion there mentioned is not a question before us, and I would not express an advisory opinion upon it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6966894. Public record. Not legal advice.