stating that an argument made for the first time in a reply brief is waived
How later courts described this case
- stating that an argument made for the first time in a reply brief is waived
- upholding police officers’ entry into residence in order to “serve a judicial warrant . . . for [plaintiff’s] involuntary mental health commitment”
- noting that qualified immunity applies absent an underlying constitutional violation
- “If no constitutional right has been violated, the inquiry ends and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZAINEY, District Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority opinion as a correct disposition under the facts specific to this case. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with Haggard’s “special needs” argument. It is my opinion that the Fourth Amendment mandate that officers knock and announce their identities, absent exigent circumstances, applies in the field of mental health activity. Likewise, I disagree with the First Circuit’s decision in McCabe v. Life-Line Ambulance Service, Inc., 77 F.3d 540 (1st Cir.1996), discussed in footnote one of the opinion, which held that warrantless, forcible entries by police officers in possession of an involuntary commitment order were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, if Haggard had timely raised the special needs argument, I would have concluded that a per se exception to the knock and announce requirement in mental health cases does not comport with the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement.