Steve W. Young v. Anthony Harrison

On December 31, 1998, appellant Young and three of his friends rented a

suite at the Rushmore Plaza Holiday Inn in Rapid City, South Dakota. Following

several hours of drinking and bar-hopping, Young and his friends returned to the

hotel and Young passed out in the bedroom of the suite. Young's friends stayed

outside the suite and continued the evening's festivities. Hotel security officer Gerald

Adcock informed Young's friends on three separate occasions that they needed to go

to their room or to one of the hotel's common areas to avoid disturbing the other

guests. The men ignored Adcock's request. Adcock claims that at around 3:00 a.m.,

he told the men he was evicting them from the hotel for refusing to return to their

room and informed them that they had ten minutes to gather their things and exit the

premises. Young was so intoxicated he does not recall the events of the evening.

Young's friends claim that Adcock never told them they were evicted. In any event,

when it appeared to Adcock that the men were not going to leave the hotel, he called

the police. Undaunted, Young's friends left their belongings in the suite and went to

the hotel restaurant while Young slept in the bedroom. Several minutes later, the

police officers arrived at the hotel and accompanied Adcock to Young's room. Adcock knocked on the door, which was propped open, yelled out that he was hotel

security and asked if anyone was in the room. Getting no reply, Adcock and the

officers entered the suite. Once in the suite, but still outside the bedroom, Adcock

could see that someone (Young) was in the bed in the bedroom and he announced his

presence once again. After getting no reply, Officers Harrison and Asscherick

entered the bedroom and tried to awaken Young by a technique known as a "sternum

rub."2 Young woke up, but apparently was disoriented and attempted to return to

sleep on the bed. When Officer Harrison executed another sternum rub, Young

reacted violently and shoved Harrison against the wall. The officers placed Young

under arrest as a result of his violent outburst. The charges against Young were

ultimately dismissed by the prosecutor.

Young then brought this 42 U.S.C. � 1983 action, alleging that his

constitutional rights were violated by Officers Harrison and Asscherick because they

illegally entered his hotel room and used excessive force against him. Young also

sued the City of Rapid City, claiming that it maintains an unconstitutional policy

regarding officer involvement in "self-help" evictions. Finally, Young alleges that

John Q. Hammons Hotel, Inc. and Adcock conspired with the police to violate his

rights.

* * *

Young claims that when Harrison and Asscherick entered his hotel suite and

arrested him they violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free

from unreasonable searches, seizures and excessive force. Section 1983 affords

redress against a person who, under color of state law, deprives another person of any

federal constitutional or statutory right. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S.

808, 816 (1985). But, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity and shielded

from liability when their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

"[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity

grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2)

demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise a genuine issue

of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would

have violated plaintiff's clearly established right." Habiger v. City of Fargo, 80 F.3d

289, 295 (8th Cir. 1996). We think it is unlikely that Young has proven a violation

of his constitutional rights. In any event, if the officers did violate Young's rights,

they were not clearly established and the officers acted reasonably.

Young claims that when the officers entered his suite without a warrant,

consent, or exigent circumstances, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It is

clear, he says, that the protections against warrantless intrusions into the home apply

equally to a properly rented hotel room during the rental period. See, e.g., United

States v. Morales, 737 F.2d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Baldacchino,

762 F.2d 170, 175-76 (1st Cir. 1985). Young argues, and it appears that he is correct, that South Dakota statutes do not distinguish between the status given to

various leasehold interests in real property based upon whether the lease is for a

house, apartment or hotel room.3 Young argues that South Dakota law does not

provide for the summary eviction of a hotel guest and, therefore, his eviction was

illegal because the hotel and the officers did not follow the procedures set out in

South Dakota's Forcible Entry and Detainer statute.4 Using this logic, Young's rental

period at the hotel did not end when Adcock told him and his friends to leave, and so

it follows that the police could not simply enter his room absent a warrant, consent,

or exigent circumstances.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

For the reasons stated, the order of the district court is affirmed.

Unavailable

Unavailable

None