PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARK J. HUNSBERGER; CHERYL A.
HUNSBERGER,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
J. A. WOOD, Deputy Sheriff,
Botetourt County Sheriff’s Office, No. 08-1782
Defendant-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM W. BLESSARD; JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(7:07-cv-00087-SGW-MFU)
Argued: May 15, 2009
Decided: June 29, 2009
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
C. Arlen BEAM, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkin-
son wrote the opinion, in which Judge Traxler and Senior
Judge Beam joined.
2 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Elizabeth Kay Dillon, GUYNN, MEMMER &
DILLON, PC, Salem, Virginia, for Appellant. Melvin Edward
Williams, GRIMES & WILLIAMS, PC, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Terry N. Grimes, GRIMES &
WILLIAMS, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Sergeant J. A. Wood appeals the district court’s denial of
qualified immunity in this civil suit arising out of Wood’s
warrantless entry into the plaintiffs’ home. Because the objec-
tive circumstances confronted by defendant on the night in
question suggested that plaintiffs’ home was being vandalized
and that a missing teenage girl was in the house and in need
of assistance, the search was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment exigent circumstances doctrine. We thus reverse
the judgment of the district court and grant the defendant
qualified immunity in this case.
I.
At 10:17 p.m. on February 2, 2007, a woman named Char-
lene Klik called 911 to report suspicious activity near her
home in Roanoke, which is located in Botetourt County, Vir-
ginia. Klik had noticed a number of cars coming and going
from the home of her neighbors, Mark and Cheryl Hunsber-
ger. Because the lights in the house were off and she had not
seen her neighbors in a couple of days, Klik thought that the
Hunsbergers might be on vacation. She saw teenagers getting
in and out of the cars in front of the home and became con-
cerned that vandalism or burglary might be taking place.
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 3
In response to Klik’s 911 call, the Botetourt County Sher-
iff’s Office dispatched Sergeant J. A. Wood and Deputy Sher-
iff Jody Edwards to the scene. After Edwards briefly spoke to
Klik, the two officers observed the home and the surrounding
area from their cars for several minutes. The officers saw that
some of the lights were on in the house and two cars were
parked in front. Seeing and hearing nothing suspicious, they
left the scene at approximately 10:37 p.m.
Contrary to Klik’s belief, Mark and Cheryl Hunsberger
were at home that night, as were their three children: their son
Zach, then eighteen years of age; their son LH, then sixteen;
and their daughter JH, then ten.1 Five friends of the two Huns-
berger boys were present as well, including NW, a minor girl
who was then sixteen. Between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m., the Huns-
bergers put JH to bed and then watched television in the
garage until approximately 11:00 p.m., when they went to
bed.
The teenage children and their friends, who had earlier
been at another friend’s house, arrived at the Hunsberger
home in two cars around 9:00 p.m. The teenagers went to the
basement, where they watched television and played card
games. Some of them drank beer and vodka. While at the
Hunsberger home, several of the teenagers came outside the
house at various times to smoke cigarettes and to retrieve
items from their cars.
At approximately 11:00 p.m., the mother of one of the
friends drove to the house to pick up her daughter; she also
gave NW a ride to another friend’s home where NW’s car
was parked. NW then drove back to the Hunsberger home in
her own vehicle. Around midnight, Zach and another boy,
Aaron Cooper, briefly left to go purchase beer.
1
As was done in the briefs, we have referred to persons under the age
of 18 by initials only.
4 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
The earlier visit by Edwards and Wood had not allayed
Klik’s fears, and after seeing additional activity at the house
she again called 911 at 12:10 a.m. Edwards and Wood again
were dispatched to investigate. While sitting in his vehicle,
Wood observed a young man come into the garage, turn on
the lights, turn them off again, and reenter the house. Edwards
spoke to Klik, who said she was worried about vandalism or
burglary at the Hunsberger home, and Edwards relayed Klik’s
fears to Wood. The officers noticed that a third car, the one
driven by NW, was now parked in front of the Hunsberger
home. All three cars partially blocked the road.
The officers decided to ask the occupants of the Hunsber-
ger home to move their cars and avoid disturbing the neigh-
bors. They each pulled their cars into the Hunsberger home’s
driveway, at which point they noticed the lights inside the
house turn off. Edwards and Wood exited their vehicles,
approached the house, and rang the home’s doorbell twenty-
five or thirty times. No one came to the door.
Plaintiffs say they never heard the doorbell. The Hunsber-
ger boys and their friends, however, did notice the officers’
arrival. When the officers approached the house, Zach and
one of his friends, Matt Deane, exited the house through the
garage and ran to another friend’s home. LH went to his bed-
room. NW and two of the other friends hid under the stairwell
in the basement.
Walking back to their cars, the two officers noticed that the
previously closed side door to the garage, which Zach and
Matt Deane had just run through to avoid the officers, was
now open. Wood stepped into the garage and knocked on the
door inside that led into the house. No one answered. Edwards
and Wood returned to their cars.
The officers decided to contact the dispatcher to identify
the owners of the vehicles in front of the house using the cars’
license plate information. The dispatcher routed calls to each
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 5
of the car owners to Wood’s cell phone. Wood spoke to sev-
eral parents including William Blessard, NW’s stepfather.
Each agreed to pick up his or her respective vehicle.
It struck Wood as suspicious that the occupants of the home
had turned off the lights when the officers approached, had
refused to answer the door, and had apparently fled the home.
Given Klik’s claim that the Hunsbergers might be out of
town, Wood became concerned about the possibility of van-
dalism. Wood also took into consideration the fact that two
weeks earlier a vacant house nearby had burned down as the
apparent result of unauthorized use.
Blessard was the first parent to arrive. Blessard told Wood
that NW was supposed to be sleeping over at a friend’s house,
and that he did not know why her car was at the home of the
Hunsbergers, whom he did not know. Blessard called NW’s
cellphone several times, but she did not answer. He became
worried for the welfare of his stepdaughter.
Wood suggested to Blessard that they see if anyone would
come to the Hunsberger home’s door if they rang the door-
bell. Walking towards the front door, they passed the garage,
when Wood heard something being knocked over. Wood
stepped inside the garage and then heard the door that con-
nected the garage to the house’s basement shut and lock.
Blessard followed Wood into the garage, walked down the
steps to the basement door, knocked repeatedly, and shouted
NW’s name. No one came to the door, and Blessard’s appre-
hensions rose.
Wood then approached the door inside the garage that
opened into the first floor of the home. He discovered it was
unlocked. The series of strange happenings had increased
Wood’s fears of vandalism as well as his concern for the wel-
fare of Blessard’s stepdaughter. At that point, Wood decided
to enter the home. Wood proceeded into the kitchen area and
loudly announced that he was from the sheriff’s office and
6 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
that anyone in the home who was hiding should reveal him-
self. Blessard followed Wood into the home.
The lights were off in the home. Using his flashlight, Wood
searched the first floor of the home and found no one present.
He then went downstairs to the basement and Blessard fol-
lowed. The two men encountered no one in the basement, but
noticed that the television was turned on and saw several cans
of beer. Wood and Blessard came back upstairs. Wood made
another sweep of the first floor, but again found no one pres-
ent.
Wood then proceeded up to the second floor, on which
there were four bedrooms. As Wood looked in the first bed-
room, which was empty, Blessard joined him on the second
floor. As Wood entered the next bedroom, a dog walked out
of a closet. Wood approached the closet, in which he discov-
ered LH sitting on the floor and wearing only his boxer shorts.
Wood says that he asked LH where everyone else was, and
that LH said "they are not here." Wood exited the room to
check the next bedroom, and LH walked out of the closet and
went downstairs.
Wood searched the third bedroom with his flashlight, while
Blessard stood by the doorway. Wood discovered JH lying
under the covers in bed. JH remembers waking up to someone
pointing a flashlight around her room, and that, half-asleep,
she told them to leave her alone. Mark Hunsberger and Cheryl
Hunsberger say they heard JH scream, which caused them to
wake up. LH also says he heard JH scream at some point, but
Wood and Blessard do not recall her screaming. JH had the
covers pulled over part of her face. Wood approached her bed
and pulled the covers down to reveal her face. Wood asked
Blessard if the girl was his stepdaughter, and Blessard said no.
Wood checked the rest of the room and then stepped back
into the hallway. At that point Mark Hunsberger, having just
woken up, exited his bedroom and encountered the two men.
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 7
Hunsberger asked Wood why the men were in his house.
Wood said that Blessard was looking for NW. Hunsberger
said that they should all go downstairs. The three men went
into the kitchen on the first floor, and Wood attempted to
explain in more detail why he and Blessard had entered the
home. Shortly thereafter, Cheryl Hunsberger joined them. She
asked for Wood’s name and for an explanation of his and
Blessard’s presence. Mark Hunsberger became very upset
with the two men, ordered them to leave, and asked his wife
to call the police. Wood and Blessard left the house. The
search lasted in total ten or fifteen minutes.
A lieutenant from the Sheriff’s office came to the home to
take the Hunsbergers’ complaint against Wood. After the lieu-
tenant departed, Cheryl Hunsberger called Zach to determine
where he was and what had happened. Zach told his mother
that several friends, including NW, were hiding in the base-
ment. Upon learning this, Mark Hunsberger went downstairs
and discovered NW and two more of his sons’ friends. Mark
Hunsberger asked his wife to drive NW home immediately,
because Blessard was "worried sick" about her. Cheryl Huns-
berger dropped NW off at her home.
On February 22, 2007, the Hunsbergers filed the present
action in the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia. Their complaint, twice amended, named
Blessard and Wood as defendants and sought money damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two state law causes of action.
Only relevant here is the § 1983 claim against Wood; it
alleged that Wood’s entry into the Hunsberger home violated
the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
searches.
Wood moved for summary judgment. With respect to the
§ 1983 claim, he argued that the entry into the home was con-
stitutional, and that even if it were not he was entitled to qual-
ified immunity because he violated no bright-line
constitutional rule. The district court concluded that Wood’s
8 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
search of the home was not justified by an emergency, and
was therefore unreasonable, and further determined that the
constitutional right at issue was clearly established. Hunsber-
ger v. Wood, 564 F. Supp. 2d 559, 565-70 (W.D. Va. 2008).
Accordingly, the district court denied summary judgment. Id.
at 570. Wood immediately appealed the district court’s ruling.
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal to resolve
the purely legal question of whether defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313
(1995).
II.
Plaintiffs contend that defendant violated their Fourth
Amendment rights when he entered their home without a war-
rant. Because plaintiffs seek money damages, they must over-
come defendant’s qualified immunity. "[G]overnment
officials performing discretionary functions generally are
shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their con-
duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu-
tional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
Defendant argues that under Fourth Amendment doctrine, his
entry was reasonable under the circumstances and that, even
if the entry was unreasonable, he did not violate clearly estab-
lished federal law. In our review of these purely legal ques-
tions, we must reverse the district court’s denial of qualified
immunity if either of defendant’s contentions is correct. As it
is within our discretion to choose which of these questions to
consider first, Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818
(2009), we begin by asking whether defendant’s conduct vio-
lated any constitutional right.
A.
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const.
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 9
amend. IV. "At the very core" of this guarantee "stands the
right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free
from unreasonable governmental intrusion." Silverman v.
United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961). Indeed, the "physical
entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording
of the Fourth Amendment is directed." United States v. U.S.
Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972). Thus, "[i]t is a basic prin-
ciple of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures
inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreason-
able." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
However, this presumption can be overcome. "[B]ecause
the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reason-
ableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain excep-
tions." Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). Two
exceptions are relevant here.
First, under some circumstances, a police officer can search
without a warrant while performing "community caretaking
functions." Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973).
In Dombrowski, the defendant, a Chicago police officer, was
in an automobile accident in Wisconsin. Believing that Chi-
cago policemen were required to carry their service revolvers
at all times, local police officers searched the defendant’s dis-
abled and towed car in order to find the revolver, as it was
standard procedure in their department to remove weapons
from vehicles in order "to protect the public from the possibil-
ity that a revolver would fall into untrained or perhaps mali-
cious hands." Id. at 443. Because the search was a result of
a function "totally divorced from the detection, investigation,
or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a crimi-
nal statute," it was permissible. Id. at 441. Although Dom-
browski involved the search of a vehicle, some lower courts
have relied on the community caretaking rationale in uphold-
ing warrantless searches of homes. United States v. Quezada,
448 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Staf-
ford, 416 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v.
10 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1521-22 (6th Cir. 1996). But see
United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir. 1994)
(holding that community caretaking exception applies only to
automobile searches); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204,
208-09 (7th Cir. 1982) (same).
Second, even when not performing a community caretaking
function, a police officer may search a home without a war-
rant if, in an emergency, "‘the exigencies of the situation’
make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the
warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394 (1978)
(quoting McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456
(1948)). For example, law enforcement officers in hot pursuit
of a suspected felon may chase their quarry into a home with-
out seeking judicial authorization. Warden v. Hayden, 387
U.S. 294 (1967). They may enter a dwelling to prevent the
imminent destruction of evidence. Ker v. California, 374 U.S.
23 (1963). Firefighters may enter a burning building to com-
bat a blaze, and may remain for a reasonable time after the
fire to investigate its cause and look for evidence of arson.
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978). In each of these situ-
ations, "there is compelling need for official action and no
time to secure a warrant," id. at 509, making a warrantless
entry reasonable.
Sergeant Wood argues that his entry was justified under
both the community caretaking and exigent circumstances
doctrines. Analyzing defendant’s claim requires us to parse
the distinction between the two exceptions to the warrant
requirement. The doctrines overlap conceptually. For exam-
ple, although fire officials investigate arson, the main function
they serve is the protection of persons and property, not the
detection of crime; thus the Tyler exception to the warrant
requirement could be justified under a community caretaking
rationale, as well as under the exigent circumstances doctrine.
Nonetheless, as a doctrinal matter, the two exceptions are not
the same. The community caretaking doctrine requires a court
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 11
to look at the function performed by a police officer, while the
emergency exception requires an analysis of the circum-
stances to determine whether an emergency requiring imme-
diate action existed. Thus, as the district court noted, the
doctrines have different "intellectual underpinning[s]." Huns-
berger, 564 F. Supp. 2d at 567.
The parties suggest that Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S.
398 (2006), might collapse the distinction between the two
doctrines. In upholding a warrantless home entry pursuant to
a claimed exigency, the Court in Stuart made clear that in
general "an action is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amend-
ment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, ‘as
long as the circumstances, viewed objectively,’" support the
action. Id. at 404 (quoting Scott v. United States, 436 U.S.
128, 138 (1978). "The officer’s subjective motivation is irrel-
evant." Id. See also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813
(1996). This holding initially seems in some tension with
Dombrowski, which requires a court to determine whether a
police officer was engaged in a function "totally divorced
from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence
relating to the violation of a criminal statute." 413 U.S. at 441.
However, the Court in Stuart also made clear that "‘an inquiry
into programmatic purpose’ is sometimes appropriate." 547
U.S. at 405 (quoting Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 46
(2000)). We think the best reading of the relationship between
the two exceptions is that when analyzing a search made as
the result of a routine police procedure, such as the policy of
locating weapons in towed cars in Dombrowski, the court
should examine the programmatic purpose of the policy—
whether it was animated by community caretaking consider-
ations or by law enforcement concerns. But when the search
in question was performed by a law enforcement officer
responding to an emergency, and not as part of a standardized
procedure, the exigent circumstances analysis and its accom-
panying objective standard should apply.
12 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
B.
Neither party has suggested that Wood, when he entered
the Hunsberger home, was following a standard policy that
could be classified as community caretaking under the analy-
sis above. A programmatic basis for the officer’s actions may
exist, but it has not been presented to this court in a fashion
that would bring the community caretaker function into play.
What community caretaking involves and what boundaries
upon it exist have simply not been explained to an extent that
would allow us to uphold this warrantless entry based on that
justification. This is not to diminish the caretaking function,
which may in some cases be of real value to absent homeown-
ers, but only to say that it is in no sense an open-ended grant
of discretion that will justify a warrantless search whenever
an officer can point to some interest unrelated to the detection
of crime.
We must therefore analyze this entry and search under the
exigent circumstances doctrine. In this inquiry, we ask
whether the circumstances known to Wood would create an
"objectively reasonable belief that an emergency existed that
required immediate entry to render assistance or prevent harm
to persons or property within." United States v. Moss, 963
F.2d 673, 678 (4th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs argue that Wood vio-
lated the constitution when he entered the first floor of the
Hunsberger home from the garage, so it is the circumstances
at that time that are relevant to whether his entry was justified.
We believe that the objective circumstances at the time of
Wood’s entry would cause a reasonable officer to believe that
there was an emergency requiring prompt entry. First, the cir-
cumstances indicated the strong possibility of an unauthorized
intruder in the home. Klik, the Hunsbergers’ neighbor, had
said that she thought the Hunsbergers were out of town. There
appeared to be someone inside the home who wished to avoid
contact with the police; when the officers first arrived, some-
one in the house turned the lights off, and then later the open
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 13
door in the garage suggested that someone had fled the home
while the officers were at the front door. Three cars not
belonging to the Hunsbergers were parked in front of the
house. No one came to the front door when the officers rang
the doorbell, and no one answered when Wood and Blessard
knocked on the basement door repeatedly. Furthermore, a
vacant home in the neighborhood had recently burned down
as the apparent result of unauthorized use.
All of these facts gave rise to an objectively reasonable
belief that vandalism might be taking place in the home. It is
true that police officers need more than a slight suspicion that
property is being harmed to justify a warrantless entry. For
example, an open door alone does not create a reasonable
belief that a burglary is taking place. Bute, 43 F.3d at 537-39.
But here there were numerous indications to justify the belief
that someone was in the Hunsberger home who was not sup-
posed to be there.
Second, there was evidence that a minor girl was in the
home, given that her car was parked in front of the house. The
girl’s stepfather said that she was not supposed to be at the
home and was exceedingly concerned for her welfare, espe-
cially given that it was the middle of the night. In his deposi-
tion testimony, Mark Hunsberger recalled telling his wife that
night that Blessard was "worried sick" about his stepdaughter
NW. The fact that the girl was not answering her cellphone
suggested the possibility that she was hurt or otherwise in
need of assistance. When a child goes missing, time is of the
essence. It turned out that NW was not in immediate danger,
but we cannot judge Wood’s search based on what we know
in hindsight. At the time of the search, there was reason to
think she needed help.
Under these circumstances, a reasonable officer could con-
clude that prompt entry was necessary in order to protect the
Hunsberger home from potential damage and to locate a miss-
ing girl who might be in harm’s way. This case thus differs
14 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
from United States v. Moss, 963 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1992).
There, we held that a forest service officer’s search of a cabin
that he believed to be illegally occupied was unreasonable
where there was "no indication that any illegal occupant was
inside" the cabin, "no immediate danger that the cabin itself
would be damaged," and nothing suggesting "an emergency
that required immediate identification of the occupants in
order to give them assistance." Id. at 679. Here, the situation
could not be more different. The combined exigencies made
probable that there was a need for immediate entry, and there-
fore the officer had an "objectively reasonable perception of
an emergency." Id.
Plaintiffs argue that Wood should have asked the dispatcher
for plaintiffs’ home telephone number and attempted to call
them before entering. Whether in retrospect this course of
action might have been preferable is not dispositive: "[t]he
fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract,
have been accomplished by less intrusive means does not, by
itself, render the search unreasonable." Dombrowski, 413 U.S.
at 447 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs also sug-
gest that Wood should have investigated neighbor Klik’s
credibility, given that her assertion about the Hunsbergers
being on vacation was incorrect. But to accept arguments like
these would be to put too great a burden on officers tasked
with responding to emergencies. There is a danger that in the
light of day we can forget that in emergencies, "the business
of policemen and firemen is to act, not to speculate or medi-
tate on whether the report is correct. . . . When policemen,
firemen or other public officers are confronted with evidence
which would lead a prudent and reasonable official to see a
need to act to protect life or property, they are authorized to
act on that information, even if ultimately found erroneous."
Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
(Burger, J.).
Plaintiffs contend that even if the entry did not violate the
Fourth Amendment, the scope of the search was unreason-
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 15
able. Because Wood found no evidence of vandalism on the
first floor, plaintiffs contend, he should not have descended to
the basement or gone up to the second floor. This argument
is without merit. The fact that there was no evidence of van-
dalism in the main living area did not require the conclusion
that all was well in the Hunsberger house. Vandals do not
confine their search for valuables to downstairs rooms, nor do
they rule the upstairs out of bounds for hiding or for inflicting
serious harm on others they may happen upon in a house. It
is not surprising, therefore, that plaintiffs do not point to pre-
cedent for the proposition they seek. Moreover, Wood did not
locate the missing NW on the first floor, so that justification
for his search remained. Nor did anything he saw on the first
floor make clear who had been or remained in the house that
night, and thus it was not unreasonable for him to continue
searching in order to determine whether an unauthorized per-
son was present. As soon as Wood realized that the Hunsber-
gers were at home, he ended his search and, after explaining
to the homeowners why he had entered, left the house.
Finally, plaintiffs contend that the search was unreasonable
because of the presence of Blessard. The parties dispute
whether Wood consented to Blessard’s presence or Blessard
merely followed Wood into the house. Even accepting as true
plaintiffs’ contention that Wood consented to Blessard’s pres-
ence, the search was not unreasonable. On this assumption,
Blessard was present to help Wood identify NW, Blessard’s
missing stepdaughter. Thus, unlike Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S.
603 (1999), where the Court held that the presence of report-
ers made the scope of a search pursuant to a search warrant
unreasonable, here the third party’s presence was "related to
the objectives of the authorized intrusion." Id. at 611. Plain-
tiffs argue that Wood could have asked Blessard to wait out-
side, and then, if he found a girl matching NW’s description,
bring her outside so that Blessard could identify her. But,
again, simply because plaintiffs can point to a different way
that Wood might have pursued his search does not mean that
Wood’s actual conduct was unreasonable. Wood was
16 HUNSBERGER v. WOOD
responding to a difficult, evolving, and uncertain situation,
and he was attempting to prevent imminent harm to the Huns-
bergers’ property and to locate the missing NW. It would be
reasonable to think that Blessard’s presence in the house
would be useful if NW were located.2
Because we conclude that defendant did not violate the
Fourth Amendment, we need not proceed to ask whether the
alleged right was clearly established. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at
818. There is a significant overlap between a Fourth Amend-
ment analysis and a qualified immunity inquiry; both are ulti-
mately concerned with reasonableness. Wood’s actions were
reasonable and he therefore deserves immunity from money
damages.
III.
We do not discount the fear and surprise that plaintiffs no
doubt experienced from an unwanted intrusion into their
home. But to say that the whole situation was unfortunate is
different from saying an officer was objectively unreasonable
in acting as he did. To sum up, on the evening in question, the
officer knew of two 911 calls from a neighbor complaining of
noise and disturbances at the Hunsberger residence and the
neighbor’s view that the Hunsbergers were not at home. The
officer personally observed suspicious behavior and furtive
goings and comings upon his approach. In addition, the offi-
cer knew of a missing minor after the hour of midnight,
2
Nothing herein is intended to suggest that officers have free license to
allow civilians into private homes during searches. Our holding as to Bles-
sard’s presence is governed by the specific facts before us, in which a
minor girl was missing in the middle of the night, very possibly in the
home and in need of assistance. The stepfather entered the home not to
assist with any routine police work, but solely to help in identifying his
stepdaughter and removing her from a potentially dangerous situation. To
be reasonable, the presence of a third party during a search of a home must
thus be "related to the justification for police entry," here the identification
of a lost and possibly endangered child. See Wilson, 526 U.S. at 611.
HUNSBERGER v. WOOD 17
observed the shaken stepfather worried about his stepdaugh-
ter’s whereabouts, witnessed the stepfather’s repeated inabil-
ity to contact his stepdaughter notwithstanding the presence of
her car outside the home, all in a neighborhood where a
vacant house nearby had burned down only recently as the
apparent result of unauthorized use. While it is tempting to
second-guess an officer’s actions, it is also true that real harm
to persons and property could result "if police tried to act with
the calm deliberation associated with the judicial process."
Wayne, 318 F.2d at 212. Because defendant’s response to the
emergency he perceived was objectively reasonable, he is
entitled to qualified immunity. The order denying defendant
qualified immunity is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED