Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1867
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam OGrady, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-01328-LO-JFA)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Tony Edward Savage filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006)
suit against Larry Wayne Sturdivant, Jr., and other defendants,
alleging, among other claims, violations of his Fourth Amendment
rights
in
connection
with
warrantless
arrest
in
his
home.
Savages suit was tried before a jury, and the jury rendered a
verdict in favor of Sturdivant.
We affirm.
his
Fourth
Amendment
rights.
We
review
de
novo
omitted).
The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits a warrantless
arrest within a suspects home absent valid consent to entry or
exigent circumstances.
181 (1990); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980).
The
United
1996).
door
of
States
v.
Lattimore,
87
F.3d
647,
650
(4th
Cir.
dwelling
Amendment . . . .
(4th Cir. 2001).
does
not
generally
implicate
the
Fourth
395,
400
(4th
Cir.
2008)
(internal
quotation
marks
and
the
distinguishable
circumstances
district
from
in
court
Mowatt.
the
light
noted,
Viewing
most
this
the
favorable
case
is
totality
to
readily
of
Sturdivant,
the
we
Thus, we
conclude that the district court did not err in denying Savages
Rule 50 motion on this ground.
Savage next argues that the district court improperly
instructed the jury by denying his proposed instructions and in
providing misleading instructions on the issue of warrantless
4
arrest.
A Helping
Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, Md., 515 F.3d 356, 370 (4th Cir.
2006).
The
test
of
the
adequacy
of
jury
instructions
is
Chaudhry v.
Gallerizzo,
174
F.3d
394,
408
(4th
Cir.
1999).
We conclude that Savages proposed instructions would
tend to confuse or mislead the jury and that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give these proposed
instructions.
instructions
Further,
adequately
we
conclude
described
the
that
law
of
the
courts
consent
and,
lawfully
arrest
Savage
in
his
bedroom
following
Savages
U.S.
general
at
rule
181
that
(noting
that
warrantless
consent
entry
5
is
into
valid
home
See Rodriguez,
exception
for
arrest
to
or
conveyed
this
controlling
principle
and
that
the
the
parties
issue at trial.
we
need
not
failed
to
provide
testimony
regarding
Savages
contention
that
no
this
Thus,
exigent
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal