Poolaw v. Marcantel

Police suspected Michael Astorga in two homicides and tried to locate his wife, Marcella Astorga (Marcella). Marcella’s father, retired police officer Rick Poolaw (plaintiff) informed Lieutenant Marcantel (defendant) that Marcella spent the night of the second homicide at Rick’s home, and that Marcella uncharacteristically called in sick to work. Based on this information, Detective Hix (defendant) applied for a search warrant of the Poolaws’ home that asserted that Marcella resided there at least part-time and that Astorga might possibly have access to the property. Rick and his wife, Cindy Poolaw (plaintiff) were handcuffed outside their home during the search. A few days later, Marcantel learned that Marcella’s sister, Chara Poolaw (plaintiff) called Cindy to ask whether she could “get in trouble” for having a gun. Based on this information, Marcantel ordered officers to stop Chara and search her car for Astorga’s homicide weapon. The gun in Chara’s car was not the murder weapon. The Poolaws sued Marcantel, Hix, the county sheriff, and the county’s board of commissioners (defendants) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that police violated the Poolaws’ Fourth Amendment rights by detaining them and searching their property. Both parties moved for partial summary judgment; the district court granted the Poolaws’ summary-judgment motion and denied Marcantel’s and Hix’s summary-judgment motions, which were based on qualified immunity. Marcantel and Hix appealed.