Pansy Blackwell v. Jim Hohn

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 29, 2000
Docket00-1190
StatusPublished

This text of Pansy Blackwell v. Jim Hohn (Pansy Blackwell v. Jim Hohn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pansy Blackwell v. Jim Hohn, (8th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________

No. 00-1190EA _____________

Pansy Blackwell, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Jim Hohn (originally sued as Jim * [To Be Published] Haun), * * Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: December 5, 2000 Filed: December 29, 2000 ___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Pansy Blackwell brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that, after she had pleaded guilty to a municipal charge, Police Chief Jim Hohn conducted a warrantless search of her home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Hohn moved for summary judgment and presented undisputed evidence that, upon arriving at the jail to begin serving her sentence, Blackwell lost consciousness; she was transported to an emergency room; and at the behest of medical personnel, he retrieved medication from Blackwell’s residence and delivered it to the emergency room. The District Court1 granted Hohn’s motion, dismissed the complaint, and denied Blackwell’s motions for reconsideration. Blackwell appeals.

Upon de novo review, see Brouhard v. Lee, 125 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 1997), we conclude that Hohn’s retrieval of Blackwell’s medications from her home fell within an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches, see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978) (need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury justifies what would otherwise be illegal absent emergency), and therefore did not violate Blackwell’s Fourth Amendment rights. We find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of Blackwell’s postjudgment motions. See Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mincey v. Arizona
437 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pansy Blackwell v. Jim Hohn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pansy-blackwell-v-jim-hohn-ca8-2000.