Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape, et al.
The American West contains millions of acres platted into alternating squares of public and private land in a manner resembling a checkerboard. The question presented to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was whether a private landowner can prevent a person from stepping across adjoining corners of federal public land—a technique called “corner-crossing.”
Iron Bar Holdings owns a checkerboarded ranch in south-central Wyoming. Enmeshed within its holdings are federal and state public plats. The only way to access the federal or state land, other than by aircraft, is by corner-crossing.
Iron Bar seeks to prevent elk hunters, like appellees, from corner-crossing under the theory that diagonal moves on the checkerboarded land are a trespass. The district court granted appellees access. At its core, the dispute implicates centuries of property law and the settlement of the American West, according to the opinion.
This case turns on the interplay of state and federal law enacted against the backdrop of private settlement of public lands and the property disputes that invariably followed among rival interests, according to the opinion.
Over a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that private landowners cannot erect barriers that bar complete access to public lands based on the Unlawful Inclosures Act. And the 10th Circuit has interpreted the UIA to allow corner-crossing if access to public lands is otherwise restricted.
Those cases control and require the 10th Circuit to affirm the district court.
This is an interlocutory appeal of the denial of Travis Kyle and Scott Kelly’s motion to dismiss Tyler Luethje’s complaint based on qualified immunity.
Kyle is a canine handler employed by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, while Kelly is a sheriff’s deputy employed by the same office.
Luethje’s complaint alleges that on the evening of Feb. 11, 2022, he was lying in bed at home when a police canine named Sig burst through his bedroom door and latched onto his left arm. Kyle and Kelly were responding to a 911 call reporting that an unidentified male had approached Luethje’s residence, broken the front window and fled.
The deputies, upon reaching the house and the broken window, pushed Sig into the residence to bite the first person he encountered. After Sig found and latched onto Luethje, the deputies entered his bedroom and questioned him for more than one minute while Sig continued to bite his arm.
The deputies called Sig off, ordered Luethje out of bed, handcuffed him and placed him under arrest. Paramedics arrived and transported Luethje to the hospital, where he was treated for several lacerations and puncture wounds. Luethje was not charged with any crime.
Luethje sued Kyle and Kelly, asserting claims under the Fourth Amendment for unlawful entry and search of his home, unlawful arrest and unlawful use of excessive force. He also brought a failure to intervene claim against Kelly.
The deputies moved to dismiss, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on each claim. The district court disagreed, holding that for each claim, the deputies violated Luethje’s constitutional rights and that the law establishing those rights was clearly established.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Kyle and Kelly were not entitled to qualified immunity on any claim. It affirmed.