Background
Mary Ann Bender served as primary caregiver for her lifelong friend Rita Cole, residing with Cole in Cole’s Cincinnati condominium. When Cole died on April 8, 2022, ownership of the condo transferred to Cole’s living trust, of which Bender became trustee. Bender remained in the condo for approximately one month, continuing to recover from illness while removing her personal belongings—a timeline approved by Cole’s niece Denise Surette, the executor of Cole’s 2021 will.
On May 6, 2022, Cole’s nephew Kevin Surette—who was not named in the 2021 will that superseded Cole’s earlier estate documents—went to the police and asked Officers Nicholas Pittsley and Paul Rennie to accompany him to the condo to evict Bender. Surette showed the officers what appeared to be Cole’s will, which they reviewed only cursorily, and claimed to be the executor. The officers did not obtain a court order, verify Surette’s authority with an attorney, or thoroughly examine the estate documents. Under the 2021 will, Kevin Surette was not a beneficiary; Bender, as trustee, held legal title to the property.
When the officers and Surette arrived at the condo, they pushed their way inside without Bender’s consent. The officers told Bender she had ten minutes to leave, threatened to arrest her at least ten times, took her key from the condo, and physically pushed her out of the residence. Bender did not receive a warrant, court order, or notice of any legal proceeding.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, holding that the officers violated Bender’s Fourth Amendment rights by actively participating in an unreasonable seizure. The court first determined that Bender possessed a protected possessory interest in the condo. Although Bender’s continued residence might have constituted prohibited self-dealing as trustee under Ohio law, such acts are “voidable”—not void—and remain enforceable until rescinded by a beneficiary or court. Since Kevin Surette and other beneficiaries had taken no action to void Bender’s residence before the eviction, her possessory interest was protected by the Fourth Amendment, even though she owned another home.
The court next found that the officers actively participated in the eviction, converting what might have been a private matter into state action. Unlike officers who merely accompany a private party or maintain a presence to prevent violence, these officers took decisive roles: they physically entered the condo without consent, set a deadline for departure, threatened arrest repeatedly, confiscated Bender’s key, and physically expelled her from the residence. The court compared the conduct to Cochran v. Gilliam, where deputies who had a facially valid eviction judgment and consulted an attorney still violated the Fourth Amendment. Here, the officers had neither a court order nor attorney consultation, making their conduct far more problematic.
Finally, the court held the right to be clearly established. Cochran made plain that when officers’ authority rests solely on purported legal documents, they must carefully read those documents and confirm their understanding with an attorney. The officers’ cursory review of an outdated will, combined with their failure to verify Surette’s claimed authority or obtain court authorization, fell well below clearly established constitutional standards.
Key Takeaways
- Police cannot assist in residential evictions based on cursory examination of private legal documents without a court order or attorney verification of the claimant’s authority.
- Officers who actively participate in evicting someone—rather than merely maintaining order—convert a private dispute into state action subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
- A voidable property interest under state law provides Fourth Amendment protection if not yet rescinded by proper legal process.
- Qualified immunity does not shield officers from liability when the constitutional violation is clearly established by prior case law.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly constrains police involvement in property disputes between private parties. Officers may not use their authority to enforce contested claims to property without independent verification through courts. The ruling protects vulnerable individuals—here, a 76-year-old woman recovering from illness—from warrantless removal from residences based on unverified assertions of legal entitlement. For law enforcement, the decision clarifies that assisting with private evictions requires either a valid court order or, at minimum, careful legal verification and attorney consultation before taking an active enforcement role.
The case also reinforces that Fourth Amendment protections apply to possessory interests that are voidable under state law, not only to those that are void or permanently established. This distinction matters significantly in probate and trust disputes, where beneficiaries’ rights to challenge transactions may depend on timing and legal procedure. The Sixth Circuit’s holding prevents officers from becoming instruments of self-help eviction in these sensitive estate matters.