Natrona County Coroner Dr. James Thorpen and his deputies offer irrelevant defenses when they say they acted according to state law in entering the house of Patricia Grace after her husband Charles Grace died, according to Grace's attorney Michael Krampner, who filed a response this week in federal court.

Grace sued the coroner's office in June in U.S. District Court.

She contends Thorpen's deputies entered her house after her husband died on May 28, and seized the body, medications and other items without a warrant or an exception to the warrant applying, according to court documents. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unlawful search and seizure.

Charles Grace was ill and was expected to die, Krampner wrote in the complaint.

Thorpen responded through his attorney Scott Ortiz that he acted according to state law and that a judgment against him would require finding the statute unconstitutional.

Thorpen and his deputies, according to their answer, had "express statutory authority" for their actions to investigate the possibility of elder abuse and homicide. It also states Grace has not followed the procedure for a case that would require finding the statute unconstitutional.

But Krampner responded that the court - the case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson - should dismiss those defenses as irrelevant and insufficient.

Grace isn't questioning the wisdom of any particular law and is not asking that any law be found unconstitutional, he said.

"Defendants' claim that there is an issue about the constitutionality of a statute is a 'misdirection play,'" Krampner wrote. "The issue is the defendant's behavior."

Besides the constitutionality question, Thorpen argued that carrying out his duties falls under the category of "qualified immunity," a legal shield from civil damages for public officials whose actions don't violate clearly established rights; and "good faith," an honest belief or absence of malice.

Thorpen also argued that Grace cannot sue because he is covered under immunity on the basis of the 11th Amendment.

But Krampner responded that the "qualified immunity-good faith" defense is good only when a person seeks damages, which Grace is not doing, he wrote.

Likewise, the 11th Amendment defense is irrelevant, Krampner wrote, because that amendment prohibits lawsuits for damages by citizens of one state against a different state in federal court, which is not an issue in this lawsuit.

Reporter Tom Morton can be reached at (307) 266-0592, or at Tom.Morton@casperstartribune.net.