Unreasonable Search of Home - A Civil Rights Violation

Unreasonable Search of Home

Federal Civil Rights Statute – 42 U.S.C. §1983

Lawsuit in State Court for Violations Under Color of State Law

A law enforcement officer may violate a person’s constitutional rights by conducting an unreasonable search of the plaintiff’s home, which may be a house, apartment, or other place used as a home. When this happens, each officer involved in the search participates in the violation of the person’s rights, as well as the agency or agencies who employ those officers.

In such a case, the officers involved (in this article, a single officer will be used for clarity) may be sued in either State or federal court under the federal Civil Rights Act for violating the plaintiff’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. This article focuses on what must be proven if the action is brought in North Carolina State Court.

The issue to be decided by the jury at trial is, “Did the defendant violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by conducting an unreasonable search of the plaintiff’s home?”

On this issue, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, three things:

(1) First, that the defendant acted under color of State law. An official acts under color of State law if he acts within the limits of lawful authority or if, while purporting to act in the performance of his official duties, he exceeds lawful authority. On the other hand, an official who does not use State authority and acts for purely private purposes does not act under color of State law.

(2) Second, that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of his Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search.

Ordinarily, a law enforcement officer must obtain a warrant before conducting a search of a home. However, there are certain exceptions to this requirement, including consent and exigent circumstances. When a person in lawful possession of a home freely and voluntarily consents to a search, law enforcement officers may reasonably and lawfully conduct a search consistent in scope with the consent given. Exigent circumstances exist when a law enforcement officer has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat of danger to himself or others or that occupants will attempt to escape or destroy evidence.

(3) And Third, that the unreasonable search was a proximate cause of the injury or damage sustained by the plaintiff.

A proximate cause is a cause which in a natural and continuous sequence produces a person’s injury or damage, and is a cause which a reasonable and prudent person could have foreseen would probably produce such injury or damage or some similar injurious result.

There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury or damage. Therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the injury or damage. The Plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, only that the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause.

The jury will be instructed by the presiding judge that if the jury finds, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the defendant, acting under color of State law, conducted an unreasonable search of the plaintiff’s home, and that the unreasonable search was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury or damage, then it would be the duty of the jury to answer “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the jury fails to so find, then it would be the duty of the jury to answer “No” in favor of the defendant.

Several issues may arise in these situations which could be beneficial for a plaintiff. For instance, consent to search may be limited or withdrawn; the authority to consent does not automatically extend to every discrete, enclosed space; and whether the consent was freely and voluntarily given. Further, what circumstances which would constitute “exigent circumstances” vary widely.

These are very complex issues that are best analyzed by skilled legal counsel. What is important is that, if you have a situation you believe may be “actionable” (may give rise to a lawsuit for excessive force in an arrest, battery, or any other type of civil wrong or claim), then you should seek the advice of an attorney without delay.

Call the Byers Law Office today.

Rev. 10/03/23.