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.
Invasion of Privacy – Offensive Intrusion
North Carolina State Civil Tort
A tort is a civil wrong at law that gives an injured person a “cause of action” (a right to file a lawsuit in court) to seek recovery for the damages received as a result of the tort. A person has a right to privacy in North Carolina. This privacy right is protected by the law. When the government violates this right, the various civil rights statutes allow the person to sue the government for violating this right. When a private person violates this right, the civil laws of North Carolina allow the person to sue the defendant who violated their right to privacy. There are several different legal theories or “causes of action” that a plaintiff may sue under in this circumstance. One of these, and the one discussed in this article, is Invasion of Privacy – Offensive Intrusion.
In such a case, the question for the jury to decide is, “Did the defendant intrude offensively upon the privacy of the plaintiff?”
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 intruded upon the privacy of the Plaintiff. Such an intrusion occurs when the solitude, seclusion, private affairs or personal concerns of a person are invaded. The invasion may be physical or mental.
The kinds of intrusions that have been recognized under this tort include physically invading a person’s home or other private place, eavesdropping by wiretapping or microphones, peering through windows, persistent telephoning, unauthorized prying into a bank account, opening personal mail of another, and obtaining medical records. There must generally be a physical or sensory intrusion or an unauthorized prying into confidential personal records to support a claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion.
Installing a video camera in plaintiff’s bedroom and intercepting plaintiff’s mail have been sufficient to sustain a claim under this tort. Courts have held that a plaintiff has every reasonable expectation of privacy in his mail and in his home and bedroom and that a jury could conclude that these invasions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. In yet another case, a court held that the unauthorized examination of the contents of one’s personnel file, especially where it includes sensitive information such as medical diagnoses and financial information, would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
(2) Second, that the defendant’s intrusion was intentional. An act is intentional when it is done knowingly, or with purpose, or with reckless indifference to its consequences.
(3) And Third, that a reasonable person, under the same or similar circumstances, would be highly offended by such intrusion.
As to this, the presiding judge will instruct the jury that if the jury finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant intruded offensively upon the privacy of the plaintiff, then it would be the duty of the jury to answer this issue “yes” in favor of the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the jury does not so find, then it would be the jury’s duty to answer the issue “no” in favor of the defendant.
What gives rise to a Invasion of Privacy – Offensive Intrusion claim in North Carolina is a facts and circumstances issue that has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. To someone untrained in the law, what looks like an actionable invasion of privacy might, in fact, not be, and what does not look like one may also, in fact, be one. For this reason, it is important to consult with legal counsel to see if you have a claim in your particular situation.
It is important to remember that time is always important in legal matters and that the failure to take action within the time allowed may forever bar your claim. For this reason, seek the advice of counsel right away. These time limits are called “statutes of limitation” and they function to limit the amount of time that a claim can be brought for a particular type of claim. Certain things can “toll” these statutes, meaning that they can temporarily stop the running of the statute of limitation to bar the claim, while other things can have no effect on the running of the statute.
These are very complex issues that are best determined by skilled legal counsel. What is important is that, if you have a situation that you believe may be “actionable” (may give rise to a lawsuit for Invasion of Privacy – Offensive Intrusion 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.
Updated: Oct 11, 2023
Excessive Force in Making an Arrest - Common Law Claim for Battery
North Carolina State Civil Tort
A law enforcement officer may use excessive force in making an otherwise lawful arrest. When an officer does so, he or she has committed the common law offense of Battery against the person who has been arrested. The use of excessive force in making an arrest may give rise to either a North Carolina common law claim for Battery or a federal civil rights claim under Title 42, Section 1983, of the United States Code, or both.
A battery is a civil tort (“wrong”) in North Carolina which supports the filing of a lawsuit to seek recovery of damages for the civil offense committed.
The issue to be decided by the jury at trial is, “Did the defendant (officer) commit a battery upon the plaintiff during his or her arrest of the plaintiff?”
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, two things.
(1) First, that the defendant committed a battery upon the plaintiff.
The law defines a battery as intentional bodily contact that occurs without the consent of the person being contacted and either actually offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity or causes physical pain or injury.
(2) And Second, that the battery occurred during an arrest.
An individual has been arrested when a law enforcement officer interrupts the individual’s activities and significantly restricts his freedom of action. An arrest requires either physical force or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority. An arrest is a more significant restriction of an individual’s freedom than a seizure. A seizure becomes an arrest when a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.
A seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen. Circumstances that might indicate a seizure include the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice suggesting that compliance is mandatory.
Circumstances that do not amount to a seizure include the following: an officer approaching an individual in a public place and asking questions, an officer following an individual on foot, or an officer following an individual’s vehicle.
The jury will be instructed by the presiding judge that if the jury finds, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the defendant committed a battery upon the plaintiff and that such battery occurred during the defendant’s arrest of the plaintiff, 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.
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.