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.
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.