Fruitless search of plaintiff’s car in parking lot and taking her home in handcuffs to search her home stated a claim

Plaintiff stated a claim for relief for officers’ arrest of her at her car in a parking lot then taking her home handcuffed and searched her house, finding no contraband, and unhandcuffing her and leaving. Butler v. City of Sacramento, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60006 (E.D. Cal. August 6, 2007)*:

In the case at bar, plaintiff alleges that the police had no reason to detain her once they completed the search of her car. She alleges that she remained handcuffed and kept in the police car despite the fact that nothing incriminating was found in her car. Although defendants claim that the detention in between the searches was reasonable, the court is adjudicating a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment. The facts of the allegation are taken as true. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). While it may be that the police had legitimate reasons to detain plaintiff, these facts are not contained in the complaint. In determining whether a detention incident to a search was reasonable, the court looks at the totality of the circumstances. Meredith v. Erath, 342 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). At this point, the court does not know all the circumstances surrounding the searches and cannot determine if plaintiff’s detention was “carefully tailored” and the law enforcement interests outweighed the intrusion on plaintiff’s privacy. See Ganwich, 319 F.3d at 1122.

For these reasons, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts so as to state a claim that defendants violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure. Although the police found no contraband in plaintiff’s car, they continued to detain her in handcuffs. Once the car search was complete, plaintiff contends that there was no reason to continue the detention. Moreover, she was detained at some distance from her house, which is an increased invasion of plaintiff’s privacy interests. See Hogan, 25 F.3d at 693. These factual allegations are sufficient to state a claim and for this reason, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim based on the Fourth Amendment is denied.

Plaintiff’s search claims that were five years before the Kentucky statute of limitations were barred. The plaintiff had to know about them. Stewart v. Municipality of Louisville, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60118 (W.D. Ky. August 15, 2007).*

Wrongful search and seizure claim of the person states a claim, but an additional state false imprisonment claim is duplicative and dismissed. Armstrong v. Sexson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60023 (E.D. Cal. August 7, 2007).*

Plaintiff stated a privacy interest in his sickle cell trait that was violated by defendant’s disclosure of his medical condition. Fleming v. State Univ. of N.Y., 502 F. Supp. 2d 324 (E.D. N.Y. 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.