CA9: A roving game warden stop not a proper administrative search

“We must decide whether a suspicionless roving automobile stop of commercial fishers made while they drive on a public highway to investigate compliance with Washington fish and game laws constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and, if so, whether this right was clearly established as of the time of the stop at issue in this case. Because we determine that this stop, which lacked any basis in suspicion of unlawful behavior or statutory authority that would render it permissible under the administrative search exception, violated Appellants’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on Appellants’ Fourth Amendment claim and remand.” Tarabochia v. Adkins, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17422 (9th Cir. September 9, 2014).

The court previously ruled that the search of one defendant’s premises was unlawful. It was established that this defendant had standing too, so it’s granted as to him as well. United States v. Castro, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125623 (E.D. Pa. September 9, 2014).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Administrative search, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.