CA7: Plaintiff’s 4A claim was too generalized to state a claim

In a bankruptcy appeal, the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim was too generalized to state a claim. Home Care Providers v. Hemmelgarn, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11412 (7th Cir. June 27, 2017):

Moreover, Nightingale’s generalized allegations do not amount to colorable constitutional challenges. …

Finally, Nightingale’s Fourth Amendment claim lacks sufficient detail. Nightingale alleged that the state surveyors conducted an unreasonable search and seizure by entering one of its former business premises and rummaging through desks. It is not clear, however, whether Nightingale owned the building, given that the complaint describes the building as “former business premises.” (emphasis added). See United States v. Fuesting, 845 F.2d 664, 671 (7th Cir. 1988) (“It is well-established that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which … may not be vicariously asserted…. A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed ….”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). It is equally unclear what Nightingale’s alleged damages are, because there is no allegation that the state surveyor obtained any information from inside the building or any details of what that information entailed. Without more, Nightingale has failed to present a colorable Fourth Amendment claim. See Eastern Bridge, LLC v. Chao, 320 F.3d 84, 91 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Plaintiffs also assert that because they are alleging a Fourth Amendment violation, they need not exhaust administrative remedies. But this invocation of constitutional authority, without more, cannot breathe life into a theory already pronounced dead by the Supreme Court in binding precedent.”).