CA5: Dist.Ct. erred in dismissing civil claim ptf never saw 32 pg attachment to SW

One of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims was that the 32 page attachment limiting the scope of the search warrant was not attached, and he still hadn’t seen it. The district court erred in dismissing the claim without the plaintiff seeing it. Schanzle v. Haberman, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31832 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2020):

So, to the extent Schanzle challenges the search because he was not contemporaneously provided with the Attachments, the district court correctly concluded that he fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim.

But the complaint does not stop there: Schanzle asserts that he has never been able to obtain the Attachments. When he asked to view “the affidavit of probable cause,” Schanzle alleges, the clerk of court told him it “was not available and under the seal of the court.” Am. Compl. ¶ 17. What is more, Schanzle asserts that the Attachments were ordered to be unsealed after 30 days. The Government does not describe or provide the Attachments, or explain why or whether they remain sealed.

Here, likewise, we cannot evaluate the warrant’s Fourth Amendment compliance because we do not know what the Attachments say, and they are the warrant’s only source of particularity. And Schanzle cannot be expected to mount his Fourth Amendment claim (nor could a lawyer) without knowing what the Attachments say.

On this record, a finding that the warrant complies with the Fourth Amendment would boil down to trusting the say-so of the Government and the district court. This we decline to do. Schanzle’s Fourth Amendment claim cannot be dismissed on this record.

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.