66 The plaintiff in this case claimed that she was subjected to an unreasonable

66 the plaintiff in this case claimed that she was

This preview shows page 9 - 12 out of 32 pages.

66The plaintiff in this case claimed that shewassubjectedtoanunreasonablesearchandseizureattheCanadian/DetroitinternationalborderwhentheCBPofficersinappropriatelyfondledherbreastsandgenitalarea.67Thecourtexplained that while government officials are shielded fromliabilityunder the doctrine of qualified immunity,this immunity does notprotect them if their conduct violates aclearly established statutory orconstitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.6859. 300 Mich. App. 625; 836 N.W.2d 176 (2013).60.Id. at 633-34.61.Id. at 635.62.Id.63. 879 F. Supp. 2d 707 (E.D. Mich. 2012).64.Id. at 709-10.65.Id. at 711-12.66. U.S. CONST. amend. IV.67.Van Beek, 879 F. Supp. 2d at 710.68.Id.at 712.
1252THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW[Vol. 59:1243In order to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualifiedimmunity, the Court performs a two-step analysis. The Courtfirst must question whether the alleged factstaken in the lightmost favorable to the party asserting the injury . . . show [that]the officer s conduct violated a constitutional right.The Courtthen must decidewhether the right was clearly established.Toconclude that a right is clearly established,the contours of theright must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official wouldunderstand that what he is doing violates that right.69The court went on to explain that what constitutes a reasonablesearch at an international border is different than what may constitute areasonable search in the interior of our nation.70Routine searches at ourborders do not require probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or awarrant.71Furthermore, standard pat-down searches over an individual sclothes,including the person s breast or crotch area,72constitute aroutine, reasonable search. Non-routine searches, on the other hand,involve strip, body-cavity, and involuntary x-ray searches.73A searchthat requires someone to strip down to their underwear also counts as astrip search.74In addition, a pat-down search during which an officerreaches underneath a person s clothes, particularly in their private areas,is classified as a non-routine search.75In the instant case, after informing the officers that she was notwearing a bra, the plaintiff was required to strip down to her camisoleand yoga pants.76The court held that a reasonable jury could classify thisas a non-routine strip search, requiring reasonable suspicion.77Thedefendants offered no evidence of reasonable suspicion.78The court,therefore, held that a reasonable jury could hold that the plaintiff sclearlyestablishedFourthAmendmentrightswereviolated,and,therefore, the defendants were not shielded by the qualified privilege.7969.Id.(citations omitted).70.Id.71.Id.72.Id.73.Van Beek,879 F. Supp. 2d at 712.74.Id.75.Id.76.Id. at 710.77.Id. at 713.78.Id. at 713-14.79.Van Beek, 879 F. Supp. 2d at 714.
2014]TORT LAW1253AnothercasethatraisedbothqualifiedimmunityandFourthAmendment rights issues wasHescott v. City of Saginaw.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture