JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRETT G. BRODERICK, Defendant-Appellant, and UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 20, Fairfax County Police Officers, Fairfax County Police Department, Individually and in their Official Capacities; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Defendants. JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee, and GARRETT G. BRODERICK; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 20, Fairfax County Police Officers, Fairfax County Police Department, Individually and in their Official Capacities, Defendants.
No. 99-1893, No. 99-1894
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
225 F.3d 440; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22165
January 25, 2000, Argued
August 29, 2000, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1722-A).
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant detective appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, denying defendant qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, in plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action for violation of his rights under U.S. Const. amend. IV.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff filed suit against defendant detective under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that defendant violated his rights under U.S. Const. amend. IV and under federal statutory law when defendant, without probable cause, entered the file room of a substance abuse treatment clinic and searched plaintiff's confidential treatment records along with numerous other patients' records. Defendant appealed after being denied qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendant on plaintiff's U.S. Const. amend. IV claim. The court reasoned that by searching without probable cause, defendant clearly violated U.S. Const. amend. IV, subjecting himself to suit by all persons vested with a legitimate expectation of privacy under U.S. Const. amend. IV. The court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendant on plaintiff's claim that defendant violated 42 U.S.C.S. § 290dd-2. The court reasoned that § 290dd-2 did not create enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities within the meaning of § 1983.OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendant on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim; by searching without probable cause, defendant clearly violated the Fourth Amendment.
Detective Broderick's affidavit does not identify a single fact that would suggest to a reasonable person that there was any link whatsoever between the methadone clinic and the jewelry theft. We agree with the district court that "if Broderick's premise -- that drug addicts steal to finance their addictions -- were enough for probable cause, it would allow him to search any location where drug addicts might congregate during his investigation of any local theft. . . . He ostensibly could conduct routine, general searches of Fairfax