04-24-2026, 12:51 PM
The Federal courts, and the US Supreme Court has stated that there are two factors that must be meet in regard to a 1983 case (42 USC 1983) and qualified immunity
1. The plaintiff must allege or prove facts showing the official violated a constitutional or federal right.
2. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was "clearly established". This means that existing, relevant precedent (from the Supreme Court or the relevant Circuit Court) must have placed the statutory or constitutional question "beyond debate".
For number 1, the state court ruled:
"COURT FIRST FINDS AFTER 4/16/2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND SPECIFICALLY THE WARRANT
WAS QUASHED THE FBI DID NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN THESE ITEMS LET ALONE TO BEGIN A SEARCH OF THOSE ITEMS 3 DAYS LATER AND SUBSEQUENTLY FINDING EVIDENCE 7 DAYS LATER IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS."
for number 2:
It has been well established since 1900s by the US Supreme Court that a warrant is required to search someone property:
Weeks v. United States, 1914
Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921)
United States v. Berkeness | 275 U.S. 149 (1927)
See also:
Katz v. United States | 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Carpenter v. U.S. (2018)
Riley v. California (2014)
Payton v. New York, (1980)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)
Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)
1. The plaintiff must allege or prove facts showing the official violated a constitutional or federal right.
2. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was "clearly established". This means that existing, relevant precedent (from the Supreme Court or the relevant Circuit Court) must have placed the statutory or constitutional question "beyond debate".
For number 1, the state court ruled:
"COURT FIRST FINDS AFTER 4/16/2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND SPECIFICALLY THE WARRANT
WAS QUASHED THE FBI DID NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN THESE ITEMS LET ALONE TO BEGIN A SEARCH OF THOSE ITEMS 3 DAYS LATER AND SUBSEQUENTLY FINDING EVIDENCE 7 DAYS LATER IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS."
for number 2:
It has been well established since 1900s by the US Supreme Court that a warrant is required to search someone property:
Weeks v. United States, 1914
Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921)
United States v. Berkeness | 275 U.S. 149 (1927)
See also:
Katz v. United States | 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Carpenter v. U.S. (2018)
Riley v. California (2014)
Payton v. New York, (1980)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)
Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)
