Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
Karl Von Derhaar worked as a civilian employee in the NOPD’s crime lab. Von Derhaar requested leave without pay when his concerns over certain NOPD practices went unanswered. Officers subsequently went to Von Derhaar’s home to conduct a wellness check. Officers informed Von Derhaar that they were concerned about his well-being and asked him to accompany them to the PIB to take a drug test. Officers stated numerous times that he was not under arrest. When Von Derhaar asked if he could stay at his house, officers called Lt. Darryl Watson, a supervisor in the PIB
Officers relayed to Watson that Von Derhaar said that if he’s not under arrest he wants to go back into his house. Watson ordered officers to tell [Von Derhaar] he’s being put back on the clock, he’s being ordered to come into work to take this test. The call ended. Von Derhaar asked “if I quit right, now, do I have to come with you, sir?” Officers told Von Derhaar he needed “to go up and sign the paperwork.” He was subsequently transported to the PIB. Von Derhaar ultimately resigned rather than submitting to a drug test.
Von Derhaar sued Watson, among others, under § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to unlawful arrest, search, and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Watson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and, in the alternative, a motion summary judgment, in which he invoked Qualified Immunity. The district court granted Watson’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Von Derhaar’s claims against Watson relating to the alleged unlawful entry into Von Derhaar’s home. The court denied QI for the unlawful-seizure claim, holding that any reasonable official under the totality of circumstances here or in Darryl Watson’s position should have known that ordering the seizure of a private citizen from their home for the purpose of completing a drug test, without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances is objectively unreasonable. Watson appeals. The 5th affirms.
Analysis
Supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for the actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability. To be liable under § 1983, a supervisor must have been personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation or have engaged in wrongful conduct that is causally connected to the constitutional violation. Personal involvement of supervising personnel generally includes giving a command, signal, or any other form of direction to the officers that prompted the detention or arrest.
Watson directed officers to tell [Von Derhaar] he’s being put back on the clock, he’s being ordered to come into work to take this test. Watson made that statement immediately after officers informed Watson that Von Derhaar wished to remain at his home. Acting on Watson’s order, officers compelled Von Derhaar to leave his home and transported him to the PIB. We already held that the actions ordered by Watson, when viewed in the light most favorable to Von Derhaar, constituted an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Von Derhaar v. Watson, 109 F.4th 817, 829–30 (5th Cir. 2024).
But because Watson invoked QI, that is not enough. His conduct must have been objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. It is clearly established that a seizure occurs where,
“in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Watson was aware that Von Derhaar wished to remain in his house, yet Watson ordered officers, without a warrant or exigent circumstances, to order Von Derhaar to go to the PIB to take a drug test. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Von Derhaar, Watson’s statements are objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established Fourth Amendment law.
At this early, summary judgment stage, Von Derhaar has established a genuine dispute of material fact on the unlawful-seizure claim. The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to him, constitute a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation. We express no view, however, as to the ultimate merits of any claim, which will be determined beyond the summary judgment stage. The order denying summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30399-CV0.pdf