Elkins v. District of Columbia, 402 U.S. App. D.C. 247

Background

Elkins renovated a Capitol Hill home in a historic district and sought permits from DCRA and HPO.
After neighbors complained, the District issued stop-work orders; officials doubted permit scope.
DCRA sought a search warrant; Noble signed, district sought to inspect for unlicensed construction; warrant allowed entry but did not specify seized items.
During the search, MPD and agency officials searched broadly, seizing Elkins’s notebook contents; seizure later contested.
OAH later upheld permits and found good faith; district court held some claims barred by collateral estoppel; remaining defendants faced liability disputes.
On appeal, the DC Circuit reviews summary judgments de novo and addresses whether seizures violated the Fourth Amendment and individual liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether seizure of the notebook violated the Fourth Amendment	Elkins argues the warrant lacked particularity and authorized seizure.	District asserts warrant allowed inspection; seizure was a spur-of-the-moment action by MPD.	Notebook seizure unlawful; warrant sufficiently particular when seizures not contemplated; exceptions apply otherwise.
Whether the District can be liable under §1983 for the seizure	District policy or failure to train caused the seizure.	Plaintiff failed to plead district policy or timely amend; no Monell link shown.	District not liable due to failure to plead theory; new training theory rejected as untimely.
Whether Maloney can be held liable for the seizure	Maloney directed or supervised seizure efforts.	Evidence shows Maloney had no involvement in the seizure and no directing role.	No liability for Maloney; no evidence he caused the seizure.
Whether Noble can be held liable for the seizure	Noble signed warrant and overseen enforcement actions.	No evidence Noble caused seizure; he believed visual inspection was intended.	Noble entitled to summary judgment in his favor; no causal link shown.
Whether Williams-Cherry is entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure	Her conduct violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing the notebook.	Qualified immunity applies if reasonable official would not know seizure was unlawful.	Williams-Cherry entitled to qualified immunity; taking the notebook was not clearly unlawful to a reasonable official given context.

Key Cases Cited

Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (warrant must describe items to be seized; not all searches require itemized seizing)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) ( Fourth Amendment particularity and scope of searches)
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1984) (particularity and reasonable reliance on warrants)
Camara v. Mun. Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless inspections for code compliance; context matters to warrant requirements)
McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1948) (core protection of home from unreasonable searches)
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1961) (substantive due process requires grave unfairness or manifest overreach)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; require concrete allegations of personal involvement)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires policy or custom moving the violation)
Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (supervisory liability requires stronger link; mere negligence insufficient)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity inquiry; reasonable official conduct)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies Saucier; allows order of weighing prongs)
Int’l Action Ctr. v. United States, 365 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (supervisory liability; causation and training standards)