Guertin v. Leipfert
Civil Action No. 2024-0001
D.D.C.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Paul Guertin, while serving as a State Department consular officer in Shanghai, was investigated by Robin Leipfert, a Special Agent with the State Department’s Office of Inspector General, following an FBI tip regarding alleged irregular gambling activity.
- Leipfert obtained search warrants for Guertin’s Google and Microsoft email accounts, then Guertin was indicted by a grand jury for crimes different from those originally investigated.
- Guertin moved to suppress the evidence obtained by Leipfert and for a Franks hearing, but another judge denied this, finding the searches were legally authorized.
- The indictment against Guertin was later dismissed as insufficiently alleged, a decision affirmed on appeal; the appellate court did not address the suppression issue.
- Guertin then filed a Bivens action, alleging Leipfert violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using perjured affidavits to obtain the warrants. The court considered Leipfert's motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extension of Bivens to new context | Guertin asserts Bivens should apply to officer’s alleged perjury in warrant affidavits leading to searches and indictment. | Leipfert argues that applying Bivens in this factual scenario is a new context disfavored by recent precedent. | Court held Guertin’s claim sought a new Bivens context, not covered by existing precedent. |
| Impact of obtaining search warrants | Guertin claims misrepresentations in warrant affidavits make the searches unconstitutional. | Leipfert notes that search warrants, unlike warrantless actions in Bivens, distinguish this case. | Court agrees warrants differentiate from established Bivens cases, making extension inappropriate. |
| National security/foreign service context | Guertin acknowledges his work was connected to U.S. foreign policy but seeks damages for alleged misconduct. | Leipfert argues national security implications counsel against judicial expansion of Bivens. | Court finds national security implications are a special factor cautioning against extending Bivens. |
| Availability of alternative remedies | Guertin argues available remedies (FTCA, suppression motions) are not coextensive with Bivens. | Leipfert argues Congress provided alternative remedies, precluding judicial creation of new damages actions. | Court finds existence of alternative remedies (FTCA, suppression, dismissal) counsels against Bivens remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized limited cause of action for damages against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (Bivens extension is disfavored; new contexts require special scrutiny)
- Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (2020) (new Bivens contexts broadly construed; national security precludes extension)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (presence of alternative remedies and national security concerns bar Bivens expansion)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (consistent refusal to extend Bivens to new contexts)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (suppression of evidence obtained through materially false affidavit)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (discussed when alternative remedies preclude Bivens)