978 F.3d 282
5th Cir.2020Background:
- TMB revoked Dr. Joseph Cotropia’s Texas medical license on Feb. 13, 2015; Cotropia continued to treat patients through Mar. 20, 2015.
- On Mar. 27, 2015, TMB investigator Mary Chapman (with a DEA agent) served an administrative subpoena at Cotropia’s office seeking prescriptions and sign‑in sheets and copied/seized several documents from the receptionist’s desk.
- Cotropia sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations for a warrantless search and seizure without precompliance review.
- The district court granted Chapman summary judgment based on qualified immunity after remand and discovery; Cotropia appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit held Chapman violated Cotropia’s constitutional right to precompliance review but affirmed qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of the search was not clearly established in 2015.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether executing an administrative subpoena and copying documents without precompliance review violated the Fourth Amendment | Cotropia: seizure/search without warrant or precompliance review violated his constitutional rights | Chapman: acted under statutory/regulatory subpoena authority; search reasonable | Court: Chapman violated the right to precompliance review (no warrant, no precompliance review) |
| Whether the Burger administrative‑exception (closely regulated industry) justified warrantless search | Cotropia: medical practices generally are not closely regulated; exception does not apply | Chapman: PMCs and related TMB authority place the practice within a regulatory scheme | Court: followed Zadeh — medical profession generally not closely regulated; TMB regs failed Burger’s third prong; exception not satisfied |
| Whether Cotropia was a “licensee” (so §179.4 applied) despite license revocation | Cotropia: license revoked before search, so §179.4 (licensee) did not apply | Chapman: regulatory definitions show “licensee” includes persons to whom board issued a license; Board retained investigatory authority | Court: Cotropia counted as a licensee under the administrative definitions; Chapman reasonably relied on the statutes/regulations |
| Whether Chapman is entitled to qualified immunity | Cotropia: right to precompliance review was clearly established in 2015 | Chapman: law was not clearly established then; reasonable reliance on Texas statutes and regs | Court: QI applies — although constitutional violation occurred, the law was not clearly established in 2015; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (administrative‑search exception requires substantial government interest, regulatory scheme, and constitutionally adequate warrant substitute)
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (administrative searches generally require opportunity for precompliance review)
- Zadeh v. Robinson, 928 F.3d 457 (5th Cir.) (TMB’s subpoena/inspection authority failed Burger’s adequacy prong for PMCs)
- Melton v. Phillips, 875 F.3d 256 (5th Cir.) (qualified immunity burden‑shifting at summary judgment)
- Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.) (two‑part qualified immunity test)