Loren Varner v. Michael Roane, 981 F.3d 288

Varner was approached by Augusta County Deputy Michael Roane while eating at a restaurant; Roane asked him to get his jacket and go outside, patted him down, found nothing, and asked him to submit to a breath test which Varner refused.
K‑9 officer Jeremy Johnson and his dog Zeke then examined Varner’s parked car; Johnson reported a positive alert. Varner alleges Johnson slapped the car to trigger Zeke, who then jumped up and alerted; Johnson testified Zeke alerted by pressing his nose to the car with all paws on the ground on the far side of the vehicle.
Police searched the car after the alert and found no drugs.
Varner sued Deputy Roane under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting (1) an unlawful seizure of his person during the pat‑down and (2) an unlawful search of his vehicle based on a manufactured K‑9 alert.
The district court dismissed the seizure claim at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage (finding the encounter plausibly consensual) and granted summary judgment for Roane on the K‑9/search claim (finding no genuine dispute that the dog legitimately alerted and thus probable cause existed).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: it held Varner’s complaint failed to plead facts showing a non‑consensual seizure, and summary judgment was proper because Varner offered only speculative, non‑observational assertions that failed to rebut the officers’ testimony about the dog’s certified, trained alert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Varner was seized (non‑consensual encounter) when Roane asked him to leave the restaurant and patted him down	Varner contends Roane “commanded” him to exit and thus the encounter was not consensual	Roane contends the encounter was consensual: no show of force, no threats, no blocking, and no accusatory language	Court: Dismissal affirmed — complaint lacked factual detail to overcome objective consent test; encounter was plausibly consensual
Whether the vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment because Johnson allegedly manufactured Zeke’s positive alert	Varner contends Johnson smacked the car to force an alert and Zeke’s behavior was erratic, so alert was fabricated and cannot supply probable cause	Defendants contend Zeke was certified, trained, and legitimately alerted by pressing his nose to the car, giving probable cause	Court: Summary judgment affirmed — Varner offered only speculative, non‑observational assertions and failed to create a genuine dispute about the K‑9 alert or show a conspiracy to manipulate the dog

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (defines seizure and stop‑and‑frisk standards)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent doctrine and limits on coercion)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounters vs. seizures analysis)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (objective test for feeling free to leave)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (officer approach and voluntariness of consent)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors bearing on whether a person has been seized)
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (certified drug‑detection dogs’ alerts can establish probable cause)
United States v. Jeffus, 22 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 1994) (K‑9 may circle vehicle without individualized suspicion)
United States v. Jones, 678 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2012) (context where officer conduct suggested lack of consent)
United States v. Stover, 808 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 2015) (application of objective test for freedom to leave)