Michael Seiser v. City of Chicago
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15473
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Officer Michael Seiser (in uniform, on-duty for secondary school-post work) was seen by multiple witnesses drinking from a large bottle that appeared to be a liquor container while driving; witnesses provided the license plate and one signed an affidavit.
- CPD officers found a labeled liquor bottle with a broken seal and clear liquid on the front passenger seat; Seiser initially was evasive and refused to hand it over without a warrant.
- Deputy Superintendent Debra Kirby ordered Seiser be criminally processed; at the station Seiser submitted to field sobriety tests (passed) and a breathalyzer, which read 0.000.
- Seiser was released on DUI but cited for an open-container violation; he later consented (after a written order) to recovery of the bottle, which laboratory testing later showed contained no alcohol and the open-container charge was dismissed.
- Seiser sued Kirby (Section 1983) and the City (state-law malicious prosecution), alleging the warrantless breathalyzer violated the Fourth Amendment and that there was no probable cause for the open-container charge.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding probable cause supported both the breathalyzer administration and the open-container charge and that qualified immunity protected Kirby.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless breathalyzer (Fourth Amendment) | Seiser: no probable cause or warrant; breath test was an unreasonable search | Defendants: multiple credible eyewitnesses + open liquor bottle gave probable cause; exigency (evanescent alcohol) justified no warrant | Court: Probable cause existed; even if exigency under McNeely is not per se, qualified immunity shields Kirby for ordering processing and foreseeable breath test |
| Qualified immunity for Kirby re: breathalyzer | Seiser: Kirby exceeded authority and cannot claim immunity | Defendants: Kirby supervised IAD and had authority to order processing; prevailing precedent left law unsettled | Court: Kirby's order was within supervisory authority and conflicting precedent made qualified immunity appropriate |
| Malicious prosecution (open-container charge) | Seiser: no probable cause because bottle did not contain alcohol and recovery was compelled (Garrity) so evidence inadmissible | Defendants: At charging time facts supported reasonable belief bottle contained alcohol; Garrity does not bar physical evidence like breath/bottle tests | Court: Probable cause existed to charge; Garrity does not render the bottle or test results per se inadmissible; malicious prosecution claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (breath/bodily-sample searches implicated Fourth Amendment search principles)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (dissipation of blood-alcohol can create exigency justifying warrantless test under special facts)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (no per se exigency for dissipation of alcohol; exigency assessed case-by-case)
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (statements compelled under threat of job loss are inadmissible; testimonial distinction from physical evidence)
- People v. Carey, 898 N.E.2d 1127 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (Illinois appellate decision treating dissipation-of-alcohol as justifying warrantless testing in that context)