Montell Carter v. City of Milwaukee, 743 F.3d 540

Background

During execution of a search warrant in a Milwaukee apartment, the resident alleged about $1,750 was missing and officers were ordered to "freeze the scene" pending Professional Performance Division (PPD) arrival.
Officer Montell Carter, a 13‑year MPD veteran, had taken an over‑the‑counter colon‑cleansing supplement and urgently needed to use a restroom; he declined to use the apartment bathroom.
Carter told Lieutenant Keith Eccher he needed to leave to use the restroom; Eccher raised his hand and said Carter could not leave until searched, then patted him down and inspected his jacket, wallet, memo book, duty belt, and boots.
Nothing incriminating was found; Carter and a partner were allowed to leave and went to the station where Carter used the restroom; another officer later left without being searched.
Carter sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the search and the command to submit to it were an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure and search; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding a reasonable officer in Carter’s position would not have feared arrest or detention if he refused the search, so no constitutional seizure occurred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carter was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when ordered searched before leaving	Carter says Eccher’s command and gesture meant he was not free to leave, constituting a seizure	Defendants say any compulsion was workplace obedience, not coercion amounting to seizure; no threat of arrest or custodial measures were made	No seizure: reasonable officer would not have feared arrest or detention if he refused
Whether the subsequent pat‑down/search was unconstitutional because it followed an unlawful seizure	Search unlawful as it flowed from an unlawful seizure	Search reasonable under the circumstances and permissible if no unlawful seizure occurred	Court rejected premise (no seizure) and did not need to independently rule on search legality

Key Cases Cited

Swetlik v. Crawford, 738 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in civil rights case)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness principle)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (seizure occurs when freedom of movement is restrained by physical force or show of authority)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (test for whether a person would feel free to terminate encounter)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (totality of circumstances test for freedom to decline police requests)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional protections for public employees in compelled statements)
Driebel v. City of Milwaukee, 298 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing employer‑directed workplace constraints from Fourth Amendment seizures of officers)
Fournier v. Reardon, 160 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1998) (public‑employee context and seizure analysis)
INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1984) (limitations on Fourth Amendment when employer–employee obligations restrict movement)
Gwynn v. City of Phila., 719 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2013) (officers ordered to wait and submit to inquiries were not seized)
Feirson v. District of Columbia, 506 F.3d 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (reasonable‑person test focuses on fear of detention, not job consequences)
Pennington v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 511 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2008) (off‑duty officer ordered to submit to breathalyzer not seized where no custodial indicia)
Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2001) (contrast where clear custodial steps established a seizure)