Schlossberg v. Solesbee, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1165

Plaintiff asserts Fourth Amendment violations under §1983 for arrest without probable cause, excessive force, and warrantless camera search; court focuses on the warrantless camera search.
During a Jan 3, 2012 pre-trial conference, court directed briefing on whether the warrantless search claim could be decided as a matter of law in plaintiff’s favor.
Recording shows Solesbee retrieving plaintiff’s camera, arresting him, and later viewing the camera’s contents at the cruiser without a warrant.
Court addresses whether electronic devices like cameras are subject to a warrantless search incident to arrest given their substantial private-information content.
Court explains standard for summary judgment and that material facts are in dispute regarding the lawfulness of the arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether viewing contents of the camera incident to arrest violated the Fourth Amendment	Pltff contends warrantless viewing violated privacy rights	Solesbee argues search incident to arrest can extend to arrestee’s possessions	Yes; viewing violated Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances
Whether qualified immunity shields Solesbee from damages	If arrest unlawful, immunity does not apply	If arrest lawful, immunity shields Solesbee	Qualified immunity depends on jury’s finding on arrest lawfulness; if unlawful, immunity does not apply; if lawful, it does

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (establishes search incident to arrest authority)
U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (scope of search incident to arrest includes arrestee’s personal effects)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (container concept and search of belongings within arrestee’s reach)
Newhard v. Borders, 649 F. Supp. 2d 440 (W.D. Va. 2009) (cell-phone privacy and warrantless search concerns)