Schmidt v. Stassi
2:16-cv-15902
| E.D. La. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Victim Eugenie Boisfontaine was murdered in 1997; investigation reopened two decades later on a televised show led by Detective Rodie Sanchez.
- Investigators sought DNA from persons of interest; Michael Schmidt, the victim’s ex-husband, declined voluntary DNA testing.
- Detectives covertly followed Schmidt, stopped when he entered a store, and an officer swabbed the exterior door handle of his Hummer to collect DNA.
- The collected DNA was compared to evidence from the crime scene and did not exclude Schmidt.
- Schmidt sued, alleging the swab and subsequent DNA analysis (and filming) were Fourth Amendment searches; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether those acts constituted a “search” and the officers asserted qualified immunity.
- The district court held the swab was a Fourth Amendment search but granted the officers qualified immunity on all federal claims; it also found officers entitled to immunity on the filming claim and declined to decide constitutionality of the search or whether DNA testing was a search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether swabbing the car door was a Fourth Amendment "search" | Swabbing was a governmental physical intrusion on Schmidt’s chattel and thus a search | Exterior of a car is exposed to public view; no reasonable expectation of privacy; akin to abandoned property/garbage | Court: Swabbing was a Fourth Amendment search (trespass to chattels under Jones) |
| Whether officers are liable despite search finding | N/A (relies on search being unconstitutional) | Officers argue reasonable reliance on existing precedent; seek qualified immunity | Court: Officers entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established at the time |
| Whether DNA analysis of the sample was a Fourth Amendment search | DNA profiling of the sample is a search and implicates privacy | Courts are divided; precedents ambiguous | Court: Did not decide; granted qualified immunity due to divergent case law |
| Whether permitting Discovery Channel to film constituted a Fourth Amendment violation | Analogized to Wilson v. Layne — bringing media during a search of a home violated Fourth Amendment | Filming occurred in a public parking lot; no reasonable expectation of privacy in a car’s exterior | Court: Filming did not violate clearly established law; officers entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass-based Fourth Amendment search where government physically intrudes on chattel)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (officer’s physical intrusion on property to gather evidence is a search)
- Carswell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (plurality) (exterior of vehicle and public scrutiny considerations)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (abandonment doctrine re: garbage left for collection)