250 F. Supp. 3d 99
E.D. La.2017Background
- In 1997 Eugenie Boisfontaine was murdered; her body was found months later; investigation unsolved.
- Detectives on a televised investigation suspected Michael Schmidt, Eugenie’s ex-husband; he refused to provide voluntary DNA.
- Investigators trailed Schmidt and, in a public parking lot, an officer used a cotton swab on his Hummer’s door handle to collect DNA without his knowledge or consent; footage was filmed for television.
- DNA from the swab did not exclude Schmidt; he sued asserting Fourth Amendment violations (swabbing, DNA analysis, and filming).
- Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the swab and DNA analysis were Fourth Amendment searches; officers asserted qualified immunity.
- Court held the swab was a Fourth Amendment search (trespass to chattels under Jones) but granted officers qualified immunity on all federal claims; declined to decide constitutionality of the DNA analysis and held filming in a public lot did not violate clearly established law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether swabbing Hummer door was a Fourth Amendment search | Swab was a physical intrusion/trespass to Schmidt’s property and thus a search | No reasonable expectation of privacy in exterior of car; swab was harmless and akin to inspecting public surface or abandoned material | Swabbing was a Fourth Amendment search (trespass to chattels), but officers entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established |
| Whether DNA analysis of sample is a Fourth Amendment search | Analysis of collected DNA constituted a separate Fourth Amendment search | Courts are split; reasonable officers could rely on contrary authority | Court did not decide the merits; granted qualified immunity due to divergent case law |
| Whether filming the swabbing violated Fourth Amendment (Wilson v. Layne claim) | Bringing media to evidentiary collection violated privacy similar to allowing reporters in a residence | Filming occurred in public parking lot; no reasonable expectation of privacy in car exterior | Filming did not violate clearly established law; officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Qualified immunity applicability | Officers violated clearly established rights by conducting search and analysis without consent/warrant | Law after Jones and Jardines was unsettled; reasonable officers could differ on trespass scope | Officers granted qualified immunity on all individual-capacity federal claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test for searches)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass-based Fourth Amendment test for chattels/GPS tracker)
- Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (plurality: exterior of car generally exposed to public view)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (reasonable-expectation framework applied to third-party/pen-register context)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (inspecting vehicle exterior does not constitute a search in many contexts)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (use of property-rights/trespass reasoning at a home’s curtilage)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (bringing media into a home during a search can violate the Fourth Amendment)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (no expectation of privacy in curbside garbage)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity: officials protected unless violation was "beyond debate")