Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics

Powered by
Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

A man sued for damages when his apartment was inadvertently searched by the FBI.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A violation of the fourth amendment give raise to a cause of action.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

That possibility, however, relates, not to whether the federal courts have the power to afford one type of remedy as opposed to the other, but rather to the criteria which should govern the exercise of our power.

View Full Point of Law
Facts.

Plaintiff was in his apartment when it was wrongfully entered by federal agents executing a search warrant.  He was arrested on allegations of narcotics trafficking.  His apartment was searched top to bottom, and he was cuffed in front of his family, hauled down to jail, and strip searched.

Issue.

Does a violation of the fourth amendment right preventing unreasonable search and seizure provide the plaintiff a cause of action?

Held.

Yes, the plaintiff has a cause of action for the violation of their rights.

Dissent.

Justice Burger, C.J.

The justice dissents from the majorities opinion because he feels this creates the precedent of a damage remedy which is not provided for, nor enacted by congress.  He opines that congress should enact legislation to guide these issues, which is why he dissents.

Justice Black, J.

The justice dissents on the grounds that Congress has enacted laws that create a cause of action against state officials acting under state law, it has not created the same cause of action for federal officials under federal law, which is why he dissents that there is a cause of action for the plaintiff.

Concurrence.

Justice Harlan, J.

The justice concurs in the result of opinion, but sees the question at hand as whether compensatory relief is necessary or merely appropriate for a violation of a constitutional protected interest.

Discussion.

The court found that a violation of a right of the plaintiff would give them a cause of action.  The court reasons that rights are typically remedied with damages, and that this is well established precedent.  The violation of the plaintiff’s rights would grant them the standing to sue and recover damages because citizens’ primary refuge of protection from the government is the judiciary.


Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following