criminal justice

CLJ 2062 Constitutional Law and Legal Procedures

Case Brief Example

This is an example of a well-written case brief. Note: the compliance with the required format and how the student gets right to the important points in plain language. If legal terms are encountered which are not understood, chances are that other students will not understand them, so it is best not to use them unless defined within the brief. Assignment sub-heading: Fourth Amendment Prohibits Unreasonable Search and Seizure TITLE AND CITATION: Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) TYPE OF ACTION: The review by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment by six Federal Narcotics Agents acting under the color of authority. There was a Second Circuit court of appeals, which reversed the ruling and remanded the case. FACTS OF THE CASE: On November 26, 1965, Webster Bivens was handcuffed and arrested in front of his family by six Federal Bureau Narcotics Agents. The agents forced their way into Bivens’ residence without a warrant. According to Bivens, the narcotics agent used manacles in front of his children and spouse. The agents also threatened his family by advising that they would be subjected to arrest. The agents searched his apartment from top to bottom with a warrantless arrest. Subsequently, Bivens was taken to a Federal Courthouse in Brooklyn where he was subjected to an interrogation and a visual strip search. On July 17, 1967, Bivens filed a lawsuit with the Federal Court stating that his arrest was executed without a warrant. Bivens was also subjected to unreasonable search and seizure while being arrested. Bivens endured humiliation, embarrassment, as well as mental suffering. As a result, Bivens is seeking $15,000 damages from all of the narcotics agents involved. According to the District Courts, the agents failed to state the cause of action and that the respondents were immune due to their federal official position. The District Court dismissed the respondent's motion of a failed cause of action. Notably, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: Bivens: The petitioner claimed that the Narcotics Agents were acting under color of federal authority law to enter his apartment by conducting a warrantless search. Bivens suffered humiliation, embarrassment, mental suffering as well as being subjected to a visual strip search. The petitioner is seeking $15,000 per agent in the form of money damages. Six Unnamed Narcotics Agents: Narcotics Agents contend that there was not a violation of the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right. The agents acted in their performance of their assigned duties and did not subject the petitioner to unreasonable searched. The agents were acting in their scope of duties. ISSUE: Did the six unknown federal narcotics agents violate the Fourth Amendment right of unreasonable search and seizure? Was the arrest of Webster Bivens conducted without a valid warrant causing damages? DECISION: Yes and No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment had been violated but proof needed to be provided. The Courts also ruled that it was dissented due to the doctrine of separation of powers, which should be left for Congress to decide. The Appeals Court did not answer this.

REASONING: The District Court’s conclusion that the agents did not use excessive force to effect the arrests of the protesters as a matter of law is untenable given the evidence presented at trial. The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s right of unreasonable searches and seizures as well as ensuring that there is probable cause. The Courts should not act on the remedies of the Fourth Amendment, but Congress that should decide. It may be difficult to decide if their was an actual cause of action or if Bivens’ right to privacy was violations RULE OF LAW: The Fourth Amendment is a constitutionally protected right in which the Federal Narcotics Agents violated. The Federal agents acting under the color of authority raised a cause of action for damages, which were caused from the agents’ unconstitutional behavior.