# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 10 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Est at e o f Leo n Walk er, J r.; Wand a Je an Mi ll br oo k; Co rrel l Taylor Mi ll br oo k;

Vict or W ay ne Mi ll br oo ks , Jr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Bu il di ng Ins pe ct or Hers he ll W al la ce, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Dete ct iv e Ro na ld E. Vaug hn , a St. Lo ui s M et ro po li ta n P ol ic e Dep art m en t p ol ic e of fic er i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty; Cit y of S t. Lo ui s, M is so ur i

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 13 , 20 17
Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

8, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e.One m or ni ng , a SWA T te am rai de d a St

. Lou is ho us e in whi ch th e pl ai nt i f f s

li ve d t o e x e c u t e a se arch warra nt

. Acco rd in g to th e warra nt affi da vi t, a de te ct iv e

su sp ect ed th at th e ho us e co nt ai ne d he ro in

, il le ga l fir earm s, an d dr ug -tr affi ck in g

pa rap h e r n a l i a

. The te am kn oc ke d on th e do or , y el le d "p ol ic e," an d qu ic kl y be ga n

st rik in g th e do or wit h a b a t t e r i n g ram

. The te am al so to ss ed a "fl as h ba ng de vi ce"

th ro ug h a win do w a nd in to th e ho us e, an d aft er ga in in g en tr y, th e te am ha nd cu ffed

th e res id en ts who were pr es en t an d br ou gh t th em in to a fro nt ro om

. The se arch tu rn ed

up m ari juan a, so m e dr ug pa r a p h ern al ia

, an d th ree fir earm s, whi ch th e pl ai nt iff s'

at to rn ey ch arac te riz ed as s om e o ld fir earm s an d s om e p ers on al -u se m ari juan a.

The de te ct iv e th en cal le d fo r a bu il di ng in sp ect or to in sp ect th e ho us e un de r a
ci ty pr og ram cal le d "Pr ojec t 87 ." Se e Sai nt Lou is

, Mo

., Co de of Ord in an ces ch

. 25 .32 .02 0, § 10 4.6

. Und er th at pr og ram , po li ce no ti f y a bu il di ng in sp ect or of

pr op ert i e s t ha t co ns ti tu te a "n ui sa nc e," whi ch is de fin ed as a co de vi ol at io n th at "i f

no t pr om pt ly co rrec te d wil l co ns ti tu te a fir e ha z a r d o r a se rio us th reat to th e li fe,

he al th or sa fet y of th e oc cu pa nt s of th e bu il di ng , st ru ct ur e, or po rti on th ereo f in whi ch

th e vi ol at io ns oc cu r." If th e own er or oc cu pa nt of th e bu il di n g r e f us es to pe rm it a
bu il di ng in sp ect io n, th e bu il di ng in sp ect or m us t im m ed ia te ly co nd em

n th e bu il di ng

an d is su e an or de r to va cat e, an d if th e own ers or oc cu pa nt s refu se to le av e, th e po li ce

m us t im m ed ia te ly rem ov e th em

. The de te ct iv e te st ifi ed th at it was po li ce-d ep art m en t

po li cy to req ue st a Pro

ject 87 in sp ect io n ro ut in el y a f t e r a se arch warra nt was

ex ecu te d. He di d no t id en ti fy an y po te nt ia l "n ui sa nc e" be fo re he req ue st ed a Pro ject

87 in sp ect io n i n t hi s ca se

.

Bu il di ng in s p e c t o r Hers he ll W al la ce arri ve d aft er rece iv in g th e in sp ect io n

refe rral

. He te st ifi ed th at he di d no t no ti ce an y po te nt ia l bu il di ng -co de vi ol at io ns
whe n he arri ve d ex cep t fo r th e win do w th at th e po li ce th em se lv es ha d jus t br ok en

. He

ap pr oa c h ed on e of th e res id en ts

, 29 -y ear- ol d Vict or Mi ll br oo ks

, an d as ke d hi m to

si gn a co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm

. At th is po in t th e pa rti es ' acco un ts be gi n to di ve rg e, an d

si nc e we are rev ie win g an or de r de nyin g W al la ce's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, we

-2

-co ns tru e th e fact s in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ho us e's res id en ts

. Se e Aul ic k v.

Sk yb ri dg e Ams., In c. , 8 6 0 F.3 d 61 3, 62 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Acco rd in g to Mi ll br oo ks

, he was ha nd cu ffed fo r no m or e th an ni ne ty m in ut es whi le th e SWA T te am se arch ed

th e h ou se , and th e po li ce un cu ffed hi m on ly t o si gn th e co ns en t-t o- se arch for m an d

to us e th e res tro om

. Mi ll br oo ks te st ifi ed th at W al la ce "d em an de d" th at Mi ll br oo ks

si gn th e co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm by sa y in g t h a t "[b ]asic al ly if y ou do n't si gn th is

, I

gu es s th e ho us e

. . . fo recl os es or so m et hi ng was go in g to ha pp en wit h th e ho us e. W e

wou ld ge t pu t ou t, so m et hi ng li ke th at ," so "i t was n't li ke I ha [d ] an op ti on ." He al so

te st ifi ed th at no on e di rect ed an y th reat s to ward hi m

. Mi ll br oo ks th en si gn ed th e fo rm

an d Wall ace c on du ct ed th e in sp ect io n, wh ic h t ur ne d u p o nl y m in or vi ol at io ns

.

Whe n th e res id en ts of th e ho us e su ed W al la ce un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3

, cl ai m in g th at he un reas on ab ly se arch ed th e ho us e in vi ol at io n o f t h e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t, W al la ce m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e gr o un d th at qu al ifi ed

im m un it y pr ot ect ed hi m fro m su it

. Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, W al la ce

fil ed th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Bec au se we co nc lu de th at W al la ce di d n o t vi ol at e
cl earl y est ab li sh ed law, we re ve rs e an d re m an d.

W e fir st co ns id er ou r juri sd ic ti on to r e v i e w t hi s in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. The
pl ai nt iff s ha ve m ov ed to di sm is s th e ap pe al be cau se , th ey arg ue , W al la ce's req ue st fo r

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y was ba se d on ev id en ce in su ffi ci en cy , or at le as t th e di st ric t co ur t

vi ewed it th at way whe n it de ni ed th e m ot io n. It is tru e t h a t

, t h o u g h "[t ]he pr et ria l

de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y is an ap pe al ab le fin al ord er t o t he ex te nt it tu rn s o n a n
is su e of la w," Ja cks on v. Gut zme r , 86 6 F.3 d 96 9, 97 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), we do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to th e ex te nt th at th e de ni al tu rn s on ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact

. New

v. Den ver
, 78 7 F.3d 89 5, 89 9 (8 th Cir . 20 15 ). The d is tri ct co ur t d id in de ed m en ti on

th at "d is pu te s of fact rem ai n r e g a r d in g whe th er Vict or vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d to th e

in s p e ct io n," an d we ha ve sa id th at whe n th e ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y tu rn s on whe th er th e pl ai nt iff c o ns en te d to a se arch

, whi ch is a fact ua ll y

-3

-in te ns iv e in qu i ry , we la ck juri sd ic ti on

. Se e Pac e v. Ci ty of Des Moi ne s , 20 1 F.3 d

10 50 , 10 53 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

W e co nc lu de no ne th el es s th at we ha ve juri sd ic ti on . W al la ce's bri efs an d o ral

arg um en t m ak e cl ear th at h e i s c h a ll en gi ng whe th er he vi ol at ed cl earl y es ta bl is he d

la w whe n he in sp ect ed th e pl ai nt iff s' ho us e aft er rece iv in g Mi ll br oo ks 's si gn at ur e on

a co ns en t-t o- se arch for m . W he th er ce rta in act io ns vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w i s

th e arch et y

pa l qu es ti on of la w th at is rev ie wab le on in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Se e Jo hn so n

v. Jo ne s , 51 5 U.S. 30 4, 31 8 (1 99 5) . We ha ve sa id th at th e typi cal "ap pe al ab le is su e
is whe th er the fed eral rig ht al le ge dl y in fri ng ed was 'cl earl y es ta bl is he d.'" Se e W hi te

v. McKi nl ey , 51 9 F.3 d 80 6, 81 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Thi s is pr eci se ly wha t W al la ce as ks

us to rev ie w. The way in whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t res ol ve d th e m ot io n d oe s no t

ne ces sa r i l y go ve rn whe th er we ha ve juri sd ic ti on

. Se e New

, 78 7 F.3 d at 89 9– 90 1.

W he re th e ap pe ll an t do es no t ch al le ng e th at fact ua l di sp ut es ex is t bu t rat he r whe th er,

ev en if th e fact s are co ns tru ed in a li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e ap pe ll ees , he vi ol at ed

a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht

, we ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th e i n t erl oc ut or y ap pe al

. W e

th eref or e tu rn to a co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts

.

An i nd iv id ua l d efen da nt is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y if h is co nd uc t d oe s

no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on

wou ld ha ve kn own

. W

hi te v. Pau ly , 1 37 S. Ct . 5 48 , 5 51 (2 01 7) (p er cu ria m ). To be

cl earl y es ta bl is he d, pr eex is ti ng la w m us t make th e un la wfu ln es s of th e of fic ia ls '

co nd uc t ap pa ren t so th at th ey ha ve "fa ir an d cl ear warn in g" th ey are v i o l a t i n g t h e

co ns ti tu ti on ; qu al ifi ed im m un it y th e r e fo re pr ot ect s "al l bu t th e pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt

or th os e who kn owi ng ly vi ol at e th e la w." Id

. at 55 1– 52

. Bec au se qu al ifi ed im m un it y

pr ot ect s of

fic ia ls who m ak e ba d gu es se s in gr ay area s, Li tt re ll v. Fra nk li n , 38 8 F.3 d

57 8, 58 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ), it gi ve s th em br eat hi ng ro om to mak e r e a so na bl e bu t

m is ta ke n jud gm en ts

. Bla ze k v. Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty

, 76 1 F.3 d 92 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

The pl ai nt iff

s ha ve th e bu rd en of sh owi ng th at th e la w was cl earl y es ta bl is he d. Hes s
v. Abl es , 71 4 F .3d 10 48 , 10 51 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

-4

-Th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed W al la ce qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se , if th e ju r y
be li ev ed th e pl ai nt iff

s' ve rs io n of t h e f

a c t s , th en th e ev id en ce "co ul d sh ow th at th e

co ns en t was n o t v ol un ta ry ." True

, bu t th at is no t th e co rrec t in qu iry. The co rrec t

in qu iry is whe th er, e v e n i f w e co ns tru e th e fact s in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff s, a reas on ab le of

fic ia l in W al la ce's po si ti on wou ld ha ve kn own th at he was
vi ol at in g th e co ns ti tu ti on whe n he se arch ed th e pl ai nti ff s' hous e aft er rece iv in g si gn ed

co ns en t t o d o s o i n t he pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces . W e be li ev e th at W al la ce, at wors t,

m ad e a ba d gu es s in a gr ay area of th e la w—b ut th e la w ga ve hi m th e br eat hi ng ro om

to m ak e su ch a gu es s.

Fi rs t, de te rm in in g whe th er co ns en t is vo lu nt ary req ui res a h i gh ly pa rti cu la r
lo ok at al l th e rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Co mst oc k

, 53 1 F.3 d 66 7,

67 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In Co mst oc k we id en ti fie d n o fe wer t ha n e le ve n n on -ex cl us iv e

co ns id erat io ns th at can be ar on whe th er co ns en t was vo lu nt ary. Se e id

. at 67 6– 77

. Si nc e qu es ti on s of co ns en t ne ces sa ril y tu rn on th e pa rti cu la r fact s of a cas e, it m ay be

ha rd to sh ow th at pr io r de ci si on s s ho ul d h av e p ut W al la ce o n no ti ce th at hi s se arch

un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces was un co ns ti tu ti on al or th at ev ery reas on ab le of fic ia l in hi s

po si ti on wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th at he was vi ol at in g a co n s t i t ut io na l rig ht

. Se e

Pau ly

, 13 7 S. Ct

. at 55 2. W e do no t m ean th at of fic ia ls are al way s en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y whe n de al in g wit h qu es ti on s of co ns en t; it is eas y to im ag in e fact s th at

wou ld al ert a reas on ab le pe rs on th at co ns en t was no t vo lu nt ari ly gi ve n. W e m ean on ly

to em ph as iz e th at of

fic ia ls sh ou ld be gi ve n so m e le eway whe n act in g in le ga ll y m ur ky

en vi ro nm en ts

.

W e be li ev e th at bo th th e pl ai nt iff s an d th e d is tri ct co ur t de fin ed th e rig ht in

qu es ti on he re to o ge ne ral ly. The pl ai nt iff s fo cu s on th e pr es um

pti ve unr ea sonable ne ss

of se arch in g a ho us e (wh et he r fo r ev id en ce of a cri m e or fo r bu il di ng co de vi ol at io ns )

wit ho ut a warra nt

. The di st ric t co ur t be ga n it s a n al y si s wit h th e ob se rv at io n th at a

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia l ' s w arra nt le ss en try in to a ho us e do es no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t whe n on e vo lu nt ari ly co ns en ts to th e en try, on ly to no te th en th at co ns en t

-5

-m ay no t ha ve be en vo lu nt ari ly gi ve n he re. Bu t "cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w sh ou ld no t be

de fin ed at a hi gh le ve l of ge ne ral it y" a n d m us t be pa rti cu la riz ed to th e fact s of th e

c a s e so th at th e un la wfu ln es s of an of fic ia l's act io ns are ap pa ren t. Id

. Co n t e x t i s
cri ti cal in de te rm in in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y in Fo ur th Am en dm en t cas es

. Se e Mul le ni x

v. Lu na , 13 6 S. Ct

. 30 5, 30 8 (2 01 5) (p er cu ria m ). The fir st pr in ci pl es th at th e di st ric t

co ur t an d th e pl ai nt iff

s em ph as iz ed can on ly go so far. Nowh ere do th ey id en ti fy an y

cas e ap pl y in g th es e fir st pr in ci pl es in a co nt ex t su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to th e si tu at io n in

whi ch W al la c e f

ou nd hi m se lf whe n he se arch ed th e pl ai nt iff s' ho us e. Tho ug h th e pl ai nt iff s ne ed no t pr ov id e a cas e di rect ly on po in t, s o m e ex is ti ng pr eced en t m us t pl ace th e qu es ti on b e yon d de ba te

, or th e co nd uc t m us t be so ob vi ou sl y

un co ns ti tu ti on al th at no pr eced en t is ne ed ed

. Se e Pau ly

, 13 7 S. Ct

. a t 55 1– 52

. The
pl ai nt iff s h av e fai le d t o c arry the ir b ur de n o n t hi s p oi nt

.

W al la ce al ert s us to a cas e th at ho ld s th at a bu il di ng in sp ect or in ci rcu m st an ces

ve ry si mi l a r t o t h e pr es en t on es di d no t vi ol at e th e co ns ti tu ti on at al l. Se e

Mem or an du m , App el v. Ci ty of St

. Lo ui s , No. 4: 05 -cv -7 72 (E.D. Mo

. Aug

. 15

, 20 07 ),

ECF No. 16 8. In th at cas e, a St

. Lou is bu il di ng in sp ect or an d se ve ral po li ce of fic ers

arri v e d at a res id en ce to pe rfo rm a Pro ject 87 in sp ect io n. The bu il di ng in sp ect or

req ue st ed th e oc cu pa nt 's co ns en t to se arch

, an d th e oc cu pa nt as ke d ab ou t hi s rig ht to

refu se

. The bu il di ng in sp ect or to ld th e oc cu pa nt th at fai lu re to con se nt wou ld res ul t

in im m ed ia te co nd em

na ti on an d wou ld fo rce th e oc cu pa nt to va cat e th e res id en ce, so

th e oc cu pa nt si gn ed a c o n se nt -to -s earc h fo rm

. Id

. at 6. In gr an ti ng th e bu il di ng

in sp ect or qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , th e co ur t co ns id ered whe th er th e oc cu pa nt vo lu nt ari ly

c o n s e n te d to th e se arch , n ot in g th at whe th er co ns en t was vo lu nt ary was a fact u a l l y

in te ns iv e qu es ti on

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e oc cu p a n t w a s a n ad ul t wit h fu ll

c a pa ci ty wh o in qu ire d ab ou t hi s rig ht s an d who was no t de ta in ed or qu es ti on ed f o r

ve ry lo ng , th reat en ed wit h ph y si cal ha rm or wit h pu ni sh m en t, or pl aced un de r arre st

. The co u r t n o t e d th at

, th ou gh a la rg e po li ce pr es en ce at a ho us in g in sp ect io n was

un us ua l, it was no t su ffi ci en tl y in ti m id at in g to de pr iv e an ad ul t of th e ab il it y to gi ve

in fo rm ed

, kn owi ng , an d vo lu nt ary co ns en t. That cou rt als o po in te d ou t th at

, th ou gh

-6

-th e th reat to co nd em n th e ho us e was di sc on cert in g, it was no t an em pt y th reat be cau se

th e bu il di ng in sp e c t or ha d au th or it y un de r th e or di na nc e to co nd em n th e ho us e

te m po rari ly, an d pr ov id in g a ci ti zen wit h accu rat e in fo rm at io n ab ou t hi s rig ht s do es

no t in va li da te hi s co ns en t. The co ur t ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th at th e bu il di ng in sp ect or
di d n ot vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Id

. at 2 6– 27

.

The di st ric t co ur t di st in gu is he d App el on th e gr ou nd th at t h e re was

pa rti cu la riz ed kn owl ed ge of a bu il di ng co de vi ol at io n so th ere was pr ob ab le cau se fo r

th e s e a r c h. Bu t W al la ce do es no t co nt en d th at he ha d pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e pl ai nt iff s' ho us e; he co nt en ds in st ead th at he ha d co ns en t fr o m on e of th e ho us e's

oc cu pa nt s. W al la ce di d no t ne ed pr ob ab le cau se if he rece iv ed vo lu nt ary co ns en t. Se e

Uni te d S ta te s v. Wol

ff , 83 0 F .3d 75 5, 7 58 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) . In s ho rt, t hi s i s a c on se nt

cas e, an d p ro ba bl e cau se do es no t s eem all th at rel ev an t t o t he is su e b efo re u s.

W e ack no wled ge th at it ap pe ars th at th e oc cu pa nt in App el was ev id en tl y no t

in ha nd cu ffs whe n he ga ve hi s co ns en t to se arch

, bu t we ha ve he ld th at ev en a pe rs on
who is arre st ed an d ha nd cu ffed fo r two ho ur s can vo lu nt ari ly co ns en t to a se arch

, se e,

e.g

. , Co mst oc k

, 53 1 F.3 d at 67 7– 78 ; so th e ha nd cu ffs are no t en ou gh to de ny W al la ce

th e pr ot e ct io n of App el 's sh ad e an d ren de r Mi ll br oo ks 's co ns en t ob vi ou sl y

in vo lu nt ary. The pl ai nt iff s th em se lv es ack no wled ge th at th e fact th at Mi ll br oo ks was

ha nd cu ffed is no t "t he hi ng e on whi ch th e im m un it y an al y si s tu rn s." Bu t ev en if App el

is di st in gu is ha bl e on th is gr ou nd or ot he rs an d can so m eh ow be m ad e to sa y th at th e

co ns en t gi ve n in th is cas e was in vo lu nt ary, we st il l th in k th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha ve fai le d

to de m on st rat e ho w ev ery reas on ab le of fic ia l in W al la ce's sh oe s wou ld ha ve be li ev ed

th at he was vi ol at in g th e pl ai nt iff s' rig ht s. A si ng le cas e, whi ch is no t ev en a bi nd in g

pr eced en t in th e di st ric t in whi ch it was de ci de d, se em s ha rd ly en ou gh to co un t as on e

th at est ab li sh es a cl ear l eg al pri nc ip le . One s wall ow d oe s n ot a su m m er m ak e.

-7

-Fo r th es e reas on s, th e pl ai nt iff s ha ve no t carr ie d th ei r bu rd en to sh ow th at th e

un co n s t i t u t io na l na tu re of W al la ce's co nd uc t was cl earl y es ta bl is he d. W e th eref or e

rev ers e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I ag ree th at Hers he ll W al la ce is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. I writ e to no te

th at St

. Lou is ’s m

un ic ip al li ab il it y is no t be fo re us on th is ap pe al

. The pl ai nt iff s m ad e

th ree cl ai m s rel at in g to W al la ce’s Pro ject 87 in sp ect io n. One of th os e cl ai m s so ug ht

to ho ld W al la ce pe rs on al ly li ab le —t hi s ap pe al di sp os es of th at cl ai m

. The rem ai ni ng

two cl ai m s se ek to ho ld th e Ci ty of St

. Lou is li ab le fo r an un co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy

un de r Mo ne ll v. Dep ’t of So ci al Serv s. of N.Y.C., 43 6 U.S. 65 8 (1 97 8)

. W e ex pr es s

no op in io n on th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m ar y ju d gm en t on th es e Mo ne ll

cl ai m s. And

, be cau se we gr an t W al la c e qu al ifi ed im m un it y ba se d on a la ck of

cl earl y -es ta bl is he d la w, ou r ru li ng is no t de te rm in at iv e of whe th er hi s em pl oyer is

li ab le fo r effe ct ua ti ng an un co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy

. See Owen v. Ci ty of In de pe nd en ce,

M o., 44 5 U.S. 62 2, 65 7– 58 (1 98 0)

. Thu s, ou r op in io n do es no t fo recl os e t h e pl ai nt iff s fr om pu rs ui ng th ei r Mo ne ll cla im s b as ed on Pro ject 8 7 s earc he s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-