Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206765/Merchant-v-Bauer-677-F-3d-656-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:36:46+00:00

Document:
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Davis joined.
Attorney, COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.
the law of Virginia, as well as a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
and that Merchant was unable to prove malicious prosecution.
forward, rejecting Bauers assertion of qualified immunity.
as explained below, we affirm.
assigned to Officer Bauer of the County Police Department.
that such equipment had ever been installed or removed.
quotes" (indicating quotation marks in mid-air). Id. at 186-87.
of Appeals in English v. Commonwealth, 598 S.E.2d 322 (Va.
English was similar to Dr. Merchants conduct in this case.
record, Merchant also had her marriage annulled.
the disputed facts, if resolved in favor of Officer Bauer, might lead a reasonable jury to conclude that he is entitled to qualified immunity, the qualified immunity defense remains available to Officer Bauer at trial."
Merchant v. Fairfax Cnty., 778 F. Supp. 2d 636, 649 n.14 (E.D. Va. 2011).
respect to the 1983 Fourth Amendment claim, Bauer interposed his assertion of qualified immunity.
see Merchant v. Fairfax County, 778 F. Supp. 2d 636 (E.D.
649 n.14; see supra note 3.
order doctrine. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985).
Saucier inquiries must be answered in the plaintiffs favor.
to the legality of their actions." See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
Miller v. Prince Georges Cnty., 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
judges determination of probable cause, overcame any constitutional deficiencies in Dr. Merchants arrest.
would have believed under the circumstances. See Harlow v.
is reasonable only if based on probable cause).
"not actually appropriate or accurate for the . . . situation."
Corrections. Viewed from a neutral, detached perspective, Dr.
police officer or "pretend[ing] to be any such officer." Va.
quotation marks with her fingers when stating police car supports Dr.
F. Supp. 2d at 645.
officer." Merchant, 778 F. Supp. 2d 646.
far more brazen and egregious than those of Dr. Merchant.
with those observations of the district court.
under 42 U.S.C. 1983." Id. at 262.
involved a mistake of fact, i.e., an assault victims misidentification of his attackers, rather than (as here) a mistake of law.
indeed established probable cause."); see also McKinney v.
Richland Cnty. Sheriffs Dept, 431 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.
conclusion of probable cause was patently deficient.
Detective Arnold is immune." Id. at 541.
enforcement officer. Mr. Rodway told me that I had a good case.
I later provided testimony under oath about my case against Dr.
Having ascertained that Officer Bauer violated Dr. Merchants Fourth Amendment right, we turn to whether that constitutional right was clearly established. "This inquiry . . .
reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Id. at 202.
must be such that the unlawfulness of the conduct is manifest." Id.
to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity").
On February 22, 2012, the Supreme Court decided Messerschmidt v.
a warrant should issue." Id. at 1245 (citing Malley, 475 U.S. at 341).
Messerschmidt, therefore, does not control our decision today.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.