Opinion ID: 789707
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Officer Mayrand

Text: 26 Assuming arguendo that Officer Mayrand was aware of the numerous factors that rendered the searches in this case unconstitutional, then Mayrand's action in ordering the searches of the female plaintiffs was also unlawful. 27 Section 1983, provides, in relevant part, that 28 Every person who, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 29 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). Assuming arguendo that Mayrand was aware of the circumstances of the searches which rendered them unconstitutional — i.e., the large number of students searched, the lack of individualized suspicion, the lack of consent, the highly intrusive nature of searches (including the fact that the male plaintiffs were forced to remove their underwear and the fact that the female plaintiffs were forced to undress in the presence of other students), and the fact that the searches were undertaken to find missing money — then Officer Mayrand's actions in ordering the search of the female plaintiffs was itself a constitutional violation. 30