Opinion ID: 692064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damage Claim on Right to Privacy:

Text: 11 Plaintiffs also allege that, in searching their persons and property without a warrant, defendants violated the right to privacy and the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. To invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment, plaintiffs must show that they had a subjective expectation of privacy that society, at the time, was prepared to recognize as reasonable. 12 While the facts establish that plaintiffs might have had a subjective expectation of privacy in their shelters and personal property, no case law is advanced to establish clearly that society recognized plaintiffs' expectation of privacy as reasonable under the facts of this case. Although plaintiffs cite several cases which recognize a general right to privacy, the facts of those cases are too different to show that plaintiffs' right to privacy was clearly established in the context of a case like this one. Those cases address a person's right to privacy and freedom from search and seizure when he resides or stores his belongings at another's residence or on another's property with the landowner's permission or in public places. 4 Plaintiffs have cited no authority which recognizes a person's right to privacy when he lives or stores his belongings on private property without the landowner's permission. 5 The district court, therefore, properly concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.