Opinion ID: 169496
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seizure of Person

Text: Violation of the Fourth Amendment requires an intentional acquisition of physical control. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989). In our cases analyzing malicious prosecution under § 1983, we have always proceeded based on a seizure by the statearrest or imprisonment. See, e.g., Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1281 (plaintiff incarcerated for fifteen years); Taylor, 82 F.3d at 1558 & n. 5 (plaintiff arrested and held for seven weeks); Wolford v. Lasater, 78 F.3d 484, 487 (10th Cir.1996) (plaintiff arrested). Here, Becker conceded she was never arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise placed under the direct physical control of the state. Accordingly, Becker was never seized in the traditional sense. Becker nonetheless argues that we should adopt a broader theory of seizure, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). In that case, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a substantive due process right to be free from prosecution without probable cause, but left open the possibility that a plaintiff could bring such a claim under the Fourth Amendment. In a noteworthy concurrence to the Court's plurality opinion, Justice Ginsburg analyzed Albright's claim under the Fourth Amendment and urged the Court to adopt a non-custodial concept of continuing seizure in order to take into account under the Fourth Amendment the harms incident to the control exercised by the state over a citizen before trial. She argued that seizures for Fourth Amendment purposes include requiring a person to post bond, compelling a person to appear in court, or imposing restrictions on a person's right to interstate travel, all of which might create reputational, emotional, and financial harms. Id. at 278, 114 S.Ct. 807. Justice Ginsburg's continuing seizure analysis has yet to garner a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court, and we are not compelled to adopt it. The Court has been careful to tie all actions under § 1983 to specifically protected constitutional rights in order to avoid creating a free-standing constitutional tort regime under § 1983. To extend liability in cases without a traditional seizure would expand the notion of seizure beyond recognition and fall into the trap carefully avoided by the Albright majorityevery charging decision would support a § 1983 malicious prosecution-type claim no matter the context. See Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir.2001) ([I]f the concept of a seizure is regarded as elastic enough to encompass standard conditions of pretrial release, virtually every criminal defendant will be deemed to be seized pending the resolution of the charges against him. That would mean, in turn, that nearly every malicious prosecution claim could be brought before a federal court under the aegis of section 1983.). While the consequences of unfounded criminal charges are surely grave, the Fourth Amendment adequately covers constitutional interests in the pre-trial exercise of government control over a person or property. A groundless charging decision may abuse the criminal process, but it does not, in and of itself, violate the Fourth Amendment absent a significant restriction on liberty. We thus agree with the courts that have also declined to accept Justice Ginsburg's invitation to expand Fourth Amendment liability in cases where the plaintiff has not been arrested or incarcerated. See DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood, 407 F.3d 599, 603 (3d Cir.2005); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir.2003); Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 56 (1st Cir.2001); Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 29-30 (1st Cir.1999) (all declining to recognize typical pre-trial release conditions, such as receiving a summons, posting bond, restricting travel, and appearing in court, as a seizure); see also Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310, 317 (2d Cir. 2004) (finding no seizure when plaintiffs charged in administrative proceeding and suspended without pay but never physically detained). These cases, moreover, are consistent with those rejecting a continuing seizure rationale for post-arrest incarceration, which hold that even when a defendant is in custody, a seizure ends when pretrial incarceration begins. See Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1164 (4th Cir.1997); Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049, 1052 n. 3 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Wilkins v. May, 872 F.2d 190, 194 (7th Cir.1989)). Even those courts that subscribe to the line of reasoning endorsed by Justice Ginsburg have recognized a seizure only when criminal charges are coupled with another significant restraint on liberty, such as restrictions on travel. See Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir.1999) (A summons, coupled with [] additional liberty restrictions [in this case a bond and travel restrictions] may constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.); Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 222-25 (3d Cir.1998) (holding plaintiff seized when subjected to travel restrictions and required to contact pretrial services weekly); Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938, 945 (2d Cir.1997) (holding plaintiff seized when ordered not to leave state and required to attend court). Becker does not argue that she was subject to any of these indicia of non-physical control arising from MFCU's investigation and prosecutionshe apparently never posted bond, was not required to appear in court, and had no specific restrictions on her freedom of movement. Under these circumstances, even if we were inclined to broaden the meaning of seizure beyond our traditional understanding, this case does not present a vehicle for doing so. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining Becker was not seized under the Fourth Amendment.