Opinion ID: 615185
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: search and seizure under the fourth amendment

Text: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. The phrase searches and seizures connotes that the Fourth Amendment regulates conduct that is somehow designed to elicit a benefit for the government in an investigatory or, more broadly, an administrative capacity. United States v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that a physician employed by the government who drew a blood sample from the defendant for medical, not investigatory, purposes did not conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment). Similarly, the Supreme Court has stated that the Fourth Amendment applies to governmental conduct whether the government's motivation is to investigate violations of criminal laws or breaches of other statutory or regulatory standards. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 335, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Camara v. Mun. Court of S.F., 387 U.S. 523, 534, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (applying the Fourth Amendment to a governmental inspection program). In Poe v. Leonard , a police officer who invited plaintiff to film a training video for the police academy surreptitiously videotaped plaintiff in a state of partial dress while in her changing room. 282 F.3d 123, 136-37 (2d Cir.2002). The Second Circuit found that this was not a search under the Fourth Amendment because the officer's surreptitious filming during his assigned duties was for his personal reasons and occurred outside of a criminal investigation or other form of governmental investigation or activity. See id. Here, Doe asserts that County Defendants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, unlawfully searched and seized video images of her in the Decontamination Area. Foy's conduct of recording and disseminating the video and images of Doe was not a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. At oral argument, Doe's counsel conceded that Foy filmed Doe for personal interest, and that Foy did not film Doe in furtherance of any governmental investigation. Because Foy acted for personal reasons and outside the scope of a governmental investigation, his actions do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Poe, 282 F.3d at 136-37. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's dismissal of Doe's Fourth Amendment claim. [9]