Opinion ID: 2972647
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Illegal-Search Claims

Text: At the summary judgment hearing, the Adamses did not contest the City’s position — repeated and clarified at the request of the district court — that none of the named defendants in this case participated in the search of the Adamses’ home. See, e.g., J.A. at 458, 464, 468, 478 (March 13, 2002 Summ. J. Hr’g). Instead of disputing this assertion, counsel for the Adamses merely responded: Oh, and with regard to these particular defendants and Bobbie Adams and what these particular defendants have to do with the search of Bobbie Adams’ home or consent to search and any issues with regard to that, [it] should be noted that on the information provided, Lt. Chase sent the officers, and you can examine his 5 deposition testimony. He sent the officer to surveil and search Lt., I mean, excuse me, plaintiff Bobbie Adams’ home. So we do contend that the defendants, as named in this complaint, as well as people who did supervise these particular defendants, as named in this complaint, did participate in constitutional violations where Bobbie Adams is concerned. J.A. at 490-91 (March 13, 2002 Summ. J. Hr’g). The district court specifically noted that none of the named defendants were involved in, or responsible for, the search of the Adamses’ house. J.A. at 499 (March 13, 2002 Summ. J. Hr’g). On appeal, the entirety of the Adamses’ argument on this issue reads as follows: The Fourth Amendment provides for the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated (sic) and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The police entered Bobbie’s home without consent or a warrant. The police outnumbered Bobbie and used tactics to intimidated (sic) and demean her. They searched her home twice and removed contents from her home without a warrant. These acts are clearly a violation of Bobbie’s 4th amendment right and which (sic) the Defendants should not be granted immunity. Adams Br. at 25-26. In its brief, the City again raised the absence of any direct involvement by any named defendants in this search. Auburn Hills Br. at 27. The Adamses did not file a reply brief. As it is clearly uncontested that no named defendants were directly involved in the search, and as the Adamses have pointed to no evidence suggesting that Heath made any improper instruction to those conducting the search, we must affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the illegal-search claim.