Opinion ID: 712981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Directed Verdict for Bowdle on Pierce's Fourth Amendment Unreasonable Seizure Claim

Text: 38 Pierce also claims that the magistrate erred by directing a verdict on Pierce's Fourth Amendment claim against Bowdle for unreasonable seizure. We find that this claim has merit. 39 Pierce alleged that Bowdle violated her Fourth Amendment rights by seizing her and returning her to a cell after she had been released from the detention center. The magistrate directed a verdict for the defendant based on Pierce's own testimony which indicated that she was still in the process of being released. However, we do not find that Pierce's testimony mandates the magistrate judge's conclusion. According to Pierce, Officer Bowdle asked if she wanted to go and said that she was being released. Based on these statements, a reasonable jury could find that although Pierce was still physically inside the detention center, she had been released because Bowdle had indicated that Pierce was free to go and by implication that the officer lacked any further authority to detain her. If this is the case, then a subsequent seizure could be in violation of Pierce's Fourth Amendment rights. 40 Because there was a basis for a reasonable juror to conclude that Bowdle's actions violated Pierce's Fourth Amendment rights, a directed verdict was inappropriate. 41