This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
28
Defendants. Therefore, the Court first considers w hether
Plaintiff‘s facts plausibly assert that Briggs deprived her of a
right secured by the United States Constitution. I f the Court
finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constit utional
violation committed by Briggs, the Court must consi der whether
Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to impute liabi lity to Gayle
and/or the City Defendants.
1. § 1983 Claim against Briggs
Plaintiff‘s allegations of c onstitutional violations focus
on her arrest and initial detention, requiring the Court to
determine whether such allegations substantiate a v iolation of
the Fourth Amendment. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 394 (indicating
that excessive force claims associated with an arre st of a ―free
citizen‖ implicate the Fourth Amendment) . The Fourth Amendment
protects ―[t]he right o f the people to be secure in their
persons . . . against unreasonable searches and sei zures . . .
.‖ U.S. Const. amend. IV. However, a seizure of a su spect is
not ―unreasonable‖ if a police officer has probable cause to
believe that a crime has been comm itted in the officer‘s
presence. Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 178 (20 08); United
States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 1070, 1073–74 (4th Cir. 1993).
―‗Probable cause,‘ for Fourth Amendment purposes, means
‗facts and c ircumstances within the officer‘ s knowledge that are
sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of r easonable Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)