Bissonette v. Haig
54 U.S.L.W. 2288, 776 F. 2d 1384 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search or seizure of civilians conducted by military personnel in a manner that violates the Posse Comitatus Act is an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- On February 27, 1973, an armed group of Indians began an occupation of the village of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
- In response, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marshals Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Police sealed off the village with roadblocks.
- Plaintiffs, most of whom were residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, alleged that federal military personnel participated in the operation.
- Plaintiffs alleged that these military personnel maintained roadblocks and armed patrols, creating an "armed perimeter" around Wounded Knee.
- As a result of this armed perimeter, plaintiffs claimed they were seized and confined against their will.
- Plaintiffs also alleged that military personnel conducted aerial surveillance over the village.
- The standoff between the occupiers and law enforcement authorities lasted approximately ten weeks.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued military personnel and federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging constitutional and statutory violations.
- The case was initially dismissed for improper venue, a decision that was reversed and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The District Court for the District of Columbia then transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
- The defendants renewed their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The District Court dismissed the statutory claims but gave plaintiffs 40 days to file an amended complaint focusing on their constitutional claims.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the District Court again dismissed with prejudice, holding that the use of military personnel did not in itself create a constitutional violation.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the final dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of military personnel to seize and confine civilians, in a manner that allegedly violates the Posse Comitatus Act, constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, thereby stating a claim upon which relief may be granted?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, Circuit Judge
Yes, the use of military personnel to seize and confine civilians in a manner that allegedly violates the Posse Comitatus Act constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The reasonableness of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined by balancing competing interests. These interests are not limited to the individual's privacy but also include broader societal and governmental interests, such as the profound historical and constitutional tradition of limiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act embodies this tradition by criminalizing the use of the military to execute laws, except where expressly authorized. Therefore, a seizure of citizens by military means that violates this statute is constitutionally unreasonable. The plaintiffs' allegation that defendants created an 'armed perimeter' that directly restrained their freedom of movement is a sufficient claim of a 'regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory' use of military power to survive a motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the Fourth Amendment's 'reasonableness' inquiry can incorporate broad societal principles, not just individual privacy rights. It forges a direct link between a statutory violation (of the Posse Comitatus Act) and a constitutional violation (of the Fourth Amendment). This creates a pathway for civil damages claims against government officials for the unauthorized domestic use of military force. The ruling distinguishes between active military enforcement, like establishing a perimeter to confine people, which may be unconstitutional, and passive assistance like providing equipment or aerial surveillance, which a prior case held did not violate the Act.
