Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries
1990 La. LEXIS 1808, 1990 WL 130051, 567 So. 2d 1081 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Facts:
- On January 11, 1986, state game agents, acting on a tip about a poacher named 'Byron Begnaud', decided to check all boats at Stelly's Landing in Vermilion Parish.
- Agents observed Patrick Damas Moresi and Kern Alleman arrive in a mudboat with a large quantity of ducks and an ice chest visible on the deck.
- An inspection of the visible ducks revealed five daily bag limits; three were tagged with the names of absent hunters, and two were untagged.
- When asked about the contents of the ice chest, one of the hunters replied, 'Ducks from yesterday.' An agent opened the chest and found three more daily limits of ducks, two of which were untagged.
- An agent used a key from the boat's ignition to open a locked compartment to inspect life preservers.
- Two agents accompanied Moresi and Alleman in their mudboat to their duck camp two miles away to verify the tagged ducks and continue their investigation.
- The agents detained Moresi and Alleman for approximately 45 to 60 minutes, issued them citations for violating federal tagging regulations, and confiscated the ducks from the ice chest.
- On March 25, 1986, two different game agents, uninvolved in the first incident, mistakenly left a note at the Moresi-Alleman camp that read, 'We missed you this time but look out next time!!'
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick Moresi and others (plaintiffs) filed a civil damage suit against the State of Louisiana and its game agents (defendants) in a Louisiana state district court (trial court).
- Following a bench trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding of liability but reversed the punitive damage award and reduced the attorneys' fees award.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of certiorari to review the decisions of the lower courts.
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 a state official's conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known give rise to liability for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Louisiana Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, J.
No. Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity and shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The court found that each of the agents' actions met this standard. The initial stop was a valid investigatory stop based on a particularized and objective suspicion of game violations. The search of the ice chests and boat compartment did not violate a 'clearly established' right, as the law regarding warrantless searches by game wardens was unsettled, and a reasonable officer could have believed the inspections were lawful. The arrest was supported by probable cause to believe the hunters had violated federal migratory bird tagging regulations, which require birds to be tagged if left at a place other than the hunter's personal abode, such as a duck camp. The 45-60 minute detention was not an unreasonable restraint of liberty requiring a judicial determination of probable cause. Similarly, the claim under the Louisiana Constitution fails because the agents are entitled to the same qualified immunity, and no clearly established state constitutional right was violated. Finally, the negligent infliction of mental distress claim fails because the agents' mistaken note was not intentional or outrageous, and it did not cause severe distress or fall within a recognized category for recovery without physical harm.
Concurring - Marcus, J.
Yes, the judgment should be reversed. This opinion agrees with the result but would go further to hold that random and checkpoint stops and inspections by game agents should be permissible. This is justified by the highly regulated nature of hunting, the state's dominant interest in wildlife management, and the view that hunting is a privilege, not a right, which implies consent to inspection.
Dissenting - Watson, J.
This justice dissented and would have granted a rehearing, but did not provide written reasons.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the robust nature of the qualified immunity defense for public officials under both federal (§ 1983) and state constitutional law. By adopting the objective reasonableness standard from Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the court makes it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in civil rights actions unless they can demonstrate that an official violated a right that was specifically and clearly defined by pre-existing case law. The ruling gives law enforcement significant leeway in legally ambiguous situations, particularly in specialized fields like game law where the scope of Fourth Amendment protections is less defined than in typical street-level encounters. It also establishes that a cause of action for damages exists directly under the Louisiana Constitution for unreasonable searches and seizures, but subjects that action to the same qualified immunity defense available under federal law.
Unlock the full brief for Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries