Fourth Amendment claim under 42 USC § 1983; Mootness; Opportunity to amend

Although the court “may agree with plaintiff’s arguments on appeal that the trial court erred in its Fourth Amendment analysis,” it nonetheless concluded “that plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, vacated the portion of the trial court’s order that found plaintiff’s claim was moot, and remanded. The case arose “out of nuisance abatement actions taken by defendant.” The court held that “the nuisance-abatement complaint, and the dismissal of that action, could not be used when analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint was legally sufficient.” Moreover, it also agreed “with plaintiff that the trial court made at least one mistake of law when concluding that the warrantless search of private property does not violate the Fourth Amendment because ‘it is not unreasonable to search a property when the proceedings are civil in nature.’” Thus, it concluded that “the trial court’s analysis, which relied heavily on the idea that there could be no Fourth Amendment violation in the nuisance-abatement context, was erroneous. However, turning to the issue of whether plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, plaintiff sought to enforce his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under” § 1983. Apart from “an allegation that a warrantless search of his property occurred, plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations to support his claim that defendant was ‘regularly’ conducting such warrantless searches of private properties or that warrantless searches as part of defendant’s nuisance-abatement program were a widespread custom with the force of law. Thus, even assuming that there was a Fourth Amendment violation, the allegations in the complaint assert no more than impermissible vicarious liability for the actions of one investigator.” Also, the court agreed “that plaintiff’s action for damages under § 1983 was not moot.” It found that even “assuming plaintiff may not have suffered actual damages in this instance due to the nature of the constitutional violation, plaintiff’s claim would still not be moot.” Finally, the court expressed no opinion on whether plaintiff was entitled to amendment of the complaint but agreed “that the trial court was required to consider plaintiff’s request.”