stating that “because the right to be free from unreasonable searches is contained explicitly in the Fourth Amendment, it follows that the right to be free from adverse consequences for refusing to submit to an unreasonable search must also be found there”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “because the right to be free from unreasonable searches is contained explicitly in the Fourth Amendment, it follows that the right to be free from adverse consequences for refusing to submit to an unreasonable search must also be found there”
- explaining that an “arbitrator is a neutral entity who is confined to the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement” with “no authority to set or alter any policy whatsoever”
- holding that plaintiff’s refusal to submit to unconstitutional drug testing and resulting adverse consequences was sufficient to show plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated
- holding that city’s policy need not be unconstitutional per se, but need only cause a constitutional violation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYMER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent, because I believe we are bound by Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879 (9th Cir.1990), to ask whether the City or the LAPD ever adopted a policy of carrying out unconstitutional searches of police officers, 907 F.2d at 890 . Because there is no evidence that it did, there is no basis for municipal liability.