Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

Decision Date21 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 301,301
Citation29 L.Ed.2d 619,403 U.S. 388,91 S.Ct. 1999
PartiesWebster BIVENS, Petitioner, v. SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner's complaint alleged that respondent agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, acting under color of federal authority, made a warrantless entry of his apartment, searched the apartment, and arrested him on narcotics charges. All of the acts were alleged to have been done without probable cause. Petitioner's suit to recover damages from the agents was dismissed by the District Court on the alternative grounds (1) that it failed to state a federal cause of action and (2) that respondents were immune from suit by virtue of their official position. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the first ground alone. held:

1. Petitioner's complaint states a federal cause of action under the Fourth Amendment for which damages are recoverable upon proof of injuries resulting from the federal agents' violation of that Amendment. P. 2005.

2. The Court does not reach the immunity question, which was not passed on by the Court of Appeals. Pp. 397—398.

409 F.2d 718, reversed and remanded.

Stephen A. Grant, for petitioner.

Jerome Feit, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Fourth Amendment provides that:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. * * *'

In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), we reserved the question whether violation of that command by a federal agent acting under color of his authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his unconstitutional conduct. Today we hold that it does.

This case has its origin in an arrest and search carried out on the morning of November 26, 1965. Petitioner's complaint alleged that on that day respondents, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics acting under claim of federal authority, entered his apartment and arrested him for alleged narcotics violations. The agents manacled petitioner in front of his wife and children, and threatened to arrest the entire family. They searched the apartment from stem to stern. Thereafter, petitioner was taken to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.

On July 7, 1967, petitioner brought suit in Federal District Court. In addition to the allegations above, his complaint asserted that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, and that unreasonable force was employed in making the arrest; fairly read, it alleges as well that the arrest was made without probable cause.1 Petitioner claimed to have suffered great humili- ation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' unlawful conduct, and sought $15,000 damages from each of them. The District Court, on respondents' motion, dismissed the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it failed to state a cause of action.2 276 F.Supp. 12 (EDNY 1967). The Court of Appeals, one judge concurring specially,3 affirmed on that basis. 409 F.2d 718 (CA2 1969). We granted certiorari. 399 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 2203, 26 L.Ed.2d 559 (1970). We reverse.

I

Respondents do not argue that petitioner should be entirely without remedy for an unconstitutional invasion of his rights by federal agents. In respondents' view, however, the rights that petitioner asserts—primarily rights of privacy—are creations of state and not of federal law. Accordingly, they argue, petitioner may obtain money damages to redress invasion of these rights only by an action in tort, under state law, in the state courts. In this scheme the Fourth Amendment would serve merely to limit the extent to which the agents could de- fend the state law tort suit by asserting that their actions were a valid exercise of federal power: if the agents were shown to have violated the Fourth Amendment, such a defense would be lost to them and they would stand before the state law merely as private individuals. Candidly admitting that it is the policy of the Department of Justice to remove all such suits from the state to the federal courts for decision,4 respondents nevertheless urge that we uphold dismissal of petitioner's complaint in federal court, and remit him to filing an action in the state courts in order that the case may properly be removed to the federal court for decision on the basis of state law.

We think that respondents' thesis rests upon an unduly restrictive view of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by federal agents, a view that has consistently been rejected by this Court. Respondents seek to treat the relationship between a citizen and a federal agent unconstitutionally exercising his authority as no different from the relation- ship between two private citizens. In so doing, they ignore the fact that power, once granted, does not disappear like a magic gift when it is wrongfully used. An agent acting—albeit unconstitutionally—in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own. Cf. Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 267—268, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1043, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941). Accordingly, as our cases make clear, the Fourth Amendment operates as a limitation upon the exercise of federal power regardless of whether the State in whose jurisdiction that power is exercised would prohibit or penalize the identical act if engaged in by a private citizen. It guarantees to citizens of the United States the absolute right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures carried out by virtue of federal authority. And 'where federally protected rights have been invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that courts will be alert to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief.' Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S., at 684, 66 S.Ct., at 777 (footnote omitted); see Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. United States, 289 U.S. 28, 36, 53 S.Ct. 454, 457, 77 L.Ed. 1011 (1933) (Cardozo, J.); The Western Maid, 257 U.S. 419, 433, 42 S.Ct. 159, 161, 66 L.Ed. 299 (1922) (Holmes, J.).

First. Our cases have long since rejected the notion that the Fourth Amendment proscribes only such conduct as would, if engaged in by private persons, be condemned by state law. Thus in Gambino v. United States, 275 U.S. 310, 48 S.Ct. 137, 72 L.Ed. 293 (1927), petitioners were convicted of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act on the basis of evidence seized by state police officers incident to petitioners' arrest by those officers solely for the purpose of enforcing federal law. Id., at 314, 48 S.Ct., at 137—138. Notwithstanding the lack of probable cause for the arrest, id., at 313, 48 S.Ct., at 137, it would have been permissible under state law if effected by private individuals.5 It appears, moreover, that the officers were under direction from the Governor to aid in the enforcement of federal law. Id., at 315—317, 48 S.Ct., at 138. Accordingly, if the Fourth Amendment reached only to conduct impermissible under the law of the State, the Amendment would have had no application to the case. Yet this Court held the Fourth Amendment applicable and reversed petitioners' convictions as having been based upon evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure. Similarly, in Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927), the petitioner was convicted on the basis of evidence seized under a warrant issued, without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, by a state court judge for a state law offense. At the invitation of state law enforcement officers, a federal prohibition agent participated in the search. This Court explicitly refused to inquire whether the warrant was 'good under the state law * * * since in no event could it constitute the basis for a federal search and seizure.' Id., at 29, 47 S.Ct., at 248 (emphasis added).6 And our recent decisions regarding electronic surveillance have made it clear beyond peradventure that the Fourth Amendment is not tied to the niceties of local trespass laws. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967); Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 682—683, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). In light of these cases, respondents' argument that the Fourth Amendment serves only as a limitation on federal defenses to a state law claim, and not as an independent limitation upon the exercise of federal power, must be rejected.

Second. The interests protected by state laws regulating trespass and the invasion of privacy, and those protected by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, may be inconsistent or even hostile. Thus, we may bar the door against an unwelcome private intruder, or call the police if he persists in seeking entrance. The availability of such alternative means for the protection of privacy may lead the State to restrict imposition of liability for any consequent trespass. A private citizen, asserting no authority other than his own, will not normally be liable in trespass if he demands, and is granted, admission to another's house. See W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 18, pp. 109—110 (3d ed., 1964); 1 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 1.11 (1956). But one who demands admission under a claim of federal authority stands in a far different position. Cf. Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 267—268, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921). The mere invocation of federal power by a federal law enforcement official will normally render futile any attempt to resist an unlawful entry or arrest by resort to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22357 cases
  • Fifie v. Cooksey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • November 16, 2005
    ...part." Id. Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit held that allegations of problems in testing did not show a constitutional violation to allow a Bivens claim7 and summarily found that state law claims against the railroad with regard to drug testing were preempted by the Federal Employer's Liabil......
  • Mendez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • April 9, 2018
    ...DEADLINE Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 ("FTCA"). On July 11, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's f......
  • Totaro v. Lyons, Civ. A. No. M-79-2017.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 19, 1980
    ...243-44, 99 S.Ct. at 2275-2276. This decision expands the doctrine previously set forth by the court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), wherein the court held that a citizen suffering a compensable injury under the Fourth Amendment can invoke......
  • Heinrich v. Sweet
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • April 30, 1999
    ...("MIT"). The Plaintiffs allege eleven causes of action against these defendants: (i) violation of Constitutional and civil rights (a Bivens action), (ii) civil fraud, (iii) battery, (iv) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (v) strict liability for inherently dangerous activities, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 firm's commentaries
  • SCOTUS limits reach of Bivens actions against federal government in <em>Egbert v. Boule</em>
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 8, 2022
    ...handed down by SCOTUS today. Here is how Justice Thomas’s opinion for the Court begins: In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), this Court authorized a damages action against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Over the past 42 year......
  • SCOTUS limits reach of Bivens actions against federal government in <em>Egbert v. Boule</em>
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 8, 2022
    ...handed down by SCOTUS today. Here is how Justice Thomas’s opinion for the Court begins: In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), this Court authorized a damages action against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Over the past 42 year......
  • Supreme Court Decision Alert - January 10, 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 12, 2012
    ...v. Pollard, No. 10-1104, that no implied cause of action arises under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), when a federal prisoner alleges that individual employees of a private prison corporation have violated his or her constitutional rig......
  • State + Local Tax Insights: Spring 2014
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 30, 2014
    ...at 2793 (Breyer, J., concurring). 31 No. 12-574 (Feb. 25, 2014). 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (finding an implied cause of action for individuals whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated). 36 Walden, No. 12-574. 37 Id. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
215 books & journal articles
  • The Potential Civil Liability of Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 67-09, September 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...of" state law), and the suit was brought under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown, Unnamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Part II.D. below. This distinction, however, makes no difference for individual immunity purposes in general, because the Suprem......
  • An Unqualified Defense of Qualified Immunity
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 21-1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...suit is frivolous. 45 Courts begin fee award calculations using 35. Monroe , 365 U.S. at 187. 36. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 391 (1971). 37. 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 38. Theodore Eisenberg & Stewart Schwab, The Reality of Constitutional Tort Litigation , 72 CORNELL L......
  • Proposed Citizens Right to Standing Act-finding the Keys to Unlock the Courthouse Doors
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 3-01, September 1979
    • Invalid date
    ...the Act would influence these four decisions. 63. See note 20 supra. 64. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 422-23 (1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 65. Professor Sedler recommends a statute in these terms: All citizens and residents of the United......
  • Deposing & examining the expert economist
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses
    • March 31, 2022
    ...“ …compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 395, 397, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1971). D&E: EXPERT ECONOMIST Form 6-D Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses 6-74 B. The Collateral......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 forms
  • Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Prisoner)
    • United States
    • United States Federal Court
    • Invalid date
    ...or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal laws].” Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), you may sue federal officials for the violation of certain constitutional A. Are you bringing suit against (check all that apply): ’ F......
  • Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner)
    • United States
    • United States Federal Court
    • Invalid date
    ...or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal laws].” Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), you may sue federal officials for the violation of certain constitutional A. Are you bringing suit against (check all that apply): ’ F......
1 provisions
  • 26 C.F.R. § 301.9000-4 Procedure In the Event of a Request Or Demand For Irs Records Or Information
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 26. Internal Revenue Chapter I. Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury Subchapter F. Procedure and Administration Part 301. Procedure and Administration General Rules Application of Internal Revenue Laws
    • January 1, 2023
    ...matters related to informant claims or matters related to the rules of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,403 U.S. 388(1971) matters), or matters under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). (3) IRS congressional matters. (c) Requests or demands in United States ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT