Civil Rights – Law enforcement allegedly kept man in custody after 0.00 breathalyzer results

Where an individual alleged a law enforcement officer kept him in custody for hours after receipt of 0.00 breathalyzer results, his false imprisonment and unreasonable seizure claims survived the officer’s motion to dismiss.

Background

The claims in this suit arise from Nelson County Deputy Sheriff David W. Wilson’s traffic stop and five-hour detention of Joseph L. Hatter. Hatter alleges that the David W. Hill, Wilson and the Nelson County Sheriff’s Office violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. He also asserts a claim of false imprisonment under state law. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Hatter’s amended complaint.

Fourth Amendment

When carrying out the traffic stop and detention of Hatter, Wilson was clearly acting pursuant to his official deputy sheriff duties as required by the “under color of law” element of § 1983. But Hatter must also plausibly allege that Wilson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by executing an unreasonable seizure and an unreasonable search.

Hatter contends that Wilson violated the Fourth Amendment by continuing to keep Hatter in custody for hours following receipt of the 0.00 breathalyzer results. The court concludes that Hatter’s unreasonable seizure claim against Wilson will survive the motion to dismiss, as Hatter adequately alleges that Wilson lacked probable cause to continue detaining him after the results.

Given the lack of Wilson’s drug-specific suspicions, the absence of detail surrounding Hatter’s nystagmus and performance on the field sobriety tests and the potential effects of Hatter’s alleged injury on the walk-and-turn results, the court finds Hatter has reached this low plausibility bar to assert Wilson lacked probable cause for continued detention and has sufficiently stated an unreasonable seizure claim under Count One.

Hatter also challenges the blood draw as an unreasonable search. The court concludes that Hatter fails to plausibly allege that Wilson deliberately or recklessly omitted material facts from his affidavit in his search warrant application. However, Hatter’s
claim that Wilson lacked probable cause to seek the search warrant in the first place will survive dismissal.

Qualified immunity

“To establish a qualified-immunity defense, a public official must demonstrate that (1) a plaintiff has not alleged or shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, or that (2) the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of its alleged violation.” The court declines to rule on the applicability of qualified immunity at this juncture.

Due process

Hatter argues that by detaining him for a significant period and forcing him to undergo an involuntary blood draw, Wilson undermined Hatter’s liberty interest in bodily integrity and violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. The court agrees with the defendants that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide the proper framework for analyzing Hatter’s claims.

Supervisory liability

Hatter does not state a § 1983 claim of supervisory liability against Hill, as he fails to plausibly allege that Hill met the three elements required of a supervisory liability claim. He also does not allege sufficient facts to support a plausible inference that Hill was deliberately indifferent towards one or more of his subordinate’s constitutional violations, or that he was deliberately indifferent towards inadequate training of his subordinates.

Municipal liability

First, the Sheriff’s Office is “not a cognizable legal entity separate from the Sheriff in his official capacity and the county government of which this ‘office’ is simply an agency.” And while it does not appear that the Fourth Circuit has directly weighed in on whether a municipal liability claim may be brought against an individual in their personal capacity, the court has implied that it may not. Relying on these Fourth Circuit cases, the Western District of Virginia has held that “policy or custom” claims against a sheriff sued in his individual capacity should be dismissed. Hatter cannot hold Hill liable in his personal capacity under Monell.

False imprisonment

Hatter argues that his continued detention following the breathalyzer test amounts to false imprisonment. But Hatter does not dispute that Wilson completed the blood draw pursuant to a search warrant that was at least “regular or legal in form.” Therefore, even if
Wilson’s continued detention of Hatter was not supported by probable cause, the period for which Wilson was executing the search warrant does not constitute false imprisonment.

However, any period of seizure after receiving the breathalyzer test results and before Hatter was released from custody, except for the period attributable to Wilson’s execution of the search warrant, could constitute false imprisonment for the same reasons that Hatter stated a claim of unreasonable search and seizure.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Hatter v. Hill, Case No. 3:25-cv-00045, Feb. 10, 2026. WDVA at Charlottesville (Yoon). VLW 026-3-068. 43 pp.

Full-Text Opinion