His Civil-Rights Case
$3,000? No — a home visit that became a seizure
Karl Von Derhaar resigned instead of taking the drug test after officers said he was being ordered to come in. The Fifth Circuit left his civil-rights case in federal court and rejected qualified immunity at this stage.
The ruling gives Karl Von Derhaar another chance to prove he was unlawfully seized when NOPD officers pressed him to report for testing. The panel said the supervisor’s command could violate clearly established law.
- A New Orleans worker says a home visit turned into a forced drug test.
- The Fifth Circuit said the supervisor’s order could count as a seizure.
- Von Derhaar’s damages claim stays alive in federal court.
- NOPD officers came to Karl Von Derhaar’s home and asked him to accompany them to the Public Integrity Bureau, or PIB, for a drug test
- When he asked to go back inside, they called Lt
NOPD officers came to Karl Von Derhaar’s home and asked him to accompany them to the Public Integrity Bureau, or PIB, for a drug test. When he asked to go back inside, they called Lt. Darryl Watson, a supervisor in the PIB.
Watson told them to say Von Derhaar was being put back on the clock and ordered to come in for the test. Von Derhaar went to the PIB and later resigned instead of taking the test. The federal Fifth Circuit said that kind of command can amount to a constitutional seizure.
Why the order mattered
Von Derhaar sued Watson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil-rights law people use to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations, and said the drug-test demand violated the Fourth Amendment. The judges affirmed the district court’s refusal to grant qualified immunity, the legal shield that protects officials unless they violate clearly established law.
The panel said Watson’s commands fit that standard. In plain terms, the court treated the supervisor’s instruction not as a routine workplace request, but as a use of government authority that could be challenged in federal court.
What stays alive now
The ruling matters for public employees and others who can be pressured by government authority at home or on the job. It says police presence and a supervisor’s order can be enough to raise a Fourth Amendment question, even before anyone reaches the merits of the underlying workplace dispute.
The decision does not say Watson is liable. It leaves Von Derhaar’s damages claim alive and sends the case forward with that constitutional issue still in play.