Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · 1990 · Torts

TortsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentDamagesTrespass42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourth Amendmenttrespass

Facts

Hamilton County deputy sheriffs and city police forcibly entered Pembaur's clinic on May 19, 1977 by chopping down a door after Pembaur refused entry while officers attempted to execute capiases for two witnesses. The entry and search were later determined to violate Pembaur's Fourth Amendment rights. Pembaur claimed emotional distress and loss of business income from 1977 through 1979, but the record also showed other major stressors and publicity, including a lawful April 26, 1977 record seizure, indictments, multiple criminal trials, convictions, and Pembaur's later unauthorized flight from the country. Pembaur offered no evidence separating what portion of his emotional or financial harm was caused specifically by the May 19 entry.

Issue

What damages, if any, were proximately caused by the unconstitutional May 19, 1977 entry and search of Pembaur's clinic? More specifically, could Pembaur recover compensatory damages for emotional distress and lost business, or only presumed damages, under § 1983?

Rule

In a § 1983 action, damages for a constitutional deprivation are determined by reference to the most analogous common-law tort. For a Fourth Amendment unlawful entry, the analogue is trespass under Ohio law, and compensatory damages require proof that the trespass proximately caused the claimed harm and proof of the amount attributable to it; where harm is likely but difficult to establish, presumed damages may be awarded.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, county deputies entered Lena Ortiz's accounting office without lawful authority and searched the back rooms. Lena later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the Fourth Amendment violation and sought damages for the entry itself.

Which common-law tort analogue should a court use to determine the measure of damages for Lena's unlawful-entry claim?

Explanation. For a § 1983 claim based on an unlawful Fourth Amendment entry onto premises, the court looks to the most analogous common-law tort. The majority opinion treated such an entry as most closely analogous to trespass, and then applied Ohio trespass damages principles. The other torts may fit different injuries, but not the unauthorized entry itself. (Derived from Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (n.d.).)