This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P's property abuts the Canadian border at “0 Avenue,” a Canadian street. P’s property line extends five feet into Canada. Several years ago, P placed a line of small stones on his property to mark the international boundary. Any person could easily enter the United States or Canada through or near P’s property. P markets his home as a bed-and-breakfast aptly named “Smuggler’s Inn.” The area surrounding the Inn “is a hotspot for cross-border smuggling of people, drugs, illicit money, and items of significance to criminal organizations.” Border Patrol agents “have observed persons come south across the border and walk into Smuggler’s Inn through the back door.”Federal agents also have seized from the Inn shipments of cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and other narcotics. P had been a confidential informant who would help federal agents identify and apprehend persons engaged in unlawful cross-border activity on or near his property. P claims that the Government has paid him upwards of $60,000 for his services. P would host persons who unlawfully entered the United States as “guests” at the Inn and offer to drive them to Seattle or elsewhere. He also would pick up Canada-bound guests throughout the State and drive them north to his property along the border. P would charge $100-$150 per hour for his shuttle service and require guests to pay for a night of lodging even if they never intended to stay at the Inn. P would inform federal law enforcement if he was scheduled to lodge or transport persons of interest. Of course, P would never offer any of his “customers” a refund. Local Border Patrol agents, including D, knew all about Smuggler’s Inn and the criminal activity that attended it. On March 20, 2014, P informed D that a Turkish national, arriving in Seattle by way of New York, had scheduled transportation to Smuggler’s Inn later that day. D grew suspicious, as he could think of “no legitimate reason a person would travel from Turkey to stay at a rundown bed-and-breakfast. D observed one of P’s vehicles-a black SUV with the license plate “SMUGLER”-returning to the Inn. D suspected that the Turkish guest was a passenger and followed the SUV into the driveway so he could check the guest’s immigration status. P instructed D to leave his property, but D declined. P claims, that D lifted him off the ground, threw him against the SUV, and then threw P to the ground. D checked the guest’s immigration paperwork, concluded that everything was in order, and left. Later that evening, P's Turkish guest unlawfully entered Canada from Smuggler’s Inn. P filed an administrative claim with Border Patrol pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). According to P, D retaliated against him while those claims were pending by reporting P’s “SMUGLER” license plate to the Washington Department of Licensing for referencing illegal conduct, and by contacting the Internal Revenue Service and prompting an audit of P’s tax returns. P’s FTCA claim was denied and, after a year-long investigation, Border Patrol took no action against D for his alleged use of force or acts of retaliation. P sued D in his individual capacity alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for excessive use of force and a First Amendment violation for unlawful retaliation. P cited Bivens and asked the District Court to recognize a damages action for each alleged constitutional violation. The District Court entered judgment for D. The Court of Appeals reversed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.