## Facts

- Federal narcotics agents allegedly entered Webster Bivens’s apartment without a warrant, searched it, and arrested him on narcotics charges without probable cause.
- The agents allegedly handcuffed Bivens in front of his family, threatened to arrest the family, and conducted an extensive search of the premises.
- Bivens was taken to a federal courthouse, booked, interrogated, and subjected to a visual strip search.
- Bivens sued the agents in their individual capacities for money damages for humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.
- No federal statute expressly authorized a damages action against federal officers for the alleged constitutional violation.

## Issues

1. Whether a Fourth Amendment violation by federal officers acting under color of federal authority gives rise to an implied federal cause of action for money damages absent statutory authorization.
2. Whether the defendant agents were immune from suit based on their official status.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the complaint stated a cause of action for damages directly under the Fourth Amendment, recoverable upon proof of injury from the constitutional violation.
- The Court rejected the argument that the absence of an authorizing statute left courts without power to grant relief for a constitutional deprivation.
- The Court did not decide the immunity question because it had not been addressed by the court of appeals.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may recognize an implied damages remedy directly under the Fourth Amendment against individual federal officers for unreasonable searches and seizures.
- The lack of a statutory damages remedy does not, by itself, preclude judicial relief for a constitutional violation.
- Courts may decline to imply a constitutional damages remedy when “special factors counseling hesitation” are present, particularly where Congress has created a comprehensive remedial scheme or otherwise indicated that such a remedy should not exist.
- Alternative remedies (such as state-law tort actions or the exclusionary rule) do not automatically bar a constitutional damages claim when they are not equally effective to redress the injury.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized a federal constitutional damages action against individual federal officers for alleged Fourth Amendment violations, reversing dismissal of Bivens’s complaint and leaving immunity defenses to be addressed on remand.


Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)