## Facts

- Clarence Jamison, a Black driver traveling on Interstate 20 in Mississippi in a recently purchased Mercedes convertible, was stopped by Officer Nick McClendon of the City of Pelahatchie.
- McClendon stated the basis for the stop was a temporary tag that was folded and obstructed.
- Jamison produced his driver’s license, insurance, and a bill of sale; record checks did not reveal grounds for arrest or further detention.
- McClendon repeatedly sought consent to search the vehicle, requesting permission multiple times.
- During the stop, McClendon allegedly misrepresented that an anonymous caller reported Jamison was transporting cocaine and suggested Jamison would receive favorable treatment if he consented to a search.
- Jamison ultimately consented after extended questioning and pressure.
- McClendon conducted an extensive search of the vehicle, including areas from the engine compartment through the trunk and passenger areas; no contraband was found.
- McClendon then used a drug-sniffing dog; the dog did not indicate narcotics.
- The detention and search lasted about 110 minutes before Jamison was allowed to leave.

## Issues

1. Whether the prolonged detention and search violated the Fourth Amendment’s limits on the scope and duration of a traffic stop and the standards governing consent searches.
2. If a constitutional violation occurred, whether the unlawfulness of McClendon’s conduct was clearly established at the time, defeating qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The court granted McClendon’s motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The court treated the stop’s escalation and duration as constitutionally problematic, but held Jamison could not recover damages because controlling precedent did not clearly establish the specific unlawfulness of the conduct under a sufficiently similar fact pattern.
- Jamison’s § 1983 claim against McClendon was dismissed at summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an officer may be liable for damages for violating constitutional rights while acting under color of state law, subject to qualified immunity.
- Qualified immunity shields an officer unless (1) the facts show a constitutional violation and (2) the right was clearly established at the time so that a reasonable officer would have understood the conduct was unlawful.
- For clearly established law, courts typically require precedent with a high degree of factual similarity; broad statements of Fourth Amendment doctrine may be insufficient to place unlawfulness “beyond debate.”
- A court may recognize serious Fourth Amendment concerns in a stop-and-search encounter yet still grant qualified immunity if existing precedent does not clearly resolve the unlawfulness of the officer’s specific conduct.

## Conclusion

The court concluded the nearly two-hour stop and pressure-based consent search raised substantial Fourth Amendment concerns, but granted qualified immunity because prior precedent did not clearly establish, with required factual specificity, that the officer’s actions were unconstitutional, requiring judgment for the officer on the damages claim.


Jamison v. McClendon, 476 F. Supp. 3d 386 (S.D. Miss. 2020)