Unlawful search
The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches, and a search of your home, your car, your phone or your person by an officer without lawful authority is a claim under Section 1983. For an NYPD search there is also a claim under the City's own 2021 law, with no qualified immunity defense. This page goes through the claim, the two Supreme Court search decisions of 2026, what the Right to Know Act requires before an officer searches with your consent, the defenses, and the clock, which for a search runs from the day it happened.
A search claim is the claim most often overlooked, because it is usually attached to an arrest and the arrest gets the attention. It is also the claim that changed most in 2026, with two Supreme Court decisions in six months, one about who may enter a home without a warrant and one about what the government may learn from your phone's location history. This page states what our verified ledger carries about search law as of September 2026, and says plainly where the ledger stops. The claims page sorts the claims that travel with this one; the arrest itself is on the false arrest page.
What the claim requires
Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) gives a cause of action to any person deprived of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law, and the federal right here is the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. A police officer searching a home, a car, a phone or a person is acting under color of state law. So the claim has one contested element: that the search was unreasonable, meaning the officer had neither a warrant nor a recognized reason to proceed without one.
The general rule that a search needs a warrant, and the list of exceptions to it, come from a long line of Supreme Court decisions. Our verified ledger carries two of those rules as of September 2026, the emergency-aid entry and consent, and this page states only those. The rest of the doctrine, including the rules for searches of cars, of phones, and of a person during an arrest, is not published here until it has been verified against the primary sources, and we do not cite from memory. If your search does not fit either rule below, the claim may still exist; it is a question for the consultation, not for this page.
Entering a home to help someone: Case v. Montana
On January 14, 2026, in Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (2026), a unanimous Supreme Court held that a warrantless emergency-aid entry into a home requires only an "objectively reasonable basis" for believing that someone inside needs help, not probable cause. That is a lower standard than the one for an arrest, and it means that an officer who entered your home on a welfare call is judged on whether the facts known to the officer reasonably suggested an emergency, not on whether there actually was one. The claim lives in what happened next. An entry justified by an emergency is justified by that emergency; whether a search that went beyond it was lawful is a separate question.
Your phone's location history: Chatrie
On June 29, 2026, in Chatrie v. United States (2026), the Court held, 6 to 3, that obtaining geofence location data, the records that show which devices were in a defined area at a defined time, is a Fourth Amendment search. That is the threshold question; a search needs a warrant or an exception. Our ledger has this decision from secondary sources only, and it is marked for re-verification against the opinion before this site launches. We state the holding here because it is the most significant search decision of the year, and we will correct this page if the sweep changes it.
Consent, and what the Right to Know Act requires first
The most common answer to a search claim is that you agreed to it. In New York City that answer has a precondition. Local Law 56 of 2018, part of the Right to Know Act, requires that before an NYPD officer searches with a person's consent, the officer advise the person that they may refuse, and that the officer document the consent. The Act took effect on October 19, 2018. Its companion, Local Law 54 of 2018, requires the officer to identify themselves by name, rank, command and shield number and to give a business card that tells you where to make a complaint and how to request body-worn camera footage.
The practical effect is that a consent search by an NYPD officer should be on the record: the warning, the answer, and the documentation. Where the footage shows no warning, the consent the officer relies on is in question. Where there is no footage, the absence is itself a fact. The stop and frisk page goes through the Act's requirements in full.
The record the case is built on
A search claim is decided by what the officer knew before the search and what the officer did during it, and both are usually on video. Body-worn camera footage is requested by FOIL, and the Right to Know business card must tell you where. The NYPD's own retention period for that footage is not published here because we have not verified it; the rule is to request preservation in writing immediately. The evidence page explains how, along with the 911 recording, the radio run and the paperwork that describes the search.
The City's own search law
Since 2021 New York City law has created its own civil right of security against unreasonable search and seizure, enforceable against an NYPD employee or special patrolman and against the City as employer (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-801, 8-802, 8-803). The chapter, added by Local Law 48 of 2021, is construed consistently with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and with article I, sections 6 and 12 of the New York Constitution (§ 8-807), so the question it asks is the same one the federal claim asks. The differences are in the defenses and the defendants.
What the City law changes for a search claim
"It is not a defense to liability that a covered individual has qualified immunity or any other substantially equivalent immunity" (§ 8-804). The claim lies against the officer and the employer, including for a failure to intervene, and "exhaustion of any administrative remedies is not required" (§ 8-803). Damages are compensatory, with punitive damages in the court's discretion, or at the plaintiff's election a statutory figure of $1,000, plus attorney's fees and costs (§ 8-805). The limitation period is three years, "notwithstanding section 50-k of the general municipal law or any other provision of law" (§ 8-806). Whether a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e is required for this claim is a question on which we have found no appellate decision, and we do not publish an answer; we serve the notice within 90 days anyway. The city law page goes through the chapter.
The defenses, and when the search and the arrest travel together
Two defenses are raised in nearly every search case. The first is that the search was lawful: a warrant, a consent given after the warning, an emergency that met the Case standard, or another exception this page does not publish. The second is qualified immunity: an officer is shielded from damages unless the conduct violated a clearly established right "of which a reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)), and a court may decide that question first, without deciding whether the right was violated (Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). Under the City's law the second defense is not available at all. The qualified immunity page goes through the doctrine.
Where the search turned something up and an arrest followed, the arrest is a separate claim judged by its own rule: probable cause on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer (District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018)), for any offense the officer knew of, not only the one charged (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)). An unlawful search followed by a lawful arrest is still an unlawful search. And where the criminal case ended in a conviction that rests on what the search found, a damages claim that would imply the conviction was wrong is barred while the conviction stands (Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); whether a search claim does that depends on the facts, and it is a question for a lawyer with the court file.
The clock runs from the search
A search claim accrues on the day of the search. In New York the federal claim has three years (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); N.Y. CPLR 214(5)) and needs no notice of claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The state-law claim against the City of New York or another municipality needs a notice of claim within 90 days after the search (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)) and suit within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)); the City law claim has three years (§ 8-806). Unlike a malicious prosecution claim, nothing here waits for the criminal case. The notice of claim page goes through the rule.
If a criminal charge based on the search is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the search, the arrest or the officers to anyone, in writing or otherwise. The criminal case and civil case page explains why.
New Jersey and Florida
The federal claim is the same in all three states; the Right to Know Act and the City's 2021 law are New York City law and do not travel. In New Jersey the federal claim and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim have two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; 10:6-2), and a state tort claim against a public entity needs a Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days of accrual, a six-month wait, and suit within two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8); the notice does not apply to the Civil Rights Act claim (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)). In Florida the federal claim has four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)), and a state claim against the agency needs written notice within three years with a six-month wait before suit (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)), with damages against the government capped at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident (§ 768.28(5)(a)). The New Jersey and Florida pages go through each.
Stopped on the street
What an NYPD officer must tell you under the Right to Know Act, the right to record, and what this site does not publish about the stop standard.
Stop and frisk →Strip search
At the precinct, at intake, on the street. When it is a claim and when the jail's rules protect it.
Strip search →The footage
Body-worn camera video by FOIL, 911 and radio records, surveillance, and how to ask for preservation in the first week.
Evidence and body cameras →Common questions
The officer said I could refuse and I said yes anyway. Do I have a claim?
Consent given after the warning the Right to Know Act requires is the fact the officer will rely on, and Local Law 56 of 2018 also requires the officer to document the consent. Whether your consent was real is decided from the recording and the circumstances, and whether a consent search that followed the rules is still a claim on other grounds is a question for a lawyer with the footage. Whether the officer gave the warning at all is the first thing to check, and the body-camera footage answers it.
Officers came into my apartment without a warrant because someone called about a person in danger. Is that a search claim?
It depends on what the officers knew. In January 2026 the Supreme Court held in Case v. Montana that a warrantless emergency-aid entry into a home requires only an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside needs help, not probable cause. If the officers had that basis, the entry was lawful. If they did not, or if they went further than the emergency justified, the claim exists. The 911 recording and the footage decide it.
Does a search claim need the criminal case to end first?
No. A search claim accrues on the day of the search, and in New York the federal claim has three years from then. The New York notice of claim for a state-law claim against the City is due 90 days after the search. If a criminal charge based on the search is still open, the timing of the civil case is handled with your defense lawyer, and a conviction that rests on the search can raise a Heck v. Humphrey question, but the clock does not wait.
Does the City's 2021 law require a notice of claim?
The statute says that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required and sets a three-year limitation period, and it does not expressly require a notice of claim. Whether a notice under General Municipal Law 50-e is required for that claim is a question on which we have found no appellate decision, and we do not publish an answer. We serve one within 90 days anyway.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.