Von Derhaar v. Watson

── Von Derhaar v. Watson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-30399 Document: 94-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30399 ____________ FILED June 2, 2026 Karl Von Derhaar, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Darryl Watson, in both his individual and official capacity, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:21-CV-1653 ______________________________ Before Smith, Willett, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge: New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) officers visited the home of Karl Von Derhaar, a civilian employee of the NOPD. Fearing for Von Derhaar’s safety, officers requested Von Derhaar accompany them to the Public Integrity Bureau (“PIB”) to take a drug test. When Von Derhaar asked to go back into his home, officers called Lt. Darryl Watson, a supervisor in the PIB. Watson commanded the officers to “tell [Von Derhaar] he’s being put back on the clock, he’s being ordered to come into work to take this test.” Von Derhaar went to the PIB with the officers but ultimately resigned instead of taking the drug test. Case: 25-30399 Document: 94-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 No. 25-30399 Von Derhaar sued Watson, among others, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. Because Watson’s commands constitute a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity (“QI”). I. Von Derhaar worked as a civilian employee in the NOPD’s crime lab. Von Derhaar requested leave without pay when his concerns over certain NOPD practices went unanswered. Officers subsequently went to Von Derhaar’s home to conduct a wellness check. Officers informed Von Derhaar that they were concerned about his well-being and asked him to accompany them to the PIB to take a drug test. Officers stated numerous times that he was not under arrest. When Von Derhaar asked if he could stay at his house, officers called Watson. Officers relayed to Watson that Von Derhaar “said that if he’s not under arrest he wants to go back into his house.” Watson ordered officers to “tell [Von Der- haar] he’s being put back on the clock, he’s being ordered to come into work to take this test.” The call ended. Von Derhaar asked “if I quit right, now, do I have to come with you, sir?” Officers told Von Derhaar he needed “to go up and sign the paperwork.” He was subsequently transported to the PIB. Von Derhaar ultimately resigned rather than submitting to a drug test. Von Derhaar sued Watson, among others, under § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to unlawful arrest, search, and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Watson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and, in the alternative, a motion summary judgment, in which he invoked QI. The district court granted Watson’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Von Derhaar’s claims against Watson relating to the alleged unlawful entry into Von Derhaar’s home. The court denied QI for the unl