5th Cir.

Karl Von Derhaar v. Darryl Watson

June 2, 2026 ·25-30399 ·Panel Decision ·Jerry E. Smith · By Aisha Johnson

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to a police supervisor who ordered officers to compel a civilian employee to leave his home for a drug test. The court held that the supervisor's command violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under the totality of the circumstances.

Background

Karl Von Derhaar, a civilian employee of the New Orleans Police Department, requested leave without pay due to concerns over department practices. Officers conducted a wellness check at his home and asked him to accompany them to the Public Integrity Bureau for a drug test. When Von Derhaar asked to remain in his home, officers contacted Lt. Darryl Watson, a supervisor. Watson ordered the officers to tell Von Derhaar he was being put back on the clock and ordered to come to work for the test. Von Derhaar was transported to the bureau but ultimately resigned rather than taking the test. He sued Watson under Section nineteen eighty-three for Fourth Amendment violations. The district court dismissed claims regarding entry into the home but denied qualified immunity for the seizure claim, holding that any reasonable official should have known the conduct was unreasonable.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. It reiterated that supervisory officials are not liable for subordinates’ actions unless they are personally involved or give a command causally connected to the violation. The court found that Watson directed officers to compel Von Derhaar to leave his home immediately after learning Von Derhaar wished to stay. The court held that a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave. Watson’s order, made without a warrant or exigent circumstances, was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The court noted that while it had previously held the actions constituted an unlawful seizure, the qualified immunity analysis required determining if the right was clearly established, which it was.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that police supervisors can be held personally liable for issuing commands that result in unlawful seizures, even if the officers executing the command are not the primary defendants. It clarifies that the clearly established law prohibits ordering a private citizen to leave their home for a drug test without a warrant or exigent circumstances.