Whether law enforcement officers can infer consent to searches and seizures without objective indicia, and whether the 'community caretaker exception' can be expanded to permit investigations based on perceived furtive gestures

This case concerns a federal law enforcement officer’s initial detention of a civilian with a post-hoc explanation of a “welfare check” or “community caretaker” detention, starting a baseless investigation that was continued by other officers. Ultimately, a parking-lot search and seizure resulted in property being taken under pretextual “safekeeping” without reasonable suspicion, consent, or warrant. Later, without reasonable suspicion, consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances, the property was further rummaged through to craft a known-false narrative that the property may contain contraband. Ultimately, a motion to suppress the evidence was granted due to Fourth Amendment violations, the subject charges were dismissed and later expunged. Mr. Wells’ claims under, inter alia , 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), with disputes being resolved in the movant’s favor, and the Fourth Circuit has affirmed dismissal. The questions presented in this matter are: 1. In the absence of any objective indicia of consent, and when the Fourth Circuit considers a small subset of facts in violation of Robinette and Bostick , what words or conduct permit officers to infer, and for the Fourth Circuit to affirm, consent to searches and seizures that would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment? 2. What constitutes unreasonable conduct, “pretextual rummaging,” and disobedience with ii this Court’s holdings in Bertine and Opperman when seven police officers remove and handcuff a driver in a parking lot, investigate, and cite the driver for mere infractions, and take some, but not all, property from the vehicle, without an inventory, not related to such infractions as “safekeeping” without consent, exigent circumstances, and without warrants? 3. When may police later, in the calm of the police department, convert safekept property to evidence without warrant, without exigent circumstances, without reasonable suspicion, and without consent? 4. Did the Fourth Circuit dangerously expand the “community caretaker exception” to the Fourth Amendment to permit officers to investigate criminal activity based upon perceived furtive gestures in violation of this Court’s holding in Caniglia v. Strom ? 5. In light of this Court’s 2008 holding in Heller and 2010 holding in McDonald , and the Second Amendment itself, did the Fourth Circuit correctly hold that in 2020, the individual right to keep and openly bear arms in public was not a clearly established right?