PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1339

NATHANIEL HICKS,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OFFICER GERALD L. FERREYRA, in his individual capacity; OFFICER BRIAN A. PHILLIPS, in his individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, Senior District Judge. (8:16−cv−02521−PWG)

Argued: January 27, 2023 Decided: March 29, 2023

Before HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge Harris and Senior Judge Motz joined.

ARGUED: Edward P. Parent, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Yiyang Wu, RELMAN COLFAX PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Andrew C. White, Jodie E. Buchman, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Gemma Donofrio, RELMAN COLFAX PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1339 Doc: 49 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 34

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Nathaniel Hicks, a now-retired Special Agent with the United States Secret Service,

filed a civil suit against two United States Park Police officers, Gerald Ferreyra and Brian

Phillips, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971). Hicks asserted that the officers violated Hicks’s rights under the Fourth

Amendment by unlawfully seizing him during two traffic stops. A jury found the officers

liable for Hicks’s emotional injuries resulting from the constitutional violations and

awarded Hicks a total of $205,000 in compensatory damages and $525,000 in punitive

damages. The district court entered final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, and

later denied the officers’ post-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new

trial.

Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Hicks presented a

cognizable Bivens claim because his claim is not meaningfully different from the claim

asserted in Bivens. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1859 (2017). Both cases involved

allegations of unjustified, warrantless seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment

committed by federal “line” officers conducting routine police work. Also, the officers

were not entitled to qualified immunity. They violated Hicks’s Fourth Amendment rights

by significantly prolonging the initial stop without justification, and by Officer Phillips’s

action initiating a second, unjustified stop. This constitutional right to be free from such

unlawful seizures was clearly established at the time the seizures occurred.

We further conclude that the officers did not suffer prejudice when Hicks addressed

indemnification by the government during rebuttal closing argument because the officers

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1339 Doc: 49 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 34

earlier had asserted during their closing argument that they would suffer personal financial

loss if a verdict were rendered against them. And finally, Hicks presented sufficient

evidence of emotional injury to support the compensatory damage award, and the punitive

damages award was not excessive.

I.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document