UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1418

FERNANDO M. SMITH; JAMIE CRABTREE; PRISTINE PRE-OWNED AUTOS, INC., a West Virginia corporation

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v. MICHAEL LEE TRAVELPIECE, sued in his individual capacity as a West Virginia State Police Officer

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00200-GMG)

Argued: September 22, 2021 Decided: April 20, 2022

Before KING, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion in which Judge King and Judge Thacker joined.

ARGUED: Lonnie Carl Simmons, DITRAPANO BARRETT & DIPIERO, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Michael Deering Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Katherine M. Smith, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge:

Fernando M. Smith, Jamie Crabtree, and Pristine Pre-Owned Autos were the subjects of an unconstitutional search. Relying on the fruits of that search, prosecutors obtained grand jury indictments against Smith and Crabtree. After a court suppressed the evidence and dismissed the criminal charges against them, they sued the trooper who conducted the search under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the facts alleged only state a Fourth Amendment claim for the unlawful search and seizure of their property, their claim accrued at the time of the search, and therefore this suit is untimely. I. Background

After an alleged victim’s complaints and information from a West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles investigator, Police Trooper Michael Lee Travelpiece suspected Pristine Pre-Owned Autos was engaged in illegal business practices. He obtained a broad search warrant from a county magistrate judge to search Pristine’s premises. He executed the warrant that same day, seizing business records, computer equipment, a vehicle, and other materials from Pristine.

Based on the evidence seized by Trooper Travelpiece, a local grand jury indicted Pristine’s co-owners—Fernando M. Smith and Jamie Crabtree. These charges reflected allegations that they were selling salvage-title vehicles without disclosing the salvage-title status. Soon after the indictments, Smith and Crabtree were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and posted a personal recognizance bond.

Smith and Crabtree later moved to suppress the evidence obtained from Trooper Travelpiece’s search of Pristine. They claimed that the search warrant lacked probable

2 cause and was overbroad. And four years later, the state court agreed, suppressing all the evidence. The court held that Trooper Travelpiece’s warrant application omitted material facts that undermined probable cause and made patently misleading representations. Having suppressed the evidence, the court dismissed the charges with prejudice.

Smith, Crabtree, and Pristine (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) then sued Trooper Travelpiece in state court almost five years after the illegal search but just over a year after the court dismissed the criminal charges. In the suit, Plaintiffs asserted a § 1983 claim alleging that Trooper Travelpiece violated their constitutional rights. 1 After Trooper Travelpiece removed the case to federal court, the district court found the claim barred by the two-year statute of limitation. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge that conclusion, arguing the district court erred in holding that the claim accrued at the time of the unlawful search and seizure and was therefore untimely. We review this challenge de novo, accepting the facts as alleged. Covey v. Assesso