The party seeking an interlocutory appeal has the burden of showing exceptional circumstances exist warranting an interlocutory appeal.

The Fourth Amendment provides that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Cases cited by Plaintiff to support the proposition that it does are distinguishable, because in each of those cases the defendant was found to have acted under color of state law, independently of his or her motive for acting

—held that, where the police chief ordered officers to confiscate copies of free newspaper that criticized his conduct, and officers did so while on duty and driving a police vehicle, the police chief and officers were precluded from obtaining qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Mere conclusory assertions of discriminatory intent, embodied in affidavits or deposition testimony, cannot be sufficient to avert summary judgment. The court must satisfy itself that there is sufficient'direct or circumstantial evidence'of intent, id., to create a genuine issue of fact for the jury, before it can deny summary judgment on the ground of immunity. Here, we conclude …

On the other hand, thefts committed or commissioned by the faculty, staff or administrators of public universities do trigger constitutional scrutiny, at least where the thieves are acting within the scope of their employment

And, speaking of newspapers, San Francisco Police Chief Richard Hongisto was subject to suit for First Amendment violations when he ordered his men to confiscate all copies they could locate on news racks of an issue of the Bay Times which contained a front-page article critical of his handling of demonstrations following the Rodney King verdict.

[CITATION] Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation