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
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?

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