Chehade Refai v. Lazaro
United States District Court, D. Nevada
614 F.Sup.2d 1103 (2009)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Mohamed Majed Chehade Refai (Chehade) (plaintiff) brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Peter Lazaro (defendant), a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Senior Special Agent of Investigation. Chehade flew from Germany to Las Vegas to visit his daughter. Due to a mistake in the terrorist watchlist, Chehade was stopped by border immigration officials and detained for three days. Officers twice ordered Chehade to strip, kneel, and cough so they could visually examine his anus and genitals. On the second day of questioning, Lazaro and another agent told Chehade that they were the only people who could help him, and only if he cooperated. Lazaro told Chehade that he would not be able to return to the US if he did not spy against Germany when he returned home. Lazaro knew that Chehade took heart medication due to a massive heart attack and multiple bypass surgeries. However, Chehade was denied his heart medication for 36 hours while he had dangerously high blood pressure, an arrhythmic heartbeat, and nosebleeds. On his third day of detention, Chehade was released from custody. However, he was forced to wear handcuffs in public while officials told the press that Chehade had been detained because of a criminal record or terrorism issue. Chehade sued, and Lazaro filed a motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pro, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.