Bedlion breached their duty to intervene and to protect the Plaintiff from having her residence unlawfully entered and searched. 42. Defendants Vick and Bedlion breached their duty to intervene to prevent the Plaintiff from being unlawfully seized, arrested, transported, incarcerated, and prosecuted. Compl. ¶¶ 38-42. An officer is held responsible for a constitutional violation under the bystander theory of liability “if he: (1) knows that a fellow officer is violating an individual’s constitutional right; (2) has a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm; and (3) chooses not to act.” Fernandors v. District of Columbia, 382 F.Supp.2d 63, 72 (D.D.C.2005) (quoting Randall v. Prince George’s County, 302 F.3d 188, 204 (4th Cir.2002)); Masel v. Barrett, 707 F.Supp. 4, 7-8 (D.D.C.1989) (<HOLDING>). Ms. Gudger does not dispute that personal
holding officer liable for deprivation of constitutional rights despite argument that officer although present was not in control of the situation recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer holding police officer is a public official holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger