Final answer:
Officers could invoke 'exigent circumstances' as a defense when Nigel threatens to sue for confiscating evidence without a search warrant during a domestic disturbance, as this principle allows searches in emergency situations without a warrant.
Step-by-step explanation:
The officers in the scenario where Nigel threatens to sue for confiscating evidence without a search warrant during a domestic disturbance call could be protected under exigent circumstances. This legal principle allows law enforcement to perform a search without a warrant if there is an immediate threat to their safety or the safety of others, the likely escape of a suspect, or the potential loss of evidence.
In contrast, qualified immunity shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations like illegal searches and seizures unless the officer violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.
Double jeopardy is not applicable as it pertains to someone being tried twice for the same crime, and Miranda rights involve the requirement to inform suspects of their rights during an arrest or custodial interrogation. Therefore, exigent circumstances would be the most likely defense for the officers in this case.