STAYED,STAYED − DISCOVERY
U.S. District Court [LIVE AREA] Middle District of Georgia (Albany) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−00099−LAG

K.A. et al v. HOBBY et al Assigned to: US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE ABRAMS GARDNER Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/01/2017 Date Terminated: 01/25/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

K.A. a minor, by and through her next friend and guardian, Lisa Adams

represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN 385 CHARLES E YOUNG DR E RM 3472 LOS ANGELES, CA 90095 310−825−9562 Email: littman@law.ucla.edu TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRYSTAL REDD 83 POPLAR ST NW ATLANTA, GA 30303 Email: credd@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GERALD R WEBER PO BOX 5391 ATLANTA, GA 31107 404−522−0507 Email: wgerryweber@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARK A BEGNAUD 750 hammond drive, bldg 12, ste 300 ATLANTA, GA 30328 United Sta 770−765−5559 Email: mbegnaud@eshmanbegnaud.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NATHANAEL A HORSLEY 750 Hammond Dr. Bldg. 12, Ste. 300 Atlanta, GA 30328 770−765−5559 Fax: 404−602−0018 Email: nhorsley@gacivilrights.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY 60 WALTON ST NW ATLANTA, GA 30303 404−688−1202 Fax: 404−688−9440 Email: sgeraghty@schr.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff T.S. a minor, by and through her next friend and guardian, Gigi Smith
Plaintiff B.S. a minor, by and through his next friend and guardian, Figen Guillot
Plaintiff

represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S.M.
Plaintiff A.W. a minor, by and through her next friend and guardian, Rhonda Norris
Plaintiff D.J. a minor, by and through his next friend

represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address)

and guardian, Lucetta Jordan
Plaintiff K.P.
Plaintiff L.H. a minor, by and through her next friend and guardian, Joey Haire

TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff J.E. a minor, by and through his next friend and guardian, Joelandon Dixon
V. Defendant SHERIFF JEFF HOBBY Worth County, Geogia, in his individual capacity

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRYSTAL REDD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GERALD R WEBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK A BEGNAUD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NATHANAEL A HORSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS 411 GORDON AVE THOMASVILLE, GA 31792

Defendant Deputy JOHN BRANNEN Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy RAY GREENE Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 06/23/2017
Defendant Deputy TYLER TURNER Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy BRANDI WHIDDON Worth County Sheriff's Office, in her individual capacity
Defendant JOHN or JANE DOES 1−25 Deputies, Worth County Sheriff's Office, in their individual capacities TERMINATED: 06/23/2017
Defendant Chief Deputy DAVID CARMICHAEL Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy CHRIS BALTENBERGER Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy WESLEY CHAMBLESS Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy ANTHONY CRAVEY Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his

229−226−2565 Email: rrollins@alexandervann.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD K STRICKLAND PO BOX 220 BRUNSWICK, GA 31521−0220 912−264−8544 Email: rstrickland@brbcsw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD K STRICKLAND (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD K STRICKLAND (See above for address)

individual capacity
Defendant Deputy SKYLER DUKE Worth County Sheriff's Office, in her individual capacity
Defendant Deputy KEVIN FORD Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy LISA HOUSE Worth County Sheriff's Office, in her individual capacity
Defendant Deputy PAUL KLEIN Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy CLAY LAWSON Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy TRUITT ODOM Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant Deputy RICHARD SANDERS Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant DEPUTY LISA STOCKS Worth County Sheriff's Office, in her individual capacity
Defendant Deputy JOHN SUMNER Worth County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity
Defendant

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD K STRICKLAND (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RALEIGH ROLLINS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Deputy DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON Worth County Sheriff's Office, in her individual capacity

RICHARD K STRICKLAND (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/01/2017
06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/02/2017 06/15/2017
06/16/2017 06/20/2017
06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Fee paid: Receipt # 113G−2624097, $400
filed by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons John Brannen, # 3 Summons Ray Greene, # 4 Summons Jeff Hobby, # 5 Summons Tyler Turner, # 6 Summons Brandi Whiddon)(GERAGHTY, SARAH) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
2 Consent Form (28 USC 636(c)(1)) sent to A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. (mdm) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
3 Summons Issued as to JOHN BRANNEN. (mdm) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
4 Summons Issued as to RAY GREENE. (mdm) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
5 Summons Issued as to JEFF HOBBY. (mdm) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
6 Summons Issued as to TYLER TURNER. (mdm) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
7 Summons Issued as to BRANDI WHIDDON. (mdm) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
8 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Protective Order by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order)(LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
9 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE
LESLIE J ABRAMS on 06/16/2017. (mdm) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT re 1 Complaint, against JOHN BRANNEN, JEFF HOBBY, TYLER TURNER, BRANDI WHIDDON, DAVID CARMICHAEL, CHRIS BALTENBERGER, WESLEY CHAMBLESS, ANTHONY CRAVEY, SKYLER DUKE, KEVIN FORD, LISA HOUSE, PAUL KLEIN, CLAY LAWSON, TRUITT ODOM, RICHARD SANDERS, LISA STOCKS, JOHN SUMNER, DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON by D.J., B.S., K.P., J.E., T.S., L.H., K.A., S.M., A.W. (Attachments: # 1 Summons David Carmichael, # 2 Summons Chris Baltenberger, # 3 Summons Wesley Chambless, # 4 Summons Anthony Cravey, # 5 Summons Skyler Duke, # 6 Summons Kevin Ford, # 7 Summons Lisa House, # 8 Summons Paul Klein, # 9 Summons Clay Lawson, # 10 Summons Truitt Odom, # 11 Summons Richard Sanders, # 12 Summons Lisa Stocks, # 13 Summons John Sumner, # 14 Summons Deidra Tucker Whiddon)(LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
11 Summons Issued as to DAVID CARMICHAEL. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
12 Summons Issued as to CHRIS BALTENBERGER. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
13 Summons Issued as to WESLEY CHAMBLESS. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
14 Summons Issued as to ANTHONY CRAVEY. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
15 Summons Issued as to SKYLER DUKE. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
16 Summons Issued as to KEVIN FORD. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
17 Summons Issued as to LISA HOUSE. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
18 Summons Issued as to PAUL KLEIN. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
19 Summons Issued as to CLAY LAWSON. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
20 Summons Issued as to TRUITT ODOM. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
21 Summons Issued as to RICHARD SANDERS. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/22/2017 06/23/2017 07/13/2017 07/25/2017 08/04/2017 09/01/2017
09/05/2017 09/05/2017
09/13/2017

22 Summons Issued as to LISA STOCKS. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
23 Summons Issued as to JOHN SUMNER. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
24 Summons Issued as to DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON. (mdm) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
25 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Dismiss Party RAY GREENE, JOHN or JANE DOES 1−25 by K.P., T.S., K.A., D.J., B.S., J.E., L.H., S.M., A.W. filed by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
26 ORDER granting 25 Motion to Dismiss Party RAY GREENE and JOHN or JANE
DOES 1−25. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 06/23/2017. (mdm) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
27 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. as to CHRIS BALTENBERGER, JOHN BRANNEN, DAVID CARMICHAEL, WESLEY CHAMBLESS, KEVIN FORD, JEFF HOBBY, LISA HOUSE, PAUL KLEIN, CLAY LAWSON, TRUITT ODOM, RICHARD SANDERS, LISA STOCKS, JOHN SUMNER (REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
28 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. as to ANTHONY CRAVEY, SKYLER DUKE, TYLER TURNER, BRANDI WHIDDON, DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON (REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
29 MOTION to Certify Class by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by CRYSTAL REDD. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
30 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by RICHARD K STRICKLAND on behalf of ANTHONY CRAVEY, SKYLER DUKE, TYLER TURNER, BRANDI WHIDDON, DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON Attorney RICHARD K STRICKLAND added to party ANTHONY CRAVEY(pty:dft), Attorney RICHARD K STRICKLAND added to party SKYLER DUKE(pty:dft), Attorney RICHARD K STRICKLAND added to party TYLER TURNER(pty:dft), Attorney RICHARD K STRICKLAND added to party BRANDI WHIDDON(pty:dft), Attorney RICHARD K STRICKLAND added to party DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON(pty:dft) (STRICKLAND, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
31 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint re 10 Amended Complaint,,, : by ANTHONY CRAVEY, SKYLER DUKE, TYLER TURNER, BRANDI WHIDDON, DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON filed by RICHARD K STRICKLAND. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (in Part) Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint)(STRICKLAND, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
32 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by RALEIGH ROLLINS on behalf of CHRIS BALTENBERGER, JOHN BRANNEN, DAVID CARMICHAEL, WESLEY CHAMBLESS, KEVIN FORD, JEFF HOBBY, LISA HOUSE, PAUL KLEIN, CLAY LAWSON, TRUITT ODOM, RICHARD SANDERS, LISA STOCKS, JOHN SUMNER Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party CHRIS BALTENBERGER(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party JOHN BRANNEN(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party DAVID CARMICHAEL(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party WESLEY CHAMBLESS(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party KEVIN FORD(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party JEFF HOBBY(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party LISA HOUSE(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party PAUL KLEIN(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party CLAY LAWSON(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party TRUITT ODOM(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party RICHARD SANDERS(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party LISA STOCKS(pty:dft), Attorney RALEIGH ROLLINS added to party JOHN SUMNER(pty:dft) (ROLLINS, RALEIGH) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
33 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File RESPONSE by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by CRYSTAL REDD.(REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/26/2017 10/10/2017
10/19/2017 11/17/2017 11/21/2017 11/30/2017
12/04/2017
12/04/2017 12/05/2017 12/05/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 03/23/2018

34 RULES 16/26 ORDER:Proposed Scheduling/Discovery order due by 10/26/2017.
Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 9/26/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Required Form)(far) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
35 JOINT MOTION to Stay Scheduling Order and Discovery/Rule 26 obligations by ANTHONY CRAVEY, SKYLER DUKE, TYLER TURNER, BRANDI WHIDDON, DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON filed by RICHARD K STRICKLAND. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order re Motion to Stay)(STRICKLAND, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
36 ORDER granting 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File RESPONSE re 31
MOTION to Dismiss Complaint re 10 Amended Complaint; granting 35 Motion to Stay. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 10/19/2017. (mdm) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
37 JOINT MOTION to Stay All Proceedings by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN.(LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
38 ORDER granting 37 JOINT MOTION to Stay All Proceedings. The stay will
automatically lift if the parties fail to file the proposed motion by December 4, 2017. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 11/21/2017. (mdm) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
39 JOINT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFCATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by MARK A BEGNAUD. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(BEGNAUD, MARK) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
40 JOINT MOTION to Certify Class by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by CRYSTAL REDD. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A−Settlement Agreement, # 3 Appendix Appendix A−Notice to Category 1, # 4 Appendix Appendix B− Notice to Category 2, # 5 Appendix Appendix C−Response Form, # 6 Appendix Appendix D−Opt Out Form, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit B−Attendance Records−UNDER SEAL PLACEHOLDER, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit C−Enrollment Spreadsheet−UNDER SEAL PLACEHOLDER, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit D−Notice for Publication, # 10 Proposed Order Exhibit E−Proposed Order, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit F−Categorization Methodology−UNDER SEAL PLACEHOLDER)(REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
41 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Ordered by US
DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 12/04/2017. (mdm) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. re 40 MOTION to Certify Class (REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
43 JOINT MOTION to Seal Document(s) 40 MOTION to Certify Class by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by CRYSTAL REDD. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(REDD, CRYSTAL) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion to Seal Document(s). Ordered by US DISTRICT
JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 12/13/2017. (mdm) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
45 SEALED DOCUMENT − Exhibit B−Attendance Records re: 40 JOINT MOTION to Certify Class. (mdm) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
46 SEALED DOCUMENT − Exhibit C−Enrollment Spreadsheet re: 40 JOINT MOTION to Certify Class. (mdm) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
47 SEALED DOCUMENT − Exhibit F−Categorization Methodology re: 40 JOINT MOTION to Certify Class. (mdm) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
48 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT : Final
Fairness Hearing set for 7/11/2018 @ 10:00 AM in Albany before US DISTRICT

04/02/2018 04/03/2018 04/04/2018 04/06/2018
05/03/2018
07/11/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018
01/09/2019 01/11/2019 01/24/2019
02/14/2019 07/01/2019 07/10/2019

JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 3/23/2018. (bcl) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
49 JOINT MOTION to Seal Document(s) by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN.(LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
50 This is a text only entry; no document issued. ORDER granting 49 Motion to Seal
Document Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 04/03/18 (ejb) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
51 SEALED DOCUMENT − Notice of Updated Class Member Addresses. (mdm) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
52 NOTICE of Certificate of Compliance by CHRIS BALTENBERGER, JOHN BRANNEN, DAVID CARMICHAEL, WESLEY CHAMBLESS, KEVIN FORD, JEFF HOBBY, LISA HOUSE, PAUL KLEIN, CLAY LAWSON, TRUITT ODOM, RICHARD SANDERS, LISA STOCKS, JOHN SUMNER re 48 Order, (ROLLINS, RALEIGH) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
53 NOTICE Notice of Certificate of Compliance by publishing advertisement by SKYLER DUKE, TYLER TURNER, BRANDI WHIDDON, DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Copy of Affidavit of Publication of Notice))(STRICKLAND, RICHARD) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
54 Minute Entry for proceedings held before US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS: Final Fairness Hearing held on 7/11/2018. Court Reporter: Mindy Martin.Time in Court: 17 MINS. (mdm) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
55 JOINT MOTION to Certify Class by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by MARK A BEGNAUD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Proposed Order)(BEGNAUD, MARK) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
56 JOINT MOTION to Seal Document(s) 55 MOTION to Certify Class by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by MARK A BEGNAUD.(BEGNAUD, MARK) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
57 CONSENT MOTION for Attorney Fees by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by MARK A BEGNAUD. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Aaron Littman, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Mark Begnaud)(BEGNAUD, MARK) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
58 ORDER granting 56 Motion to Seal Document. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE
LESLIE ABRAMS GARDNER on 01/09/2019. (mdm) (Entered: 01/09/2019)
60 SEALED DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT B to 55 MOTION to Certify Class by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. (mdm) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
61 ORDER granting 57 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendants shall remit
payment to Plaintiffs Counsel within seven (7) days of this Order as provided by the approved Settlement Agreement. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE ABRAMS GARDNER on 01/24/2019. (mdm) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
62 NOTICE Funding Discrepency by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. (BEGNAUD, MARK) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
63 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by A.W., B.S., D.J., J.E., K.A., K.P., L.H., S.M., T.S. filed by AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(LITTMAN, AARON) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
64 ORDER granting 63 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney AARON
MICHAEL LITTMAN terminated. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE ABRAMS GARDNER on 07/10/2019. (mdm) (Entered: 07/10/2019)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ALBANY DIVISION

________________________________

)

K.A., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams,

)

)

T.S., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Gigi Smith,

)

)

B.S., a minor, by and through his next )

friend and guardian, Figen Guillot, )

)

S.M.,

) CLASS ACTION

)

A.W., a minor, by and through her next ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ______

friend and guardian, Rhonda Norris, )

) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

D.J., a minor, by and through his next )

friend and guardian, Lucetta Jordan, ) COMPLAINT

)

K.P.,

)

)

L.H., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Joey Haire,

)

)

J.E., a minor, by and through his next )

friend and guardian, Joelandon Dixon, )

)

on behalf of themselves and a class of )

similarly situated persons,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth

)

County, Georgia, in his individual )

capacity,

)

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 36

)

JOHN BRANNEN, Deputy,

)

Worth County Sheriff’s Office,

)

in his individual capacity,

)

)

RAY GREENE, Deputy,

)

Worth County Sheriff’s Office,

)

in his individual capacity,

)

)

TYLER TURNER, Deputy,

)

Worth County Sheriff’s Office,

)

in his individual capacity,

)

)

BRANDI WHIDDON, Deputy,

)

Worth County Sheriff’s Office,

)

in her individual capacity,

)

)

JOHN or JANE DOES 1-25, Deputies, )

Worth County Sheriff’s Office,

)

in their individual capacities,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs K.A., T.S., B.S., A.W., D.J., L.H., and J.E., by and through their

next friends and guardians, and S.M. and K.P. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf

of themselves and the class alleged herein, state as follows for their complaint:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

arising from a mass search of around 900 students at Worth County High School at

the direction of Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 3 of 36
2. Plaintiffs bring this action to redress violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and similar provisions of the Georgia Constitution.
3. Plaintiffs, the putative class representatives, are nine Worth County High School students who, like hundreds of their peers, were subjected to unlawful and intrusive searches of their persons by employees of the Worth County Sheriff’s Office acting at the direction of Sheriff Hobby.
4. Defendants’ mass search of all or nearly all Worth County High School students took place on Friday, April 14, 2017. On that date, Sheriff Hobby and his deputies placed the high school on “lockdown” for four hours. About 40 uniformed officers from five law enforcement agencies arrived on school grounds. Educational programs were interrupted, students were directed to remain in specified areas without any explanation as to what was happening, and students’ cell phones were seized.
5. Starting at about 8:00 a.m. on April 14, Defendants, under the direct orders and supervision of Sheriff Hobby, and assisted by officers from other agencies,1 conducted a drug sweep, indiscriminately searching all or nearly all
1 Officers from the Crisp, Dooly, and Turner County sheriff’s offices and the Forsyth Police Department responded to Sheriff Hobby’s request for assistance that day, but are not named as defendants. Upon information and belief, none of the officers from these other agencies participated in searches of students’ bodies.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 4 of 36
students’ persons and clothes, and using police dogs to search their bags, classrooms, lockers, and cars.
6. The Sheriff’s mass search included a hands-on, body search of every or nearly every student in attendance at school that day, including students with disabilities.
7. Defendants’ searches of students were intrusive, performed in an aggressive manner, and done in full view of other students. For example:
a) Deputies ordered students to stand facing the wall with their hands and legs spread wide apart; b) Deputies touched and manipulated students’ breasts and genitals; c) Deputies inserted fingers inside girls’ bras, and pulled up girls’ bras, touching and partially exposing their bare breasts; d) Deputies touched girls’ underwear by placing hands inside the waistbands of their pants or reaching up their dresses; e) Deputies touched girls’ vaginal areas through their underwear; f) Deputies cupped or groped boys’ genitals and touched their buttocks through their pants. 8. Defendants had no warrant or other authority to perform a mass search on hundreds of public school children.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 5 of 36
9. The purported justification for the mass search was to discover drugs. To that end, Sheriff Hobby had a list of thirteen students on a “target list” that he suspected of possessing drugs. The “target list” included only three students who were in school on April 14. Defendants had no basis for suspecting any other student of involvement in unlawful activity.
10. No illegal controlled substances or drug paraphernalia were discovered during the mass search.
11. Defendants had no right to touch, pat-down, or manipulate the body parts of Plaintiffs or other students. Defendants had no right to search Plaintiffs’ clothes and undergarments. Defendants’ unlawful conduct injured Plaintiffs by causing them fear, embarrassment, stress, and humiliation.
12. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief for members of a class of all students seized and searched by Worth County Sheriff’s Office employees at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on the Sheriff’s target list.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises
5

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 6 of 36
under the laws and Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, as it seeks to redress civil rights violations.
14. Plaintiffs also bring state-law claims arising out of the same events and occurrences, and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
15. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because at least one Defendant resides in this district and all Defendants reside in this state, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims set forth in this complaint occurred within this district and this division.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
16. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and, at all times relevant to this complaint, were residents of Georgia.
K.A. 17. Plaintiff K.A. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her mother and next friend, Lisa Adams. Defendant Whiddon seized K.A. and performed a search of K.A.’s person, as further described herein.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 7 of 36
Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that K.A. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
T.S. 18. Plaintiff T.S. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her mother and next friend, Gigi Smith. Defendant Jane Doe 1 seized T.S. and performed a search of T.S.’s person, as further described herein. Jane Doe 1 performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that T.S. had engaged in any unlawful activity. B.S. 19. Plaintiff B.S. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He brings suit through his mother and next friend, Figen Guillot. Defendant Brannen seized B.S. and performed a search of B.S.’s person, as further described herein. Brannen performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that B.S. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 8 of 36
S.M. 20. Plaintiff S.M. is an 18-year-old who was enrolled in the 12th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year.2 Defendant Whiddon seized S.M. and performed a search of S.M.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that S.M. had engaged in any unlawful activity. A.W. 21. Plaintiff A.W. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her mother and next friend, Rhonda Norris. Defendant Whiddon seized A.W. and performed a search of A.W.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that A.W. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
2 S.M. will seek a protective order requiring the litigants to refer to her by her initials in public filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e). S.M. has good cause to seek a protective order because: (1) S.M. was a student at the time of the incident described herein; (2) this lawsuit involves sensitive allegations that a law enforcement officer touched private parts of S.M.’s body; and (3) the named plaintiffs who are minors are identified by their initials. See id.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 9 of 36
D.J. 22. Plaintiff D.J. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He brings suit through his mother and next friend, Lucetta Jordan. Defendant Greene seized D.J. and performed a search of D.J.’s person, as further described herein. Greene performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that D.J. had engaged in any unlawful activity. K.P. 23. Plaintiff K.P. is an 18-year-old who was enrolled in the 12th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year.3 Defendant Whiddon seized K.P. and performed a search of K.P.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that K.P. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
3 K.P. will seek a protective order requiring the litigants to refer to her by her initials in public filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e). K.P. has good cause to seek a protective order because: (1) K.P. was a student at the time of the incident described herein; (2) this lawsuit involves sensitive allegations that a law enforcement officer touched private parts of K.P.’s body; and (3) the named plaintiffs who are minors are identified by their initials. See id.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 10 of 36
L.H. 24. Plaintiff L.H. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her father and next friend, Joey Haire. Defendant Whiddon seized L.H. and performed a search of L.H.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that L.H. had engaged in any unlawful activity. J.E. 25. Plaintiff J.E. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He brings suit through his father and next friend, Joelandon Dixon. Defendant Turner seized J.E. and performed a search of J.E.’s person, as further described herein. Turner performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that J.E. had engaged in any unlawful activity. B. Defendants Jeff Hobby 26. Jeff Hobby is the Sheriff of Worth County, Georgia. He planned, ordered, orchestrated, executed, and directly supervised the conduct of his deputies in conducting the April 14, 2017, body searches of all or nearly all students at Worth County High School. Hobby was present at the school during the mass
10

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 11 of 36
search, intended for his deputies to conduct the body searches described herein, instructed his deputies to conduct the body searches described herein, and personally observed many of the searches as they were being conducted. As such, there is a direct causal connection between Hobby’s actions and the constitutional violations that occurred. Hobby acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. Hobby is sued in his individual capacity. He is a resident of Georgia.
John Brannen 27. John Brannen is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Brannen personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Brannen performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff B.S. and other students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Brannen is a resident of Georgia.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 12 of 36
Ray Greene 28. Ray Greene is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Greene personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Greene performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff D.J. and others. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Greene is a resident of Georgia. Tyler Turner 29. Tyler Turner is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Turner personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Turner performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff J.E. and others. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established
12

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 13 of 36
constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Turner is a resident of Georgia.
Brandi Whiddon 30. Brandi Whiddon is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Whiddon personally participated in the physical body searches of female students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Whiddon performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiffs K.A., S.M., A.W., and others. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students she searched. Whiddon is sued in her individual capacity. She is a resident of Georgia. John or Jane Does 1-25 31. John or Jane Does 1-25 are employees of the Worth County Sheriff’s Office who physically searched the bodies of students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. They did so even though they had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. They acted under color of law and violated the
13

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 14 of 36
clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. They are sued in their
individual capacities. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of these employees, but
will amend this complaint to include their true names as soon as possible.4 Upon
information and belief, John or Jane Does 1-25 are residents of Georgia.
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
32. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and, pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as all students seized and
searched by Worth County Sheriff’s Office employees at Worth County High
School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on the Sheriff’s target list.5
4 Documentation relating to the mass search suggests that all deputies employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office were involved in the search. Sheriff Hobby issued a memorandum on April 4, 2017, instructing all deputies to report to work at 7:45 a.m. on the morning of the search for briefing. Although Plaintiffs do not presently know the names of these deputies, they are identified with 29 numbers in Hobby’s memorandum. These numbers are: W2, W10, W14, W15, W16, W17, W18, W19, W20, W21, W22, W23, W24, W25, W26, W27, W28, W29, W30, W31, W32, W33, W34, W35, W36, W37, W38, W39, and W41. Plaintiffs will request that the Court permit early discovery, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), limited to that necessary to learn the identities of the other deputies who conducted body searches of students. Video recordings in the custody of administrators of Worth County High School will likely reveal the identities of the deputies who conducted the body searches.
5 As further alleged herein, the three students on the Sheriff’s target list in attendance that day were detained and searched in administrative offices at the school, rather than in the hallways or gym with the rest of their classmates.
14

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 15 of 36
33. Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) in that: a) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class consists of nearly all of the students in attendance at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017— approximately 900 students. b) Every class member’s claim turns on the following question, which is therefore common to the class: whether a law enforcement officer may seize and search a student’s body and personal belongings, for purposes of discovering evidence of criminal activity, without any justification or information about the student other than that he or she is enrolled at a particular school. c) The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class because each member of the class was searched at the direction of Sheriff Hobby, by one of his deputies, at Worth County High School, on April 14, 2017, for the same purpose, and with the same absence of any individualized suspicion. d) The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and possess
15

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 16 of 36
no interests adverse to other class members. The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit organization with extensive experience in civil rights class action litigation, and Horsley Begnaud LLC, a law firm with extensive experience in civil rights and personal injury cases. e) Plaintiffs meet the requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting individual class members and a class action is superior to any other method of adjudicating this dispute. In this case, where about 900 students were unlawfully searched by Defendants, a class action will permit common questions of law and fact to be resolved in one proceeding, and will avoid burdening the court with numerous, separate lawsuits that could result in inconsistent judgments.
16

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 17 of 36
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendants Planned a Mass Search of All or Nearly All Students
at Worth County High School. 34. Defendant Hobby maintains a “target list” of people he intends to investigate because he suspects they have committed crimes. In early 2017, Hobby placed thirteen Worth County High School students on the “target list” because he believed they might have brought drugs to the school. 35. In late March 2017, Hobby informed Harley Calhoun, the principal of Worth County High School, that he planned to conduct a search at the school. 36. Hobby did not inform Calhoun that Hobby intended for his deputies to conduct body searches of all or nearly all students in the school. 37. At no time did Calhoun, or any other school administrator, agree to permit Defendants to conduct body searches of each student in the school. 38. The School Resource Officer—a Sylvester Police Department officer assigned to Worth County High School—was attending a training on April 14, 2017, and was unaware of Defendants’ plan to conduct a mass search on that date. 39. Although Hobby did not share with school administrators that he intended for his deputies to conduct a hands-on, body search of all students, that was his plan. 40. Hobby knew that his deputies would search the bodies of every or nearly every student at Worth County High School, even though Defendants did
17

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 18 of 36
not have individualized suspicion that any particular student, except possibly the three students on the target list, was involved in any wrongdoing.
41. To ensure a sufficient number of officers to search the school’s approximately 900 students, Hobby ordered all of his deputies to report for work on the morning of the search.
42. Hobby personally ordered Defendants Brannen, Greene, Turner, Whiddon, and the John and Jane Doe Defendants to search every or nearly every student at the school and personally instructed classrooms full of students to line up in hallways and in the gym to be searched. Hobby knew that the searches were being performed with the level of intrusiveness described in this complaint and personally observed many of them.
B. Defendants Lacked Justification for the Body Searches of 900 Students.
43. Upon arriving at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, Hobby gave Principal Calhoun a written list of the names of thirteen students on his “target list.” Hobby ordered that the students on the target list be brought to administrative offices and isolated there for the duration of his search.
44. Per Hobby’s order, the three students in attendance that day whose names appeared on the target list were brought to school administrative offices where they were held until the search concluded.
18

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 19 of 36
45. Defendants had no reason to believe that any student in school that day (with the possible exception of the three students on the target list) had any illegal substance or engaged in any unlawful activity.
46. Neither Calhoun nor any other school administrator had individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that any student in school that day (with the possible exception of the three students on the target list) had any illegal substance or engaged in any unlawful activity.
47. With respect to Plaintiffs who were subject to searches of their bras or underwear, Defendants had no reasonable suspicion of danger and no reason to believe that any student was hiding any controlled substance or other prohibited item in his or her undergarments.
48. At the request of Hobby, a school official made an announcement over the intercom shortly after school began on the morning of April 14, 2017, indicating that the school was being placed on lockdown. This was the first time that teachers learned that law enforcement activity of any kind would be occurring at the school that day.
49. Following the announcement regarding the lockdown, Plaintiffs were confined either to their first-period classrooms, to the hallways immediately outside their classrooms, or to the gym. Plaintiffs’ cell phones were seized so that they could not reach their parents. Plaintiffs were prevented from contacting their
19

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 20 of 36
parents during the entire duration of the search—from approximately 8:00 a.m. until approximately 12:00 p.m.
50. During the lockdown and mass search, Defendants restricted students’ access to restrooms. Some students were not permitted to go to the restroom for the entire four-hour lockdown period.
51. The deputies conducting the searches—including searches that involved the touching of or reaching inside Plaintiffs’ undergarments—sometimes did not wear gloves or did not change their gloves between searches.
52. Despite searching approximately 900 students, Defendants did not discover any illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
C. Defendants’ Body Searches of Plaintiffs Were Unreasonable, Aggressive, and Invasive.
K.A. 53. K.A., age 16, was in her first period literature class when Defendants began their mass search. Sheriff Hobby entered K.A.’s classroom and ordered the students to line up in the hallway with their hands on the wall. Deputy Whiddon took one of K.A.’s arms, placed it higher up on the wall, and kicked her legs to open them wider. Whiddon pulled the front of K.A.’s bra away from her body by the underwire and flipped it up. Whiddon also looked down the back and front of K.A.’s dress. Whiddon slid her hands from one of K.A.’s ankles up to her pelvic area. Whiddon’s hands went underneath K.A.’s dress as Whiddon felt up K.A.’s
20

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 21 of 36
leg. Whiddon’s hands stopped on and cupped K.A.’s vaginal area and buttocks. Whiddon then slid her hands down to the other ankle. Whiddon was wearing gloves, but did not change them before or after her search of K.A.
T.S. 54. T.S., age 16, was in her first period art class when Defendants began their mass search. When her class was called into the hallway, Worth County law enforcement officials told T.S. and the other students in her class to place their hands on the wall and spread their legs apart. Jane Doe 1 nudged T.S.’s legs further apart, and began patting T.S.’s thighs. Jane Doe 1 asked if T.S. had any pockets; T.S. said no. Jane Doe 1 then slid her hands down T.S.’s legs, over her skirt. Jane Doe 1 then squeezed T.S.’s breasts through her shirt, and patted the pockets of T.S.’s jean jacket. Jane Doe 1 asked T.S. to lift the front of her shirt, and T.S. complied, lifting her shirt high enough to expose her stomach and navel. Jane Doe 1 also required T.S. to take off her shoes and lift her feet so that Jane Doe 1 could see their soles. B.S. 55. B.S., age 15, was in his literature composition class when Defendants began their mass search. When B.S.’s class was called into the hallway, B.S. saw Sheriff Hobby standing amongst his deputies. Before Defendant Brannen began to search B.S., he asked whether B.S. had anything that might cut or injure him; B.S.
21

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 22 of 36
said no. Brannen started at B.S.’s torso and worked his way down. He patted B.S.’s shoulders and chest and abdomen with his open palms. Brannen spent three to five seconds repeatedly grabbing with the tips of his fingers at the front of B.S.’s pants, moving his fingers back and forth from B.S.’s front pockets to his groin. He continued doing so until B.S. informed him that one of his pockets contained a set of earbuds and that the other one was empty. During this time, Brannen’s fingertips touched B.S.’s penis and testicles, over clothes, four to five times. Next, Brannen pinched B.S.’s buttocks repeatedly through B.S.’s back pockets. Finally, Brannen pushed with his fingers on the top of B.S.’s shoes.
S.M. 56. S.M., age 18, arrived at the high school after Defendants had started their mass search. S.M. participates in an early childhood education internship and had been on an internship assignment with other students at a nearby primary school. When S.M. arrived at the high school, she encountered three law enforcement officers with dogs in the parking lot. The officers ordered S.M. to exit the car and leave her possessions inside. S.M. was directed to the gym, which was full of other students. After S.M. waited in the gym for some time, Deputy Whiddon began to search S.M. Whiddon instructed S.M. to spread her legs and place her hands, also spread, on the wall. Whiddon patted down each of S.M.’s legs, and rubbed her hand up the inside of each leg and over her groin. Whiddon
22

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 23 of 36
asked S.M. what she had in her back pockets. S.M. replied that she had some dollar bills and chap stick. Whiddon placed her hands in the back pockets of S.M.’s jeans. Whiddon then inserted the fingers on both of her hands four inches down into the waistband of S.M.’s pants and moved them around from front to back. Next, Whiddon rubbed her hands over S.M.’s bare stomach. Whiddon inserted her fingertips under the band of S.M.’s bra in her armpits and shook S.M. forcefully for three to five seconds. Finally, Whiddon ran her hands down S.M.’s bare arms, and directed S.M. to remove her sandals. Whiddon was not wearing gloves during her search of S.M. Sheriff Hobby was present at the time Whiddon searched S.M.
A.W. 57. A.W., age 15, was in her world history class when Defendants started their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, A.W. and her classmates were ordered to line up with their hands against the wall and their legs spread. A.W. was wearing a sleeveless dress and cover-up over her arms. Deputy Whiddon asked A.W. if she had pockets; although A.W. said no, Whiddon searched for pockets anyway. At Whiddon’s direction, A.W. turned to face Whiddon, and Whiddon reached her hands around A.W.’s midsection, between her cover-up and her dress, around to her back. A.W. then turned back to the wall, and Whiddon touched her knees to spread them further apart. On one leg and then the
23

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 24 of 36
other, Whiddon moved both her hands from A.W.’s knees up to her thighs, within one inch of her vaginal area. Whiddon then reached her hand over A.W.’s shoulder and into the front of A.W.’s dress, and moved her hand left and right between her breasts. Whiddon placed her fingertips under the underwire of A.W.’s bra and touched her breasts.
D.J. 58. D.J., age 16, was in his social studies class when Defendants started their mass search. When his class was called out into the hallway, D.J. and his classmates were lined up against the wall, and told to “stay still” and “face forward,” with their hands on the wall and their legs spread. At some point, a deputy asked D.J. whether he had already been searched; D.J. answered in the negative. Deputy Greene then conducted a search of D.J.’s body. Greene rubbed the palms of his hands over D.J.’s lower and upper arms, shoulders, chest, back, and abdomen. Next, he placed a hand inside one of the front pockets of D.J.’s pants, which contained pencils. Greene then spent over ten seconds using his fingers to cup and grope D.J.’s penis and testicles through his pants. After D.J. reacted by shifting his position, Greene sped up the remainder of the search, rubbing the palms of his hands down the insides and outsides of both of D.J.’s legs. Finally, Greene removed D.J.’s shoes and checked inside them, and ran his hands across the bottoms of D.J.’s socks.
24

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 25 of 36
K.P. 59. K.P., age 18, was in her economics class when Defendants started their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, K.P. was told to stand with her hands on the wall and her legs spread. She was standing with her legs about shoulder-width apart, but Deputy Whiddon kicked them further apart. Whiddon told K.P. not to look back at her. Whiddon unzipped K.P.’s jacket and asked K.P. whether it had pockets. Despite K.P.’s statement that it did not have pockets, Whiddon reached inside to feel for pockets. K.P. took the jacket off. Then, Whiddon rubbed her hands from K.P.’s waist up to her breasts and squeezed her breasts five times through her shirt. Whiddon moved the front center of K.P.’s bra left and right, and then lifted the underwire of her bra so that it was sitting above her bare breasts. Whiddon then groped her breasts twice through her shirt. Next, Whiddon put her hands into K.P.’s jeans pockets, at an angle towards her groin area. Through the pockets, Whiddon’s fingertips went under K.P.’s underwear and touched her vaginal area. Whiddon also patted down K.P.’s legs, from high on her thighs down to her ankles. Finally, Whiddon told K.P. to take off her shoes; she looked inside them and then threw them back at K.P. K.P. had to pull her bra down herself at the end of the search.
25

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 26 of 36
L.H. 60. L.H., age 15, was in her algebra class when Defendants started their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, L.H. and her classmates were ordered to put their hands on the wall, spread their legs apart, and remain quiet. At the time Deputy Whiddon searched L.H., L.H. was standing next to a male classmate. Whiddon first patted L.H.’s chest. Then, she moved to L.H.’s legs, and patted down both of them simultaneously, with one hand on each, from the tops of her thighs to her ankles. Whiddon took L.H.’s shoes off and banged them together, and patted L.H.’s feet. Then, Whiddon returned to L.H.’s upper body. She reached up under L.H.’s shirt, lifted her bra, and touched her bare breasts, including her nipples. Whiddon also shook L.H.’s bra. Next, Whiddon inserted her fingers about two inches into the waistband of L.H.’s jeans, between her jeans and her underwear, and moved her fingers across the front of her abdomen. Finally, Whiddon told L.H. that she could put her shoes on and turn around. Whiddon was wearing gloves, but did not change them before or after her search of L.H. J.E. 61. J.E., age 16, was in his agriculture class when Defendants started their mass search. When his class was called into the hallway, J.E. and his classmates were told to take off their shoes and stand with their hands on the wall. Deputy
26

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 27 of 36
Turner asked J.E. if he had anything in his pockets that could poke him; J.E. replied that he had headphones, bubble gum, and a tube of chap stick. Turner took the chap stick, applied some to his glove, and smelled the substance. Turner then put his hands in J.E.’s back pockets. Next, Turner twice rubbed his hands up and down J.E.’s chest, and inserted his hands between the buttons on his collared shirt, but over his undershirt, to rub J.E.’s underarms. Turning to J.E.’s lower body, Turner used both hands to rub down each of J.E.’s legs, starting at his thighs and ending at his ankles. Then, Turner reached between J.E.’s legs, cupped his testicles, and squeezed them twice; he also touched J.E.’s penis through his pants. Turner next touched J.E.’s buttocks though his pants, and squeezed them twice.
D. Defendants’ Unlawful Mass Search Injured Plaintiffs. 62. Defendants’ actions harmed the Plaintiffs by causing them injury including anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation. 63. Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiffs to experience fear, shame, and emotional distress. 64. Defendants’ actions harmed the Plaintiffs by damaging their ability to trust law enforcement officers and persons in positions of authority in general. E. Defendants Violated Clearly Established Law. 65. It is clearly established that law enforcement officers violate the Constitution when, at their own instigation, in an effort to obtain evidence of
27

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 28 of 36
illegal drug possession, they seize and search the body of any person (including a
student) without probable cause.6
66. It is clearly established that probable cause requires individualized
suspicion, and that mere attendance at a large school at which a few students are
suspected of possessing drugs is not sufficient to establish probable cause or
otherwise render reasonable the seizure and search of the body of a student, by and
at the instigation of law enforcement officers, for the purpose of obtaining
evidence of illegal drug possession.7
6 See State v. Young, 216 S.E.2d 586, 591-92 (Ga. 1975) (explaining that while attenuated Fourth Amendment protections apply to searches conducted by “public school officials,” “entirely without the participation of law enforcement officers,” “law enforcement officers, of course, are bound by the full panoply of Fourth Amendment rights” when searching students); see also State v. K.L.M., 628 S.E.2d 651, 652-53 (Ga. App. 2006) (requiring probable cause for the in-school search of a student by a law enforcement officer even though the search was directed by the principal “[b]ecause [the officer] was a law enforcement officer who participated in the search”); Patman v. State, 244 S.E.2d 118, 120 (Ga. App. 2000) (“Unlike a school official, a police officer must have probable cause to search a suspect.”), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Kazmierczak, 771 S.E.2d 473, 476-77 (Ga. App. 2015). Cf. Stephens v. DeGiovanni, 852 F.3d 1298, 1316 n.14 (11th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that “law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes” by decisions of “the highest court of the state where the case arose” (quoting Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002)).
7 See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979) (“[A] person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person.” (citation omitted)); see also Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 988, 997 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Probable cause to arrest one suspect, and even probable cause to believe that a number of other or unidentified people had sold
28

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 29 of 36
67. Defendants had not obtained warrants to arrest or to search Plaintiffs.
68. Plaintiffs did not consent to being seized or searched.
69. None of the searches, including the searches of Plaintiffs, occurred
incident to lawful arrests.
70. There existed no exigent circumstances to justify the searches of
Plaintiffs.
71. Even if Defendants had seized and searched the bodies of Plaintiffs at
the behest of school administrators and for purposes of maintaining an educational
environment, they would still have violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established
constitutional rights by conducting mass, physically intrusive searches without any
individualized suspicion.8
drugs in the establishment in the past, did not give the officers carte blanche to seize everyone who happened to be in the Club when the two raids took place.”). 8 See Safford United Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 374-77 (2009) (establishing that “specific justifications” are required for an intrusive search of a student by school officials—not generalities, but rather reasonable suspicion that the particular drugs the particular student is believed to be carrying pose a danger, or reasonable suspicion that the student is at that time hiding those drugs near her private parts); see also Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 624 (1989) (explaining that only in “limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important government interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, [may] a search . . . be conducted despite the absence of such suspicion”); Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160, 1169 (11th Cir. 2001) (concluding that an intrusive, mass search of students by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment because the searches were conducted without
29

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 30 of 36
72. Defendants had fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional because a mass search of nearly 900 public school children by law enforcement officers without any individualized suspicion clearly and obviously violates the Constitution. Gray ex. Rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2006) (discussing “obvious clarity” cases in the school seizure context).
73. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the seizures and searches of Plaintiffs were plainly unreasonable. The conduct of Defendants lies so “obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was [or should have been] readily apparent . . . .” Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997).
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Violation of Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. XIII of the Georgia Constitution
(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 74. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully stated herein.
individualized suspicion), vacated, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), reinstated, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003).
30

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 31 of 36
75. Without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal authority, Defendants detained Plaintiffs and other Worth County High School students; impeded their liberty by requiring them to remain in particular locations in the school for four hours; and subjected Plaintiffs to intrusive, hands-on, physical searches of their bodies.
76. Defendants’ mass search and seizure was not justified at its inception. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the searches and seizures described herein even though they had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs had engaged in any unlawful activity. Defendants had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the searches of Plaintiffs would turn up evidence that any student not on the target list had violated the law.
77. Defendants’ searches of Plaintiffs were not reasonably related to the circumstances that purportedly justified the searches. Defendants’ searches were unreasonably intrusive.
78. Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the federal and state constitutions and no reasonable officer could have believed that subjecting Plaintiffs to these searches and seizures was legal in the absence of individualized suspicion or probable cause.
79. In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance
31

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 32 of 36
of their official functions. Defendants knew that requiring Plaintiffs to submit to the searches described herein violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
80. Hobby and other supervisors within the Worth County Sheriff’s Office were confronted with and personally witnessed their officers’ illegal acts, possessed the power to prevent them, and chose not to act.
81. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, and the harm Plaintiffs suffered as a result, because each Defendant personally participated in the actions described herein, expressly ordered or directed, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly condoned or failed to remedy the wrongs at issue.
82. Defendants’ above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights and should be punished or deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damages against Defendants as permitted by law.
32

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 33 of 36
COUNT II VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Violation of Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I of the Georgia Constitution
(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 83. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully stated herein. 84. Without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal authority, Defendants detained Plaintiffs and other Worth County High School students for several hours and subjected Plaintiffs and other students to intrusive, hands-on, physical searches of their bodies by law enforcement officers. 85. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the mass searches described herein even though they had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs had engaged in any unlawful activity. 86. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the body searches described herein without the authorization or cooperation of school administrators. 87. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to body searches that violated Plaintiffs’ right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Ga. Const. art. I, Sec. I, Para. I.
33

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 34 of 36
88. Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the federal and state constitutions and no reasonable officer could have believed that requiring Plaintiffs to submit to these searches was legal.
89. In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their official functions. Defendants knew that subjecting Plaintiffs and other students to the searches described herein violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
90. Hobby and other supervisors within the Worth County Sheriff’s Office were confronted with and personally witnessed their officers’ illegal acts, possessed the power to prevent them, and chose not to act.
91. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, and the harm they suffered as a result, because each Defendant personally participated in the actions described herein, expressly ordered or directed, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly condoned or failed to remedy the wrongs at issue.
92. Defendants’ above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights and should be punished or deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damages against Defendants as permitted by law.
34

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 35 of 36
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs accordingly pray for the following relief: a) Certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23; b) Compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by the jury; c) Punitive damages according to federal and state law; d) A declaratory judgment stating that a law enforcement officer violates
a student’s rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutions when he conducts a search of the student’s body absent voluntary consent or individualized suspicion that the student has violated the law; e) Reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws. f) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED: This 1st day of June, 2017.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sarah Geraghty Sarah Geraghty Ga. Bar No. 291393 Gerald Weber Ga. Bar No. 744878 Crystal Redd Ga. Bar No. 969002 Aaron Littman
35

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 36 of 36
Ga. Bar No. 843053 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440 (fax) sgeraghty@schr.org /s/ Mark Begnaud Mark Begnaud Ga. Bar No. 217641 Nathanael Horsley Ga. Bar No. 367832 HORSLEY BEGNAUD LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 12, Suite 300 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 (770) 765-5559 (404) 602-0018 (fax) mbegnaud@gacivilrights.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
36

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 44

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ALBANY DIVISION

________________________________

)

K.A., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams,

)

)

T.S., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Gigi Smith,

)

)

B.S., a minor, by and through his next )

friend and guardian, Figen Guillot, )

)

S.M.,

) CLASS ACTION

)

A.W., a minor, by and through her next ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-99-LJA

friend and guardian, Rhonda Norris, )

) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

D.J., a minor, by and through his next )

friend and guardian, Lucetta Jordan, ) AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

K.P.,

)

)

L.H., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Joey Haire,

)

)

J.E., a minor, by and through his next )

friend and guardian, Joelandon Dixon, )

)

on behalf of themselves and a class of )

similarly situated persons,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth

)

County, Georgia, in his individual )

capacity,

)

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 2 of 44

)

DAVID CARMICHAEL, Chief

)

Deputy, Worth County Sheriff’s Office, )

in his individual capacity,

)

)

CHRIS BALTENBERGER, Deputy, )

Worth County Sheriff’s Office, in his )

individual capacity,

)

)

JOHN BRANNEN, Deputy, Worth )

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

)

WESLEY CHAMBLESS, Deputy, )

Worth County Sheriff’s Office, in his )

individual capacity,

)

)

ANTHONY CRAVEY, Deputy, Worth )

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

)

SKYLER DUKE, Deputy, Worth

)

County Sheriff’s Office, in her

)

individual capacity,

)

)

KEVIN FORD, Deputy, Worth County )

Sheriff’s Office, in his individual

)

capacity,

)

)

LISA HOUSE, Deputy, Worth County )

Sheriff’s Office, in her individual

)

capacity,

)

)

PAUL KLEIN, Deputy, Worth County )

Sheriff’s Office, in his individual

)

capacity,

)

)

CLAY LAWSON, Deputy, Worth )

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 3 of 44

)

TRUITT ODOM, Deputy, Worth

)

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

)

RICHARD SANDERS, Deputy, Worth )

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

)

LISA STOCKS, Deputy, Worth County )

Sheriff’s Office, in her individual

)

capacity,

)

)

JOHN SUMNER, Deputy, Worth

)

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

)

TYLER TURNER, Deputy, Worth )

County Sheriff’s Office, in his

)

individual capacity,

)

)

BRANDI WHIDDON, Deputy, Worth )

County Sheriff’s Office, in her

)

individual capacity,

)

)

DEIDRA TUCKER WHIDDON,

)

Deputy, Worth County Sheriff’s Office, )

in her individual capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs K.A., T.S., B.S., A.W., D.J., L.H., and J.E., by and through their next friends and guardians, and S.M. and K.P. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the class alleged herein, state as follows for their complaint:
3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 4 of 44
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from a mass search of around 900 students at Worth County High School at the direction of Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby. 2. Plaintiffs bring this action to redress violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and similar provisions of the Georgia Constitution. 3. Plaintiffs, the putative class representatives, are nine Worth County High School students who, like hundreds of their peers, were subjected to unlawful and intrusive searches of their persons by employees of the Worth County Sheriff’s Office acting at the direction of Sheriff Hobby. 4. Defendants’ mass search of all or nearly all Worth County High School students took place on Friday, April 14, 2017. On that date, Sheriff Hobby and his deputies placed the high school on “lockdown” for four hours. About 40 uniformed officers from five law enforcement agencies arrived on school grounds. Educational programs were interrupted, students were directed to remain in specified areas without any explanation as to what was happening, and students’ cell phones were seized.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 5 of 44
5. Starting at about 8:00 a.m. on April 14, Defendants, under the direct orders and supervision of Sheriff Hobby, and assisted by officers from other agencies,1 conducted a drug sweep, indiscriminately searching all or nearly all students’ persons and clothes, and using police dogs to search their bags, classrooms, lockers, and cars.
6. The Sheriff’s mass search included a hands-on, body search of every or nearly every student in attendance at school that day, including students with disabilities.
7. Defendants’ searches of students were intrusive, performed in an aggressive manner, and done in full view of other students. For example:
a) Deputies ordered students to stand facing the wall with their hands and legs spread wide apart; b) Deputies touched and manipulated students’ breasts and genitals; c) Deputies inserted fingers inside girls’ bras, and pulled up girls’ bras, touching and partially exposing their bare breasts; d) Deputies touched girls’ underwear by placing hands inside the waistbands of their pants or reaching up their dresses;
1 Officers from the Crisp, Dooly, and Turner County sheriff’s offices and the Forsyth Police Department responded to Sheriff Hobby’s request for assistance that day, but are not named as defendants. Upon information and belief, none of the officers from these other agencies participated in searches of students’ bodies.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 6 of 44
e) Deputies touched girls’ vaginal areas through their underwear; f) Deputies cupped or groped boys’ genitals and touched their buttocks through their pants. 8. Defendants had no warrant or other authority to perform a mass search on hundreds of public school children. 9. The purported justification for the mass search was to discover drugs. To that end, Sheriff Hobby had a list of thirteen students on a “target list” that he suspected of possessing drugs. The “target list” included only three students who were in school on April 14. Defendants had no basis for suspecting any other student of involvement in unlawful activity. 10. No illegal controlled substances or drug paraphernalia were discovered during the mass search. 11. Defendants had no right to touch, pat-down, or manipulate the body parts of Plaintiffs or other students. Defendants had no right to search Plaintiffs’ clothes and undergarments. Defendants’ unlawful conduct injured Plaintiffs by causing them fear, embarrassment, stress, and humiliation. 12. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief for members of a class of all students seized and searched by Worth County Sheriff’s Office employees at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on the Sheriff’s target list.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 7 of 44
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the laws and Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, as it seeks to redress civil rights violations. 14. Plaintiffs also bring state-law claims arising out of the same events and occurrences, and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 15. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because at least one Defendant resides in this district and all Defendants reside in this state, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims set forth in this complaint occurred within this district and this division.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
16. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and, at all times relevant to this complaint, were residents of Georgia.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 8 of 44
K.A. 17. Plaintiff K.A. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her mother and next friend, Lisa Adams. Defendant Brandi Whiddon seized K.A. and performed a search of K.A.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that K.A. had engaged in any unlawful activity. T.S. 18. Plaintiff T.S. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her mother and next friend, Gigi Smith. A female deputy seized T.S. and performed a search of T.S.’s person, as further described herein. The deputy performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that T.S. had engaged in any unlawful activity. B.S. 19. Plaintiff B.S. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He brings suit through his mother and next friend, Figen Guillot. Defendant Brannen seized B.S. and performed a search of B.S.’s person, as further described herein. Brannen
8

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 9 of 44
performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that B.S. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
S.M. 20. Plaintiff S.M. is an 18-year-old who was enrolled in the 12th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. Defendant Brandi Whiddon seized S.M. and performed a search of S.M.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that S.M. had engaged in any unlawful activity. A.W. 21. Plaintiff A.W. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her mother and next friend, Rhonda Norris. Defendant Brandi Whiddon seized A.W. and performed a search of A.W.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that A.W. had engaged in any unlawful activity. D.J. 22. Plaintiff D.J. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He brings
9

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 10 of 44
suit through his mother and next friend, Lucetta Jordan. A male deputy seized D.J. and performed a search of D.J.’s person, as further described herein. The deputy performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that D.J. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
K.P. 23. Plaintiff K.P. is an 18-year-old who was enrolled in the 12th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. Defendant Brandi Whiddon seized K.P. and performed a search of K.P.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that K.P. had engaged in any unlawful activity. L.H. 24. Plaintiff L.H. is a 15-year-old student who was enrolled in the 9th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She brings suit through her father and next friend, Joey Haire. Defendant Brandi Whiddon seized L.H. and performed a search of L.H.’s person, as further described herein. Whiddon performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that L.H. had engaged in any unlawful activity. J.E.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 11 of 44
25. Plaintiff J.E. is a 16-year-old student who was enrolled in the 10th grade at Worth County High School during the 2016-2017 school year. He brings suit through his father and next friend, Joelandon Dixon. Defendant Turner seized J.E. and performed a search of J.E.’s person, as further described herein. Turner performed this search even though Defendants had no individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that J.E. had engaged in any unlawful activity.
B. Defendants Jeff Hobby 26. Jeff Hobby is the Sheriff of Worth County, Georgia. He planned, ordered, orchestrated, executed, and directly supervised the conduct of his deputies in carrying out the April 14, 2017, body searches of all or nearly all students at Worth County High School. Hobby was present at the school during the mass search, intended for his deputies to conduct the body searches described herein, instructed his deputies to conduct the body searches described herein in the manner described herein, and personally observed many of the searches as they were being conducted. As such, there is a direct causal connection between Hobby’s actions and the constitutional violations that occurred, and Hobby is liable for his direct actions and as a supervisor of the deputies who carried out these body searches. Moreover, Hobby is liable for failing to intervene in the constitutional violations being perpetrated by his deputies; Hobby was present and in a position to intervene
11

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 12 of 44
to stop the constitutional violations, but he did not do so. Hobby acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. Hobby is sued in his individual capacity. He is a resident of Georgia, and of this district.
David Carmichael 27. David Carmichael is the chief deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. He orchestrated, executed, and directly supervised the conduct of the other deputies in carrying out the April 14, 2017, body searches of all or nearly all students at Worth County High School. Carmichael was present at the school during the mass search, intended for the deputies to conduct the body searches described herein, instructed the deputies to conduct the body searches described herein in the manner described herein, and personally observed many of the searches as they were being conducted. As such, there is a direct causal connection between Carmichael’s actions and the constitutional violations that occurred, and Carmichael is liable for his direct actions and as a supervisor of the deputies who carried out these body searches. Moreover, Carmichael is liable for failing to intervene in the constitutional violations being perpetrated by the deputies; Carmichael was present and in a position to intervene to stop the constitutional violations, but he did not do so. Carmichael acted under color of law
12

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 13 of 44
and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. Carmichael is sued in his individual capacity. He is a resident of Georgia.
Chris Baltenberger 28. Chris Baltenberger is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Baltenberger personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Baltenberger performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Baltenberger is a resident of Georgia. John Brannen 29. John Brannen is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Brannen personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Brannen performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff B.S. and other students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on
13

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 14 of 44
the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Brannen is a resident of Georgia.
Wesley Chambless 30. Wesley Chambless is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Chambless personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Chambless performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Chambless is a resident of Georgia. Anthony Cravey 31. Anthony Cravey is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Cravey personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Cravey performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though
14

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 15 of 44
Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Cravey is a resident of Georgia.
Skyler Duke 32. Skyler Duke is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Duke personally participated in the physical body searches of female students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Duke performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students she searched. She is sued in her individual capacity. Duke is a resident of Georgia. Kevin Ford 33. Kevin Ford is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Ford personally participated in the physical body searches of male students
15

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 16 of 44
at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Ford performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Ford is a resident of Georgia.
Lisa House 34. Lisa House is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. House personally participated in the physical body searches of female students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. House performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students she searched. She is sued in her individual capacity. House is a resident of Georgia. Paul Klein
16

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 17 of 44
35. Paul Klein is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Klein personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Klein performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Klein is a resident of Georgia.
Clay Lawson 36. Clay Lawson is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Lawson personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Lawson performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the
17

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 18 of 44
students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Lawson is a resident of Georgia.
Truitt Odom 37. Truitt Odom is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Odom personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Odom performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Odom is a resident of Georgia. Richard Sanders 38. Richard Sanders is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Sanders personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Sanders performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged
18

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 19 of 44
in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Sanders is a resident of Georgia.
Lisa Stocks 39. Lisa Stocks is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Stocks personally participated in the physical body searches of female students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Stocks performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students she searched. She is sued in her individual capacity. Stocks is a resident of Georgia. John Sumner 40. John Sumner is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Sumner personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Sumner performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. He did so even though
19

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 20 of 44
Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Sumner is a resident of Georgia.
Tyler Turner 41. Tyler Turner is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Turner personally participated in the physical body searches of male students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Turner performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiff J.E. and others. He did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. He acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students he searched. He is sued in his individual capacity. Turner is a resident of Georgia. Brandi Whiddon 42. Brandi Whiddon is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Whiddon personally participated in the physical body searches of female
20

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 21 of 44
students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Whiddon performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on Plaintiffs K.A., S.M., A.W., K.P., L.H., and others. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students she searched. Whiddon is sued in her individual capacity. She is a resident of Georgia.
Deidra Tucker Whiddon 43. Deidra Tucker Whiddon is a deputy employed by the Worth County Sheriff’s Office. Whiddon personally participated in the physical body searches of female students at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. Whiddon performed unlawful and unreasonably intrusive searches on students. She did so even though Defendants had no probable cause, individualized suspicion, or any reason to believe that named Plaintiffs or any other student not on the target list had engaged in any unlawful activity or possessed any unlawful or prohibited items. She acted under color of law and violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the students she searched. She is sued in her individual capacity. Whiddon is a resident of Georgia.
21

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 22 of 44
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 44. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as all students seized and searched by Worth County Sheriff’s Office employees at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on the Sheriff’s target list.2 45. Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) in that:
a) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class consists of nearly all of the students in attendance at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017— approximately 900 students.
b) Every class member’s claim turns on the following question, which is therefore common to the class: whether a law enforcement officer may seize and search a student’s body and personal belongings, for purposes of discovering evidence of criminal activity, without any justification or information about the student other than that he or she is enrolled at a particular school.
2 As further alleged herein, the three students on the Sheriff’s target list in attendance that day were detained and searched in administrative offices at the school, rather than in the hallways or gym with the rest of their classmates.
22

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 23 of 44
c) The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class because each member of the class was searched at the direction of Sheriff Hobby, by one of his deputies, at Worth County High School, on April 14, 2017, for the same purpose, and with the same absence of any individualized suspicion.
d) The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and possess no interests adverse to other class members. The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit organization with extensive experience in civil rights class action litigation, and Horsley Begnaud LLC, a law firm with extensive experience in civil rights and personal injury cases.
e) Plaintiffs meet the requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting individual class members and a class action is superior to any other method of adjudicating this dispute. In this case, where about 900 students were unlawfully searched by Defendants, a class action will permit common questions of law
23

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 24 of 44
and fact to be resolved in one proceeding, and will avoid burdening the court with numerous, separate lawsuits that could result in inconsistent judgments.
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendants Planned a Mass Search of All or Nearly All Students
at Worth County High School. 46. Defendant Hobby maintains a “target list” of people he intends to investigate because he suspects they have committed crimes. In early 2017, Hobby placed thirteen Worth County High School students on the “target list” because he believed they might have brought drugs to the school. 47. In late March 2017, Hobby informed Harley Calhoun, the principal of Worth County High School, that he planned to conduct a search at the school. 48. Hobby did not inform Calhoun that Hobby intended for his deputies to conduct body searches of all or nearly all students in the school. 49. At no time did Calhoun, or any other school administrator, agree to permit Defendants to conduct body searches of each student in the school. 50. The School Resource Officer—a Sylvester Police Department officer assigned to Worth County High School—was attending a training on April 14, 2017, and was unaware of Defendants’ plan to conduct a mass search on that date.
24

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 25 of 44
51. Although Hobby did not share with school administrators that he intended for his deputies to conduct a hands-on, body search of all students, that was his plan.
52. Hobby knew that his deputies would search the bodies of every or nearly every student at Worth County High School, even though Defendants did not have individualized suspicion that any particular student, except possibly the three students on the target list, was involved in any wrongdoing.
53. To ensure that a sufficient number of officers would be present to search the school’s approximately 900 students, Hobby ordered all of his deputies to report for work on the morning of the search.
54. Hobby personally ordered Defendants Baltenberger, Brannen, Chambless, Cravey, Duke, Ford, House, Klein, Lawson, Odom, Sanders, Stocks, Sumner, Turner, Brandi Whiddon, and Deidra Whiddon, to search every or nearly every student at the school and personally instructed classrooms full of students to line up in hallways and in the gym to be searched. Hobby knew that the searches were being performed without individualized suspicion and in the manner and with the level of intrusiveness described in this complaint, personally observed many of them, and failed to intervene to stop them.
55. Defendant Carmichael personally supervised the deputies as they conducted searches of every or nearly every student at the school. Carmichael
25

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 26 of 44
knew that the searches were being performed without individualized suspicion and in the manner and with the level of intrusiveness described in this complaint, personally observed many of them, and failed to intervene to stop them.
B. Defendants Lacked Justification for the Body Searches of 900 Students.
56. Upon arriving at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, Hobby gave Principal Calhoun a written list of the names of thirteen students on his “target list.” Hobby ordered that the students on the target list be brought to administrative offices and isolated there for the duration of his search.
57. Per Hobby’s order, the three students in attendance that day whose names appeared on the target list were brought to school administrative offices where they were held until the search concluded.
58. Defendants had no reason to believe that any student in school that day (with the possible exception of the three students on the target list) had any illegal substance or engaged in any unlawful activity.
59. Neither Calhoun nor any other school administrator had individualized suspicion or any reason to believe that any student in school that day (with the possible exception of the three students on the target list) had any illegal substance or engaged in any unlawful activity.
60. With respect to Plaintiffs who were subject to searches of their bras or underwear, Defendants had no reasonable suspicion of danger and no reason to
26

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 27 of 44
believe that any student was hiding any controlled substance or other prohibited item in his or her undergarments.
61. At the request of Hobby, a school official made an announcement over the intercom shortly after school began on the morning of April 14, 2017, indicating that the school was being placed on lockdown. This was the first time that teachers learned that law enforcement activity of any kind would be occurring at the school that day.
62. Following the announcement regarding the lockdown, Plaintiffs were confined either to their first-period classrooms, to the hallways immediately outside their classrooms, or to the gym. Plaintiffs’ cell phones were seized so that they could not reach their parents. Plaintiffs were prevented from contacting their parents during the entire duration of the search—from approximately 8:00 a.m. until approximately 12:00 p.m.
63. During the lockdown and mass search, Defendants restricted students’ access to restrooms. Some students were not permitted to go to the restroom for the entire four-hour lockdown period.
64. The deputies conducting the searches—including searches that involved the touching of or reaching inside Plaintiffs’ undergarments—sometimes did not wear gloves or did not change their gloves between searches.
27

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 28 of 44
65. Despite searching approximately 900 students, Defendants did not discover any illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia.
C. Defendants’ Body Searches of Plaintiffs Were Unreasonable, Aggressive, and Invasive.
K.A. 66. K.A., age 16, was in her first period literature class when Defendants began their mass search. Sheriff Hobby entered K.A.’s classroom and ordered the students to line up in the hallway with their hands on the wall. Deputy Brandi Whiddon took one of K.A.’s arms, placed it higher up on the wall, and kicked her legs to open them wider. Whiddon pulled the front of K.A.’s bra away from her body by the underwire and flipped it up. Whiddon also looked down the back and front of K.A.’s dress. Whiddon slid her hands from one of K.A.’s ankles up to her pelvic area. Whiddon’s hands went underneath K.A.’s dress as Whiddon felt up K.A.’s leg. Whiddon’s hands stopped on and cupped K.A.’s vaginal area and buttocks. Whiddon then slid her hands down to the other ankle. Whiddon was wearing gloves, but did not change them before or after her search of K.A. T.S. 67. T.S., age 16, was in her first period art class when Defendants began their mass search. When her class was called into the hallway, Worth County law enforcement officials told T.S. and the other students in her class to place their hands on the wall and spread their legs apart. A female deputy nudged T.S.’s legs
28

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 29 of 44
further apart, and began patting T.S.’s thighs. The deputy asked if T.S. had any pockets; T.S. said no. The deputy then slid her hands down T.S.’s legs, over her skirt. The deputy then squeezed T.S.’s breasts through her shirt, and patted the pockets of T.S.’s jean jacket. The deputy asked T.S. to lift the front of her shirt, and T.S. complied, lifting her shirt high enough to expose her stomach and navel. The deputy also required T.S. to take off her shoes and lift her feet so that the deputy could see their soles.
B.S. 68. B.S., age 15, was in his literature composition class when Defendants began their mass search. When B.S.’s class was called into the hallway, B.S. saw Sheriff Hobby standing amongst his deputies. Before Defendant Brannen began to search B.S., he asked whether B.S. had anything that might cut or injure him; B.S. said no. Brannen started at B.S.’s torso and worked his way down. He patted B.S.’s shoulders and chest and abdomen with his open palms. Brannen spent three to five seconds repeatedly grabbing with the tips of his fingers at the front of B.S.’s pants, moving his fingers back and forth from B.S.’s front pockets to his groin. He continued doing so until B.S. informed him that one of his pockets contained a set of earbuds and that the other one was empty. During this time, Brannen’s fingertips touched B.S.’s penis and testicles, over his clothes, four to five times.
29

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 30 of 44
Next, Brannen pinched B.S.’s buttocks repeatedly through B.S.’s back pockets. Finally, Brannen pushed with his fingers on the top of B.S.’s shoes.
S.M. 69. S.M., age 18, arrived at the high school after Defendants had started their mass search. S.M. participates in an early childhood education internship and had been on an internship assignment with other students at a nearby primary school. When S.M. arrived at the high school, she encountered three law enforcement officers with dogs in the parking lot. The officers ordered S.M. to exit the car and leave her possessions inside. S.M. was directed to the gym, which was full of other students. After S.M. waited in the gym for some time, Deputy Brandi Whiddon began to search S.M. Whiddon instructed S.M. to spread her legs and place her hands, also spread, on the wall. Whiddon patted down each of S.M.’s legs, and rubbed her hand up the inside of each leg and over her groin. Whiddon asked S.M. what she had in her back pockets. S.M. replied that she had some dollar bills and chap stick. Whiddon placed her hands in the back pockets of S.M.’s jeans. Whiddon then inserted the fingers on both of her hands four inches down into the waistband of S.M.’s pants and moved them around from front to back. Next, Whiddon rubbed her hands over S.M.’s bare stomach. Whiddon inserted her fingertips under the band of S.M.’s bra in her armpits and shook S.M. forcefully for three to five seconds. Finally, Whiddon ran her hands down S.M.’s
30

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 31 of 44
bare arms, and directed S.M. to remove her sandals. Whiddon was not wearing gloves during her search of S.M. Sheriff Hobby was present at the time Whiddon searched S.M.
A.W. 70. A.W., age 15, was in her world history class when Defendants started their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, A.W. and her classmates were ordered to line up with their hands against the wall and their legs spread. A.W. was wearing a sleeveless dress and cover-up over her arms. Deputy Brandi Whiddon asked A.W. if she had pockets; although A.W. said no, Whiddon searched for pockets anyway. At Whiddon’s direction, A.W. turned to face Whiddon, and Whiddon reached her hands around A.W.’s midsection, between her cover-up and her dress, around to her back. A.W. then turned back to the wall, and Whiddon touched her knees to spread them further apart. On one leg and then the other, Whiddon moved both her hands from A.W.’s knees up to her thighs, within one inch of her vaginal area. Whiddon then reached her hand over A.W.’s shoulder and into the front of A.W.’s dress, and moved her hand left and right between her breasts. Whiddon placed her fingertips under the underwire of A.W.’s bra and touched her breasts. D.J.
31

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 32 of 44
71. D.J., age 16, was in his social studies class when Defendants started their mass search. When his class was called out into the hallway, D.J. and his classmates were lined up against the wall, and told to “stay still” and “face forward,” with their hands on the wall and their legs spread. At some point, a deputy asked D.J. whether he had already been searched; D.J. answered in the negative. A male deputy then conducted a search of D.J.’s body. The deputy rubbed the palms of his hands over D.J.’s lower and upper arms, shoulders, chest, back, and abdomen. Next, he placed a hand inside one of the front pockets of D.J.’s pants, which contained pencils. The deputy then spent over ten seconds using his fingers to cup and grope D.J.’s penis and testicles through his pants. After D.J. reacted by shifting his position, the deputy sped up the remainder of the search, rubbing the palms of his hands down the insides and outsides of both of D.J.’s legs. Finally, the deputy removed D.J.’s shoes and checked inside them, and ran his hands across the bottoms of D.J.’s socks.
K.P. 72. K.P., age 18, was in her economics class when Defendants started their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, K.P. was told to stand with her hands on the wall and her legs spread. She was standing with her legs about shoulder-width apart, but Deputy Brandi Whiddon kicked them further apart. Whiddon told K.P. not to look back at her. Whiddon unzipped K.P.’s jacket
32

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 33 of 44
and asked K.P. whether it had pockets. Despite K.P.’s statement that it did not have pockets, Whiddon reached inside to feel for pockets. K.P. took the jacket off. Then, Whiddon rubbed her hands from K.P.’s waist up to her breasts and squeezed her breasts five times through her shirt. Whiddon moved the front center of K.P.’s bra left and right, and then lifted the underwire of her bra so that it was sitting above her bare breasts. Whiddon then groped her breasts twice through her shirt. Next, Whiddon put her hands into K.P.’s jeans pockets, at an angle towards her groin area. Through the pockets, Whiddon’s fingertips went under K.P.’s underwear and touched her vaginal area. Whiddon also patted down K.P.’s legs, from high on her thighs down to her ankles. Finally, Whiddon told K.P. to take off her shoes; she looked inside them and then threw them back at K.P. K.P. had to pull her bra down herself at the end of the search.
L.H. 73. L.H., age 15, was in her algebra class when Defendants started their mass search. When her class was called out into the hallway, L.H. and her classmates were ordered to put their hands on the wall, spread their legs apart, and remain quiet. At the time Deputy Brandi Whiddon searched L.H., L.H. was standing next to a male classmate. Whiddon first patted L.H.’s chest. Then, she moved to L.H.’s legs, and patted down both of them simultaneously, with one hand on each, from the tops of her thighs to her ankles. Whiddon took L.H.’s shoes off
33

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 34 of 44
and banged them together, and patted L.H.’s feet. Then, Whiddon returned to L.H.’s upper body. She reached up under L.H.’s shirt, lifted her bra, and touched her bare breasts, including her nipples. Whiddon also shook L.H.’s bra. Next, Whiddon inserted her fingers about two inches into the waistband of L.H.’s jeans, between her jeans and her underwear, and moved her fingers across the front of her abdomen. Finally, Whiddon told L.H. that she could put her shoes on and turn around. Whiddon was wearing gloves, but did not change them before or after her search of L.H.
J.E. 74. J.E., age 16, was in his agriculture class when Defendants started their mass search. When his class was called into the hallway, J.E. and his classmates were told to take off their shoes and stand with their hands on the wall. Deputy Turner asked J.E. if he had anything in his pockets that could poke him; J.E. replied that he had headphones, bubble gum, and a tube of chap stick. Turner took the chap stick, applied some to his glove, and smelled the substance. Turner then put his hands in J.E.’s back pockets. Next, Turner twice rubbed his hands up and down J.E.’s chest, and inserted his hands between the buttons on his collared shirt, but over his undershirt, to rub J.E.’s underarms. Turning to J.E.’s lower body, Turner used both hands to rub down each of J.E.’s legs, starting at his thighs and ending at his ankles. Then, Turner reached between J.E.’s legs, cupped his
34

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 35 of 44
testicles, and squeezed them twice; he also touched J.E.’s penis through his pants.
Turner next touched J.E.’s buttocks though his pants, and squeezed them twice.
D. Defendants’ Unlawful Mass Search Injured Plaintiffs.
75. Defendants’ actions harmed the Plaintiffs by causing them injury
including anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation.
76. Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiffs to experience fear, shame, and
emotional distress.
77. Defendants’ actions harmed the Plaintiffs by damaging their ability to
trust law enforcement officers and persons in positions of authority in general.
E. Defendants Violated Clearly Established Law.
78. It is clearly established that law enforcement officers violate the
Constitution when, at their own instigation, in an effort to obtain evidence of
illegal drug possession, they seize and search the body of any person (including a student) without probable cause.3
3 See State v. Young, 216 S.E.2d 586, 591-92 (Ga. 1975) (explaining that while attenuated Fourth Amendment protections apply to searches conducted by “public school officials,” “entirely without the participation of law enforcement officers,” “law enforcement officers, of course, are bound by the full panoply of Fourth Amendment rights” when searching students); see also State v. K.L.M., 628 S.E.2d 651, 652-53 (Ga. App. 2006) (requiring probable cause for the in-school search of a student by a law enforcement officer even though the search was directed by the principal “[b]ecause [the officer] was a law enforcement officer who participated in the search”); Patman v. State, 244 S.E.2d 118, 120 (Ga. App. 2000) (“Unlike a school official, a police officer must have probable cause to search a suspect.”), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Kazmierczak, 771 S.E.2d 473, 476-77
35

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 36 of 44
79. It is clearly established that probable cause requires individualized
suspicion, and that mere attendance at a large school at which a few students are
suspected of possessing drugs is not sufficient to establish probable cause or
otherwise render reasonable the seizure and search of the body of a student, by and
at the instigation of law enforcement officers, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of illegal drug possession.4
80. Defendants had not obtained warrants to arrest or to search Plaintiffs.
81. Plaintiffs did not consent to being seized or searched.
82. None of the searches, including the searches of Plaintiffs, occurred
incident to lawful arrests.
83. There existed no exigent circumstances to justify the searches of
Plaintiffs.
(Ga. App. 2015). Cf. Stephens v. DeGiovanni, 852 F.3d 1298, 1316 n.14 (11th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that “law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes” by decisions of “the highest court of the state where the case arose” (quoting Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002))). 4 See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979) (“[A] person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person.” (citation omitted)); see also Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 988, 997 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Probable cause to arrest one suspect, and even probable cause to believe that a number of other or unidentified people had sold drugs in the establishment in the past, did not give the officers carte blanche to seize everyone who happened to be in the Club when the two raids took place.”).
36

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 37 of 44
84. Even if Defendants had seized and searched the bodies of Plaintiffs at
the behest of school administrators and for purposes of maintaining an educational
environment, they would still have violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established
constitutional rights by conducting mass, physically intrusive searches without any
individualized suspicion.5
85. Defendants had fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional
because a mass search of nearly 900 public school children by law enforcement
officers without any individualized suspicion clearly and obviously violates the
Constitution. Gray ex. Rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295, 1306-07 (11th Cir.
2006) (discussing “obvious clarity” cases in the school seizure context).
86. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the seizures and searches
of Plaintiffs were plainly unreasonable. The conduct of Defendants lies so
5 See Safford United Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 374-77 (2009) (establishing that “specific justifications” are required for an intrusive search of a student by school officials—not generalities, but rather reasonable suspicion that the particular drugs the particular student is believed to be carrying pose a danger, or reasonable suspicion that the student is at that time hiding those drugs near her private parts); see also Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 624 (1989) (explaining that only in “limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important government interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, [may] a search . . . be conducted despite the absence of such suspicion”); Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160, 1169 (11th Cir. 2001) (concluding that an intrusive, mass search of students by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment because the searches were conducted without individualized suspicion), vacated, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), reinstated, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003).
37

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 38 of 44
“obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was [or should have been] readily apparent . . . .” Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997).
F. Defendants Are Liable for Searches They Conducted, As Well As Those They Ordered or Supervised. 87. Defendants are liable for searches that they personally conducted. 88. Defendants are also liable for searches that they personally ordered or supervised. See Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the causal connection required for supervisory liability under § 1983 exists when “the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Violation of Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. XIII of the Georgia Constitution
(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 89. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully stated herein.
38

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 39 of 44
90. Without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal authority, Defendants detained Plaintiffs and other Worth County High School students; impeded their liberty by requiring them to remain in particular locations in the school for four hours; and subjected Plaintiffs to intrusive, hands-on, physical searches of their bodies.
91. Defendants’ mass search and seizure was not justified at its inception. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the searches and seizures described herein even though they had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs had engaged in any unlawful activity. Defendants had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the searches of Plaintiffs would turn up evidence that any student not on the target list had violated the law.
92. Defendants’ searches of Plaintiffs were not reasonably related to the circumstances that purportedly justified the searches. Defendants’ searches were unreasonably intrusive and conducted in an otherwise unreasonable manner.
93. Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the federal and state constitutions and no reasonable officer could have believed that subjecting Plaintiffs to these searches and seizures was legal in the absence of individualized suspicion or probable cause.
94. In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance
39

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 40 of 44
of their official functions. Defendants knew that requiring Plaintiffs to submit to the searches described herein violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
95. Hobby and Carmichael were confronted with and personally witnessed the deputies’ illegal acts, possessed the power to prevent them, and chose not to act.
96. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, and the harm Plaintiffs suffered as a result, because each Defendant personally participated in the actions described herein, expressly ordered or directed, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly condoned or failed to remedy the wrongs at issue.
97. Defendants’ above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights and should be punished or deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damages against Defendants as permitted by law.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Violation of Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I of the Georgia Constitution
(by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
40

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 41 of 44
98. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully stated herein.
99. Without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal authority, Defendants detained Plaintiffs and other Worth County High School students for several hours and subjected Plaintiffs and other students to intrusive, hands-on, physical searches of their bodies by law enforcement officers.
100. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the mass searches described herein even though they had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs had engaged in any unlawful activity.
101. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the body searches described herein without the authorization or cooperation of school administrators.
102. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to body searches that violated Plaintiffs’ right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Ga. Const. art. I, Sec. I, Para. I.
103. Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the federal and state constitutions and no reasonable officer could have believed that requiring Plaintiffs to submit to these searches was legal.
104. In each and every instance set forth above, Defendants acted intentionally, with malice, and with actual intent to cause injury in the performance
41

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 42 of 44
of their official functions. Defendants knew that subjecting Plaintiffs and other students to the searches described herein violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
105. Hobby and Carmichael were confronted with and personally witnessed the deputies’ illegal acts, possessed the power to prevent them, and chose not to act.
106. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, and the harm they suffered as a result, because each Defendant personally participated in the actions described herein, expressly ordered or directed, or implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly condoned or failed to remedy the wrongs at issue.
107. Defendants’ above-described actions were willful, deliberate, and malicious, and involved reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights and should be punished or deterred by an award of punitive or enhanced damages against Defendants as permitted by law.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs accordingly pray for the following relief: a) Certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23; b) Compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by the jury;
42

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 43 of 44
c) Punitive damages according to federal and state law;
d) A declaratory judgment stating that a law enforcement officer violates
a student’s rights under the United States and Georgia Constitutions
when he conducts a search of the student’s body absent voluntary
consent or individualized suspicion that the student has violated the
law;
e) Reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of litigation pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws.
f) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED: This 20th day of June, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Aaron Littman Sarah Geraghty Ga. Bar No. 291393 Gerald Weber Ga. Bar No. 744878 Crystal Redd Ga. Bar No. 969002 Aaron Littman Ga. Bar No. 843053 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440 (fax) sgeraghty@schr.org
43

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 44 of 44
/s/ Mark Begnaud Mark Begnaud Ga. Bar No. 217641 Nathanael Horsley Ga. Bar No. 367832 HORSLEY BEGNAUD LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 12, Suite 300 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 (770) 765-5559 (404) 602-0018 (fax) mbegnaud@gacivilrights.com Counsel for Plaintiffs
44

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION

K.A., a minor, by and through her next

:

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: CASE NO.: 1:17-CV-99-LJA

:

JEFF HOBBY,

:

Sheriff of Worth County, Georgia, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________ :

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Class, filed December 4, 2017. (Doc. 40.) The parties request that the Court: (1) certify a class for settlement purposes, (2) appoint class counsel, (3) preliminarily approve the proposed Settlement, and (4) direct that notice shall be issued to the class. (Id.) The terms of the Settlement are set out in the Settlement Agreement submitted to the Court on December 4, 2017, which counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants both signed. (See Doc. 40-2.) Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall have the meaning as ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. The Court having considered the Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Class (Doc. 40), the attached Settlement Agreement (Doc. 40-2), and the parties’ Proposed Order (Doc. 40-10) to determine, among other things, whether the Settlement is sufficient to warrant the issuance of notice to members of the proposed Settlement Class, it is hereby ORDERED that: Jurisdiction: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all Parties in this Action, including all members of the Settlement Class.

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 7
Class Findings: The Court PRELIMINARILY finds, for purposes of the Settlement, that requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law have been met as to the Settlement Class, in that:
(a) The Members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be impracticable;
(b) Based on allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court preliminarily finds that there are one or more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class;
(c) Based on allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court preliminarily finds that the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class;
(d) Based on allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court preliminarily finds that Plaintiffs, K.A., T.S., B.S., A.W., D.J., L.H., and J.E., will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class in that: (i) the i nterests of t h e Plaintiffs and the nature of their alleged claims are consistent with those of the Members of the Settlement Class; (i i) there are no significant conflicts between or among t h e Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class; and (iii) Plaintiffs are represented by qualified, reputable counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting large, complex class actions of this type; and
(e) Based on allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court preliminarily finds that the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Settlement Class would create a risk of: (i) inconsistent or varying adjudications as to individual class members and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the claims asserted in the Action ; and/or (i i) adjudications as to individual class members that would, as a practical matter, be
2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 7

d ispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede those persons’ ability to protect their i nterests. Class Certification: Based on the findings set out above, the Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) in this litigation (hereinafter the “Settlement Class”): All students seized and searched by employees of the Worth County Sheriff at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby’s “target list.”1 The Court finds that the Settlement Class is sufficiently well-defined and cohesive to warrant certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1). Preliminary Approval of Settlement: The Settlement Agreement is hereby PRELIMINARILY APPROVED, as the Court preliminarily finds that: (a) the proposed Settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations; (b) the Settlement Agreement was executed only after Class Counsel had researched and investigated multiple legal and factual issues pertaining to Plaintiffs’ claims; (c) the Settlement appears on its face to be fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (e) the Settlement evidenced by the Settlement Agreement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant sending notice of the Action and the Settlement to the Settlement Class. Class Counsel: As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court has considered: (i) the work Class Counsel has done in identifying or i nvestigating potential claims in this Action; (ii) Class Counsel’ s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in this Action; (i ii) C lass Counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law and, in particular, its knowledge of class actions and litigating claims the types of claims asserted in this action as it applies

1

Sheriff Hobby had a list of thirteen students on a “target list” that he suspected of possessing drugs.

(Doc. 1 ¶¶ 9, 34.) The target list included only three students who were in school on April 14. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 9, 43-

45.) As alleged in the Complaint (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 9, 43-45), the three students on the Sheriff’s target list in attendance

that day were detained and searched in administrative offices at the school, rather than in the hallways or gym

with the rest of their classmates.

3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 7
to claims of the type asserted in this Action; and (iv) the resources Class Counsel has committed to representing the Class. Based on these factors, the Court finds that Class Counsel has and will continue to represent fairly and adequately the i nterests of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2) the Court preliminarily designates the Southern Center for Human Rights (“Southern Center”) and Southern Center Attorneys Crystal Redd, Sarah Geraghty, Gerald Weber, Aaron Littman, and Horsley Begnaud attorneys Mark Begnaud and Nathanael Horsley co-lead class counsel ("Class Counsel") with respect to the Settlement Class in this Action.
Class Representatives: As indicated above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, K.A., T.S., B.S., A.W., D.J., L.H., and J.E., are adequate and typical class representatives for the Settlement Class and therefore, hereby appoints Plaintiffs, by and through their next friends and guardians, and S.M. and K.P, as the representatives of the Settlement Class.
As the Court has determined preliminarily that this Action may proceed under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1), members of the Settlement Class shall be bound by any judgment concerning the Settlement in this Action, subject to the Court’s final determination as to whether this Action may so proceed.
Class Notice: The parties have presented to the Court a proposed Class Notice which is appended to the Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Settlement Class (Doc. 40) in the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 40-2) and also especially enumerated in the parties’ Proposed Order. (Doc. 40-10.) The Court APPROVES the form and content of the Class Notice pending the addition of the following language:
“You are not required to be represented by Plaintiffs’ attorneys to opt-in to the lawsuit. You may retain the attorney of your choice to represent you.” The Court finds that, with such language above-mentioned, the Class Notice fairly and adequately: (1) describes the terms and effect of the Settlement Agreement; (2) describes the class claims, issues, or defenses; (3) states that a class member may enter an appearance
4

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 7
through an attorney if the member so desires; (4) states that the Court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (5) states the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (6) states the binding effect of a class judgment on members.
The parties have proposed communicating the Class Notice to members of the Settlement Class via U.S. mail, and the Court finds that such proposed manner is adequate. The Court directs that Defendants shall, by no later than two (2) weeks from the date of this Order, cause the Class Notice agreed upon by the parties, to be disseminated pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to the last known address of each member of the Settlement Class who can be identified by reasonable effort, and of whose addresses are contained in the records maintained by the Worth County School Board shown on the spreadsheet attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C.
At or before the Final Fairness Hearing, Defendants shall file with the Court proof of timely compliance with the foregoing mailing requirements.
Final Fairness Hearing: A hearing (the “Final Fairness Hearing”) pursuant to Rule 23(e) is hereby SCHEDULED to be held before the Court on July 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the C.B. King United States Courthouse, 201 West broad Avenue, Albany, Georgia, 31701 to determine finally, among other things:
(a) Whether the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) Whether the Settlement Class satisfies the requirement of Rule 23, and should be finally
certified as preliminarily found by the Court; (c) Whether the notice and notice methodology and procedures proposed by the parties
in notifying Class Members and implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (i) were reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise members of the Settlement Class of the pendency of the litigation, and their right to opt out of the Settlement; (ii) were reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice; and (iii) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other applicable law;
5

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 7
(d) Whether Class Counsel adequately represents the Settlement Class for purpose of entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement as required by Rule 23(g) and as preliminarily found by the Court;
(e) Whether the Settlement has been negotiated at arm’s length by Class Counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class, whether the Plaintiffs have acted independently, and whether the Plaintiffs’ interests are identical to the interests of the Settlement Class; and
(f) Any other issues necessary for approval of the Settlement Agreement. Compliance with O.C.G.A. § 29-3-3: The Court specifically PRELIMINARILY
determines that this Settlement is in the best interests of each minor who is a member of the class; that this Settlement is consistent with the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 29-3-3; and that this Settlement is final and binding upon all parties, including minors.
Termination of Settlement Agreement: If the Settlement is terminated in accordance with the Settlement Agreement or does not become Final under the terms of the Settlement Agreement for any other reason, this Order and all Class Findings shall become null and void, and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions prior to the entry of the order granting Joint Motion to Stay All Proceedings, entered November 21, 2017. (Doc. 38).
Further, if the Agreement is not approved by the Court, or if the Agreement is not otherwise consummated, for whatever reason, Plaintiffs shall have 14 days to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), and, if a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is filed within that 14-day period, it shall be deemed to have been filed in a timely manner. In addition, the parties agree that Defendants will not argue to the Court, prior to the expiration of that 14-day period, that Plaintiffs’ lack of response to the Motion to Dismiss amounts to abandonment, concession, estoppel, or any similar concept whereby Plaintiffs would be precluded from responding to the motion.
Use of Order: The Agreement and any and all negotiations, documents, and discussions associated with the Agreement, shall not be deemed an admission or evidence of
6

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 48 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 7
any violation of law, the amount of any damages owed to any class member, the value of attorney services provided to the Plaintiffs or Class Members, or any other matter.
Continuance of Hearing: The Court reserves the right to continue the Final Fairness Hearing without further written notice.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS the following Deadlines: A. The parties shall provide notice to the Class within two weeks of this Order, and no
later than April 6, 2018;
B. Each potential class member must submit a Response Form or Opt-Out Form to Plaintiffs’ attorneys within 100 days of this Order, and no later than July 2, 2018; and
C. The Court shall hold a Final Fairness Hearing at the C. B. King United States Courthouse, 201 West Broad Avenue, Albany, Georgia 31701 on July 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2018. /s/ Leslie J. Abrams LESLIE J. ABRAMS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ALBANY DIVISION

________________________________

)

K.A., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams, et al., )

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

individually and as representatives )

1:17-cv-00099-LJA

of a proposed class,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth

)

County, Georgia, in his individual

)

capacity, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Named Plaintiffs K.A., T.S., B.S., A.W., D.J., L.H., and J.E., by and through

their next friends and guardians, and S.M. and K.P. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and

Defendants Jeff Hobby, David Carmichael, Chris Baltenberger, John Brannen,

Wesley Chambless, Anthony Cravey, Skyler Duke, Kevin Ford, Lisa House, Paul

Klein, Clay Lawson, Truitt Odom, Richard Sanders, Lisa Stocks, John Sumner,

Tyler Turner, Brandi Whiddon, and Deidra Tucker Whiddon (collectively,

“Defendants”), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties,” hereby agree

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 20
to settle and resolve all of the issues raised in the complaint filed in the abovestyled action, including any claims that were asserted, or could have been asserted, as a result of the searches conducted at the Worth County High School on April 14, 2017 by or at the behest of Defendants, upon the following terms: 1. Class Certification. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Parties will ask the Court to certify a class (the “Class”) that consists of all students seized and searched by employees of the Worth County Sheriff at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, other than those identified on Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby’s “target list”. 1 At the same time as they ask the Court to certify the Class, the Parties will also ask the Court for preliminary approval of the terms of this settlement agreement (the “Agreement”). Assuming the Court preliminarily approves the Agreement, the Parties shall proceed in accordance with the following paragraphs.
1 Sheriff Hobby had a list of thirteen students on a “target list” that he suspected of possessing drugs. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 9, 34.) The target list included only three students who were in school on April 14. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 9, 43-45.) As alleged in the Complaint (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 9, 43-45), the three students on the Sheriff’s target list in attendance that day were detained and searched in administrative offices at the school, rather than in the hallways or gym with the rest of their classmates.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 20
2. Notice. Following the certification of the Class and preliminary approval of the Agreement, Defendants will attempt to notify the members of the Class of the terms of the Agreement in the following manner: a. Defendants will publish the advertisement (the “Advertisement”) attached as Exhibit D in the Sylvester Local News once a week for two weeks to begin within 30 days following the certification of the Class and preliminary approval of the Agreement. b. Within two weeks of certification of the Class and preliminary approval of the Agreement, Defendants, using Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ address as the return address, will mail the notices attached as Appendices A and B (the “Notice” or “Notices”) by U.S. Mail, First Class to the individuals identified by the Worth County Board of Education as students who were enrolled at Worth County High School on April 14, 2017, with the following understanding: (1) In reviewing the attendance records provided by the Worth County School District, attorneys for the Class have made a determination of students presumed to be present and
3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 20
searched on April 14, 2017, and students presumed to be absent and not searched on April 14, 2017. The total list of enrolled students, divided into two categories (Category 1Presumed Present and Category 2-Presumed Absent), is filed contemporaneously herewith as Exhibit C under seal, along with the school attendance records, filed contemporaneously herewith as Exhibit B under seal. (2) Different Notices will be mailed to the students on the Category 1-Presumed Present and Category 2-Presumed Absent lists. The Notices will inform the students whether the school records indicate that the student was present or absent, and allow for the student to correct that understanding if it is incorrect. (3) The Notices will be mailed to the most recent address included in the file maintained by Worth County Board of Education, which are shown on the spreadsheet attached as Exhibit C, unless, prior to the date on which the Notices
4

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 20
are mailed, a student has communicated to the attorneys representing the Class that the student has a new address, in which case the Notice will be sent to the new address. (4) If the Notice that is originally mailed is returned to the attorneys representing the Class with a forwarding address, the attorneys representing the Class will mail a second Notice to the forwarding address. (5) If a Notice is returned as undeliverable, the attorneys for the Class will have an opportunity to identify a current address for each such student. If the attorneys for the Class identify a more current address, they shall mail another Notice to that address within five days of receipt of that address. 3. Response. Each Notice mailed in accordance with paragraph 2, above, will be accompanied by a copy of the response form (the “Response Form”) that is attached as Exhibit B. In addition, copies of the Response Form will be available at the Main Office at the Worth County High School. Furthermore,
5

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 6 of 20
the attorneys for the Class and Defendants will deliver a copy of the Response Form by mail or electronic mail to any individual who requests such. a. The Notices and Response Forms will indicate that the Response
Forms must be returned to the attorneys for the Class within 100 days of the date the Court grants preliminary approval. That date will hereinafter be referred to as the “Response Form Deadline.” b. Following the Response Form Deadline, Attorneys for Defendants will provide all received Response Forms to attorneys for the Class. 4. Categorization of Class Members. The Response forms have a series of questions designed to determine whether the student’s search was “Highly Invasive” or “Minimally Invasive.” The Parties are also filing under seal contemporaneously herewith the methodology used to categorize a response as either Highly Invasive or Minimally Invasive as Exhibit F. After the Response Form Deadline, attorneys for the Class will classify the students in accordance with the following procedures: a. The student is on the Category 1-Presumed Present list, the student returns a Response Form before the Response Form Deadline, and the
6

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 7 of 20
student’s answers to the questions on the Response Form indicate that the student’s search was Highly Invasive (“Highly Invasive”). b. The student is on the Category 1-Presumed Present list, the student returns a Response Form before the Response Form Deadline, and the student’s answers to the questions on the Response Form indicate that the student’s search was Minimally Invasive (“Minimally Invasive”). c. The student is on the Category 1-Presumed Present list and the student does not return a Response Form before the Response Form Deadline (“Presumed Present/No Response”). d. The student (i) is on the Category 2-Presumed Absent list and does not return a Response Form before the Response Form Deadline, (ii) the student is on the Category 2-Presumed Absent list and returns a Response Form confirming that the student was absent and/or not searched, or (iii) the student is on the Category 1-Presumed Present list and returns a form indicating that the student was absent, or was present but was not searched (“Absent/Not Searched”). Any student in this category does not qualify as a member of the Class.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 8 of 20
e. The student is on the Category 2-Presumed Absent list and returns a Response Form before the Response Form Deadline indicating that the student was present and searched (“Presumed Absent/Claimed Search”).
f. The student indicates his or her intention to opt out of the Class (“OptOut”).
5. Magistrate Determination. Each student categorized as Presumed Absent/Claimed Search will be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Georgia or, if the Magistrate Judge is not available to perform that function, some other person who may be agreed to by the parties, or in the manner directed by the Court. That Magistrate Judge or arbiter will determine the categorization of the student. Any party that deems it necessary shall have the opportunity to conduct discovery with regard to whether a person is a member of the Class.
6. Opt-Out Effect. The individuals who opt out of the Class will not be precluded from asserting any claim or lawsuit against Defendants. However, the individuals who opt out of the Class will not be entitled to any of the compensation due to members of the Class pursuant to paragraph 8 below.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 9 of 20
7. Compensation for Class and Preclusion of Claims. Each individual who satisfies the criteria for Class membership, and who does not opt out of the Class, will be entitled to the compensation described in paragraph 8 below. Each member of the Class will be precluded from asserting any further claim or lawsuit against Defendants and their respective agents, officers, deputies, employees, officials, personal representatives and successors.
8. Class Member Distribution Schedule. Assuming final approval, payments to the Class Members will proceed as follows: a. The average per-Class-Member payment will be $2,655.00, with a minimum per-student distribution of $1,000 and a maximum perstudent distribution of $6,000. The total amount under this subsection (i.e. $2,655.00 x the total number of Class Members) will be referred to as the “Total Class Distribution.” b. The students categorized as Presumed Present/No Response will receive $1,000. c. The students categorized as Highly Invasive will receive three times the amount received by the students categorized as Minimally
9

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 10 of 20
Invasive.2 If, however, this formula results in a distribution to the
students in the Highly Invasive category over $6,000 per student, then
each student in the Highly Invasive category will receive $6,000 and
the remaining funds will be distributed pro rata to the students categorized as Minimally Invasive.3
9. Preliminary Approval. At the same time the Parties ask the Court to
certify the Class, as contemplated by paragraph 1 above, the Parties will ask
the Court to: (a) give preliminary approval to the Agreement; (b) direct that
the Class members be notified in accordance with the terms of the
2 By way of example, if there are 846 enrolled students (which is believed to be the enrollment figure), 810 students were present and searched (which is believed to be the present presumptive figure), no students opt out, making the class 810 members, then Defendants will make a total payment of $2,150,550 (810 x $2,655). Assuming further that 150 students fall in the Highly Invasive category, 600 students fall in the Minimally Invasive category, and 60 students fall into the Presumed Present/No Response category, then the distributions will be as follows: Highly Invasive $5,973.00 each: Minimally Invasive $1,991.00 each; Presumed Present/No Response $1,000.00 each. 3 If, for example, there are 810 students in the class and 150 in the Highly Invasive category, then the total payout will be $2,150,550 (810 x $2,655). Assuming further that 150 are Highly Invasive, 400 are Minimally Invasive, and 260 fall into the Presumed Present/No Response category, then the distributions will be as follows: Highly Invasive $6,000.00 each: Minimally Invasive $2,476 each; Presumed Present/No Response $1,000.00 each.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 11 of 20
Agreement; and (c) schedule a fairness hearing in accordance with Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Attorneys’ Fees. Defendants will pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of $450,000. However, should more than 140 students opt out of the class, the attorneys’ fee amount will be reduced by $600 for each student who opts out of the Class after the first 140 opt-outs.4 11. Payment by Defendants. Worth County entered into a coverage agreement (the “Coverage Agreement”) with the Association County Commissioners of Georgia – Interlocal Risk Management Agency (“ACCG-IRMA”) and the Coverage Agreement provides coverage to Defendants that is akin to insurance. Assuming the Court grants the motion contemplated in the preceding paragraph, and the Court conducts a fairness hearing and, thereafter, approves the Agreement, ACCG-IRMA will deliver payment as follows:
4 Thus, by way of example, if 125 students opt out of the class, the attorneys’ fees would not be reduced. However, if 145 students opt out of the class, the attorneys’ fees would be reduced by $3,000.00 (5 students x $600.00 = $3,000.00) (the attorneys’ fee amount is hereinafter the “Attorneys’ Fee”).
11

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 12 of 20
a. ACCG-IRMA will deliver to attorneys for the Class a check for the Total Class Distribution. That check will be made payable to the attorneys for the Class and shall be deposited in their trust account.
b. ACCG-IRMA will deliver to attorneys for the Class a separate check for Attorneys’ Fee, which amount attorneys for the Class will be authorized to collect immediately.
12. Distribution of Individual Payments to Class Members. Within 45 days of their receipt of the check for the Total Class Distribution, attorneys for the Class will mail a check for the individual payment amount per paragraph 8 above (the “Individual Payment”) to each Class Member who is entitled to payment. The Individual Payments will be redeemable for 365 days and an accompanying letter will inform the Class member that if the check is not redeemed within 365 days, the Class member will forfeit his or her right to collect payment. The Individual Payments will be distributed as follows: a. The Individual Payments will be mailed to the address shown on the completed Response Form submitted by each Class Member. If the Class Member did not return a Response Form, the Individual
12

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 13 of 20
Payments will be mailed to the most recent address included in the file maintained by Worth County School District and/or Worth County High School. If, prior to the date on which the Individual Payments are mailed, a Class Member has communicated to the attorneys representing the Class that the Class Member has a new address, the Individual Payment will be sent to the new address. b. If the Individual Payment that is originally mailed is returned to attorneys for the Class with a forwarding address, attorneys for the Class will mail that same Individual Payment to the forwarding address. 13. Cy Pres Fund. ACCG-IRMA will establish a cy pres fund in a bank acceptable to attorneys for the Class (the “Cy Pres Fund”). The Cy Pres Fund will be established for the benefit of the Worth County High School students, and will be interest-bearing. The Cy Pres Fund will be capitalized as follows: a. Uncashed Checks. Once the checks delivered to the Class members pursuant to paragraph 12 above have been either redeemed or forfeited
13

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 14 of 20
(i.e., 365 days after initial mailing), any amounts remaining in the escrow account for attorneys for the Class which were attributed to the Class members (i.e., the amount representing unredeemed checks to Class members) will be deposited into the Cy Pres Fund. b. Remaining Funds. The Coverage Agreement has a limit of $3 million. The distributions discussed above – the Total Class Distribution and the Attorneys’ Fee – will not exhaust this $3 million limit. The difference between the $3 million coverage limit and these two payments (i.e. $3 million minus the Total Class Distribution and minus the Attorneys’ Fee) is hereinafter referred to as the “Remaining Funds.”
(1) Use of Remaining Funds. It is anticipated that there will be individuals who opt out of the class, and ACCG-IRMA may use the Remaining Funds to resolve the claims of individuals who opt out of the Class. The Remaining Funds may not be used to pay attorneys’ fees or costs of litigation.
14

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 15 of 20
(2) Payment of Remaining Funds. Once all the claims of the individuals who opt out of the class have been resolved, by settlement, the running of the statute of limitations, or the execution of a release of claims, or once seven years have elapsed from the date of the search (April 14, 2017), fifty percent (50%) of the Remaining Funds will be paid to the Cy Pres Fund. The other fifty percent (50%) of the Remaining Funds will be retained by ACCG-IRMA.
(3) Increase in Amount of Funds Paid to Cy Pres Fund. Prior to the payment of the Remaining Funds to the Cy Pres Fund, the Remaining Funds will be held by ACCG-IRMA. If the Remaining Funds are not paid to the Cy Pres Fund on or before December 31, 2018, the amount of the Remaining Funds that ACCG-IRMA will retain will be decreased by half of one percent (.5%), and the amount of the Remaining Funds that ACCG-IRMA will retain will continue to decrease by half of one percent (.5%) for each
15

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 16 of 20

year that ACCG-IRMA does not pay the Remaining Funds to the Cy Pres Fund, as measured by the date of December 31, as follows:

Date of Payment to Cy Pres Fund On or before 12/31/18 Between 1/1/19 and 12/31/19 Between 1/1/20 and 12/31/20 Between 1/1/21 and 12/31/21 Between 1/1/22 and 12/31/22 Between 1/1/23 and 12/31/23 Between 1/1/24 and 12/31/24

Percentage of Remaining Funds Retained by Defendants’ Insurer 50%
49.5%
49%
48.5%
48%
47.5%
47%

14. Binding Effect. If the Court enters an order giving its final approval to the Agreement, any Class member who has not requested to be excluded from the Class will be bound by all subsequent proceedings, orders and judgments of the Court and will be precluded from asserting any further claim or lawsuit
16

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 17 of 20
against Defendants and their respective agents, officers, deputies, employees, officials, personal representatives and successors as a result of the searches that were conducted at the Worth County High School on April 14, 2017. 15. Non-Approval. If the Agreement is not approved by the Court, the Agreement shall become null and void and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions existing immediately prior to the entry of the Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay All Proceedings, entered November 21, 2017 (Doc. 38). Further, if the Agreement is not approved by the Court, or if the Agreement is not otherwise consummated, for whatever reason, Plaintiffs shall have 14 days to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) and, if a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is filed within that 14-day period, it shall be deemed to have been filed in a timely manner. In addition, the Parties agree that Defendants will not argue to the Court, prior to the expiration of that 14day period, that Plaintiffs’ lack of response to the Motion to Dismiss amounts to abandonment, concession, estoppel, or any similar concept whereby Plaintiffs would be precluded from responding to the motion.
17

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 18 of 20
16. Compensatory Nature of Payments. The settlement payments
contemplated in paragraph 8 above are to be considered entirely
compensatory in nature.
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of December, 2017.
/s/ Crystal Redd Sarah Geraghty Ga. Bar No. 291393 Gerald Weber Ga. Bar No. 744878 Crystal Redd Ga. Bar No. 969002 Aaron Littman Ga. Bar No. 843053 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440 (fax) credd@schr.org
/s/ Mark Begnaud Mark Begnaud Ga. Bar No. 217641 Nathanael Horsley Ga. Bar No. 367832 HORSLEY BEGNAUD LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 12, Suite 300 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 (770) 765-5559
18

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 19 of 20
(404) 602-0018 (fax) mbegnaud@gacivilrights.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ Raleigh W. Rollins Raleigh W. Rollins Ga. Bar No. 613860 ALEXANDER & VANN, LLP 411 Gordon Avenue Thomasville, GA 31792 (229) 226-2565 (229) 228-0444 (fax) rrollins@alexandervann.com
/s/ Richard K. Strickland Richard K. Strickland Ga. Bar No. 687830 BROWN, READDICK, BUMGARTNER, CARTER, STRICKLAND & WATKINS, LLP 5 Glynn Avenue (31520) Post Office Box 220 Brunswick, GA 31521 (912) 264-8544 (912) 264-9667 (fax) rstrickland@brbcsw.com
Counsel for Defendants
19

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 20 of 20 20

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ALBANY DIVISION

__________

)

K.A., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-99-LJA

)

JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth County, )

Georgia, in his individual capacity, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

__________

)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

The above-referenced lawsuit was filed by nine students as a proposed class action against Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby and seventeen of his deputies (the “Defendants”). The complaint is online at http://www.schr.org/worth-county-high-school. The lawsuit alleges that Sheriff Hobby and his deputies violated the constitutional rights of students at Worth County High School by subjecting them to suspicionless and invasive seizures and searches on the morning of April 14, 2017. The Defendants deny that they have engaged in any unlawful conduct.

This lawsuit requested that the Court certify a class of all students seized and searched by employees of the Worth County Sheriff at Worth County High School that morning, other than the few who were identified on the Sheriff’s target list. The lawsuit sought money damages for the students in the class.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a settlement of this case on behalf of the proposed class of students, and the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement and preliminary certification of the class. The terms of the settlement agreement are as follows:

The Defendants have an insurance policy limit of $3,000,000. Each student in the class will be paid between $1,000 and $6,000, depending on the details of the search he or she experienced. The average payment to each class member will be $2,655. Assuming there are 800 class members, these payments will consume $2,124,000 of the $3,000,000 policy limit.

Additionally, Defendants will pay to Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees equal to 15% of the policy limit, or $450,000. This amount will be reduced if a large number of students opt out of the class.

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 2
The portion of the policy limit remaining after these payments are made will be temporarily retained by Defendants, and can be used to resolve the claims of any students who opt out of the class. Once any such claims are resolved and the statute of limitations has expired, approximately 50% of the remaining funds will be paid into a fund for the benefit of Worth County High School students. If any checks issued to class members are not cashed within one year, that money will also be deposited into this fund.
School records show that you were likely present during the searches. Please indicate on your response form if you were not present and or were not searched on April 14, 2017. If you were present and searched, then you are a member of the class.
To claim compensation, you must complete and return the attached Response Form to be received by no later than DATE. Please send it to the attorneys for the class at the following address:
Southern Center for Human Rights Attn: Worth County High School Settlement
83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303
Alternately, you may submit the Response Form by faxing it to (404) 688-9440 or by sending it as a scanned attachment to an email addressed to worthcounty@schr.org.
As a member of the class, you will be bound by the settlement in this case and barred from filing any future claim against Sheriff Hobby and his deputies related to the April 14, 2017 searches. If you want to pursue claims separately, you may opt out of the class by completing the attached Opt-Out Form--instead of the Response Form--and returning it to the address shown above by DATE.
If you opt out, you will not be prohibited from asserting claims related to your search against the defendants in separate litigation; however, you will not receive the payment to which you would have been entitled as a member of the class in this lawsuit. If you want to be a member of the class and receive a monetary award as part of the settlement of this case, do not complete the Opt-Out Form.
If you have questions, you may contact the following attorneys for the class:
Attn: Worth County High School Settlement Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-1202; Email: worthcounty@schr.org
Mr. Mark Begnaud, Horsley Begnaud LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 12, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (770) 765-5559; Email: mbegnaud@gacivilrights.com
Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ALBANY DIVISION

__________

)

K.A., a minor, by and through her next )

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-99-LJA

)

JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth County, )

Georgia, in his individual capacity, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

__________

)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

The above-referenced lawsuit was filed by nine students as a proposed class action against Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby and seventeen of his deputies (the “Defendants”). The complaint is online at http://www.schr.org/worth-county-high-school. The lawsuit alleges that Sheriff Hobby and his deputies violated the constitutional rights of students at Worth County High School by subjecting them to suspicionless and invasive seizures and searches on the morning of April 14, 2017. The Defendants deny that they have engaged in any unlawful conduct.

This lawsuit requested that the Court certify a class of all students seized and searched by employees of the Worth County Sheriff at Worth County High School that morning, other than the few who were identified on the Sheriff’s target list. The lawsuit sought money damages for the students in the class.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a settlement of this case on behalf of the proposed class of students, and the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement and preliminary certification of the class. The terms of the settlement agreement are as follows:

The Defendants have an insurance policy limit of $3,000,000. Each student in the class will be paid between $1,000 and $6,000, depending on the details of the search he or she experienced. The average payment to each class member will be $2,655. Assuming there are 800 class members, these payments will consume $2,124,000 of the $3,000,000 policy limit.

Additionally, Defendants will pay to Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees equal to 15% of the policy limit, or $450,000. This amount will be reduced if a large number of students opt out of the class.

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 2
The portion of the policy limit remaining after these payments are made will be temporarily retained by Defendants, and can be used to resolve the claims of any students who opt out of the class. Once any such claims are resolved and the statute of limitations has expired, approximately 50% of the remaining funds will be paid into a fund for the benefit of Worth County High School students. If any checks issued to class members are not cashed within one year, that money will also be deposited into this fund.
School attendance records show that you were enrolled on April 14, 2017, but that you were ABSENT during the searches. If this is incorrect, and you were in fact searched, you have the right to be a class member and obtain compensation from the settlement. The truthfulness of your claim will be determined by a magistrate judge.
If you were searched on April 14, 2017, and wish to be a class member and obtain compensation through the settlement, you must complete and return the attached Response Form to be received by no later than DATE. Please send it to the attorneys for the class at the following address:
Attn: Worth County High School Settlement Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303
Alternately, you may submit the Response Form by faxing it to (404) 688-9440 or by sending it as a scanned attachment to an email addressed to worthcounty@schr.org.
As a member of the class, you would be bound by the settlement in this case and barred from filing any future claim against Sheriff Hobby and his deputies related to the April 14, 2017 searches. If you want to pursue your claims separately, you may opt out of the class by completing the attached Opt-Out Form – instead of the Response form – and returning it to the address shown above by DATE.
If you have questions, you may contact the following attorneys for the class:
Attn: Worth County High School Settlement Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-1202; Email: worthcounty@schr.org
Mr. Mark Begnaud, Horsley Begnaud LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 12, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (770) 765-5559; Email: mbegnaud@gacivilrights.com
Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 3
Worth County High School Search K.A. et al. v. Hobby et al. Class Member Response Form 1:17-cv-99-LJA (M.D. Ga.)
THIS IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. You should complete it carefully. Write legibly, in black or blue pen. If you make a mistake, cross it out with a single line, write your initials next to it, and then write the correct answer.

Please know that your answers may be verified by reference to school attendance records and video recordings of the searches, and that you may be questioned in court to confirm your answers.

Once you have completed this form, please check it over, and then mail it to:

Attn: Worth County High School Settlement Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303

This form must be received by no later than DATE.

Student

This form is to be completed and signed by the student him or herself, except for the final section marked Parent/Legal Guardian.

Legal Name: ______________________________________________________

FIRST

MIDDLE

LAST

SUFFIX

Date of Birth: ___________________________________

MONTH

DATE

YEAR

Sex:

FEMALE / MALE

Mailing Address:

__________________________________________________

NUMBER

STREET

APT/UNIT

__________________________________________________

TOWN/CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

Phone Number:

(_________)_____________________

AREA CODE

PHONE NUMBER

Email Address:

_______________________________

Please send us any changes to your contact information as soon as possible.

Please answer each of the following questions:

(1) Were you in attendance at Worth County High School on the morning of April 14, 2017? YES / NO

(2) Were you searched by a deputy that day? YES / NO
Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 3
Worth County High School Search K.A. et al. v. Hobby et al. Class Member Response Form 1:17-cv-99-LJA (M.D. Ga.)

(3) What grade were you in on April 14, 2017? 9TH / 10TH / 11TH / 12TH

(4) Which class were you in when the search occurred? ____________________________________ SUBJECT

____________________ TEACHER

(5) Was the deputy of the same sex as you, or of a different sex? SAME / DIFFERENT

(6) Was the deputy wearing gloves? YES / NO

(7) What were you wearing when the search occurred?

SHIRT AND PANTS / SHIRT AND SHORTS / TOP AND SKIRT / DRESS

OTHER:

__________________________________________________

(8) Did the deputy instruct or force you to spread your legs? YES / NO

(9) Did the deputy remove, or ask you to remove, any piece(s) of your clothing? YES / NO If Yes, Which Piece(s)? ____________________________________

(10) Did the deputy lift up or pull away from your body, or ask you to lift up or pull away from your body, any piece(s) of your clothing?
YES / NO If Yes, Which Piece(s)? ____________________________________

(11) Did the deputy put his or her fingers underneath or inside any piece(s) of your clothing, not including your pockets?
YES / NO If Yes, Which Piece(s)? ____________________________________

(12) Did the deputy’s fingers touch your underwear in the buttocks area? YES, DIRECTLY / YES, THROUGH A POCKET / YES, THROUGH ANOTHER GARMENT / NO

(13) Did the deputy’s fingers touch your underwear in the groin area? YES, DIRECTLY / YES, THROUGH A POCKET / YES, THROUGH ANOTHER GARMENT / NO

(14) Did the deputy’s fingers touch your bra? YES, DIRECTLY / YES, THROUGH ANOTHER GARMENT / NO / NOT APPLICABLE

(15) Did the deputy’s fingers touch your skin underneath your clothes? YES / NO If Yes, Which Body Part(s)? ____________________________________

(16) Did the deputy expose any part of your breasts, groin, or buttocks? YES / NO If Yes, Which Body Part(s)? ____________________________________

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 3
Worth County High School Search K.A. et al. v. Hobby et al. Class Member Response Form 1:17-cv-99-LJA (M.D. Ga.)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the answers I have given above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that my answers may be verified by reference to student attendance records and video recordings of the searches, and that I may be questioned in court to confirm my answers.

I further declare that I intend to be a member of the class certified in this case. By submitting this form, I am requesting the compensation to which I will be entitled as part of the settlement in this case.

Date: _____/_____/_______ MO. / DAY / YEAR

Signature: ___________________________ STUDENT

* * * * * * * * *

Parent/Legal Guardian

If the student completing the above form is currently under the age of eighteen, his or her natural parent or legal guardian must complete and sign this section.

Legal Name: ______________________________________________________

FIRST

MIDDLE

LAST

SUFFIX

Relationship to Student: __________________________________________

Mailing Address:

__________________________________________________

NUMBER

STREET

APT/UNIT

__________________________________________________

TOWN/CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

Phone Number:

(_________)_____________________

AREA CODE

PHONE NUMBER

Email Address:

_______________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that I am the natural parent or legal guardian of the child named above, and have the authority to make legal decisions on his or her behalf.

I further declare that I intend for the child named above to be a member of the class certified in this case. By submitting this form, I am requesting that my child receive the compensation to which he or she will be entitled as part of the settlement in this case.

Date: _____/_____/_______ MO. / DAY / YEAR

Signature:

___________________________ PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 2
Worth County High School Search K.A. et al. v. Hobby et al. Class Member Opt-Out Form 1:17-cv-99-LJA (M.D. Ga.)
This is NOT a claim form.

Complete this form ONLY if you do NOT want to be part of the class certified in this case, and you do NOT want to receive the payment to which you would be entitled as part of the settlement in this case.

IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, DO NOT COMPLETE THIS FORM.

If you decide to opt out, complete this form and mail it to:

Attn: Worth County High School Settlement Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303

This form must be received by no later than DATE.

THIS IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. You should complete it carefully. Write legibly, in black or blue pen. If you make a mistake, cross it out with a single line, write your initials next to it, and then write the correct answer.

Student

This form is to be completed and signed by the student him or herself, except for the final section marked Parent/Legal Guardian.

Legal Name: ______________________________________________________

FIRST

MIDDLE

LAST

SUFFIX

Date of Birth: ___________________________________

MONTH

DATE

YEAR

Sex:

FEMALE / MALE

Mailing Address:

__________________________________________________

NUMBER

STREET

APT/UNIT

__________________________________________________

TOWN/CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

Phone Number:

(_________)_____________________

AREA CODE

PHONE NUMBER

Email Address:

_______________________________

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LJA Document 40-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 2
Worth County High School Search K.A. et al. v. Hobby et al. Class Member Opt-Out Form 1:17-cv-99-LJA (M.D. Ga.)
I understand that by opting out, I will be excluding myself from the class certified in this case. Therefore, I will not be eligible to receive any part of the monetary award resulting from the settlement of this lawsuit. I do not wish to receive any compensation under the terms of the settlement or to otherwise participate in this case. I further understand that when I opt out, anyone who could assert a derivative claim for money will be deemed to have opted out as well.

 By checking this box, I affirm that I wish to opt out.

Date: _____/_____/_______ MO. / DAY / YEAR

Signature: ___________________________ STUDENT

* * * * * * * * *

Parent/Legal Guardian

If the student completing the above form is currently under the age of eighteen, his or her natural parent or legal guardian must complete and sign this section.

Legal Name: ______________________________________________________

FIRST

MIDDLE

LAST

SUFFIX

Relationship to Student: __________________________________________

Mailing Address:

__________________________________________________

NUMBER

STREET

APT/UNIT

__________________________________________________

TOWN/CITY

STATE

ZIP CODE

Phone Number:

(_________)_____________________

AREA CODE

PHONE NUMBER

Email Address:

_______________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that I am the natural parent or legal guardian of the child named above, and have the authority to make legal decisions on his or her behalf.

 By checking this box, I affirm that I intend for the child named above to opt out of the class certified in this case.

I understand that he or she--and anyone who could assert a derivative claim on his or her behalf-will be ineligible to receive the monetary award to class members that has resulted from the settlement of this lawsuit.

Date: _____/_____/_______ MO. / DAY / YEAR

Signature:

___________________________ PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN

Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00099-LAG Document 61 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION

K.A., a minor, by and through her next :

friend and guardian, Lisa Adams, et al., :

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

:

JEFF HOBBY, Sheriff of Worth County, :

Georgia, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

:

CASE NO.: 1:17-CV-099 (LAG)

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion in Support of an Award of the Agreed Upon Attorneys’ Fees in the Settlement Agreement (Motion) (Doc. 57). For the reasons provided below, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and other students at Worth County High School who were allegedly subjected to hands-on body searches by the Defendants. (Doc. 1.) On March 23, 2018, the Court preliminarily certified the class, appointed class counsel, and approved the proposed class settlement. (Doc. 48.) Notice was subsequently sent to prospective class members. A final fairness hearing was held on July 11, 2018. (Doc. 54.) At the hearing, the Parties detailed for the Court the settlement agreement, answered questions, and reported the results of the notice period. (Id.) No objections were made. (Id.) The Court approved the Parties’ settlement agreement on January 9, 2019. (Doc. 59.) Prior to the settlement approval, Plaintiffs, unopposed by the Defendants, filed this Motion on July 26, 2018, which included affidavits from Plaintiffs’ Counsel. (Doc. 57.)
DISCUSSION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), “the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement.” The motion must be made under Rule 54(d)(2), and notice must be “directed to class

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LAG Document 61 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 3
members in a reasonable manner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1). Here, class members were given notice of the proposed attorneys’ fee award and an opportunity to object, and no class members objected. (See generally Docket.)
“[A]ttorneys’ fees awarded from a common fund shall be based upon a reasonable percentage of the fund established for the benefit of the class.” Camden I Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774 (11th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Circuit has regularly found fee awards are presumptively “reasonable where they fall between 20–25% of the claims.” Faught v. Am. Home Shield Corp., 668 F.3d 1233, 1242 (11th Cir. 2011). This range is the “benchmark.” Waters v. Int’l Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 1999). “Where the requested fee exceeds 25%, the court is instructed to apply the twelve Johnson factors.” Faught, 668 F.3d at 1242. Those factors are:
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and the length of the professional relationship with the client; (12) awards in similar cases.
Camden I Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 946 F.2d at 772 (citing Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989)). In Camden, the court indicated that other factors may be relevant, such as “the time required to reach a settlement, whether there are any substantial objections by class members or other parties to the settlement terms or the fees requested by counsel, any non-monetary benefits conferred upon the class by the settlement, and the economics involved in prosecuting a class action.” Id. at 775.
An award of $450,000.00 is reasonable. At 15% of the three-million-dollar common fund settlement amount, the award is well below the benchmark of presumptively reasonable awards. While this case was settled early, it has nonetheless required extensive time and labor. In their affidavits, Plaintiffs’ Counsel represent that they have cumulatively spent over
2

Case 1:17-cv-00099-LAG Document 61 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 3
561 hours pursuing this action, including travelling to Worth County to meet with class and community members, making open records requests, reviewing voluminous discovery, negotiating at arm’s length with Defendants, and drafting hundreds of pages of briefs; and they further anticipate having to spend additional time processing and delivering settlement payments to the class members over the next year. (Doc. 57-1 at 2–4; Doc. 57-2 at 2–4.) This has precluded Plaintiffs’ Counsel, experienced litigators who have handled several class actions in the past, from accepting other lucrative employment. Moreover, through the negotiated settlement agreement, approximately 800 class members will receive a settlement amount between $1,000.00 and $3,962.90, totaling $2,121,345.00 (70.71% of the common fund); and a cy pres fund for the benefit of Worth County High School students will be established using the remainder of the fund less the fees award. Notably there have been no objections. Having considered all of the Johnson factors, Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ requested fee award of $450,000.00 is fair and reasonable, and is, therefore, approved.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 57) is GRANTED. Defendants shall remit payment to Plaintiffs’ Counsel within seven (7) days of this Order as provided by the approved Settlement Agreement (Doc. 40-2).
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of January, 2019.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3