FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 23, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Kenne th L . Ry skamp, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1673 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-01100 -CV -RW S-1 C. AL ANPO W EL L, indiv idually , and on behalf of al l o th ers si m il arl y

si tu at ed , TO RY DU

NL AP , individu ally , and on behalf of al l o th er s im il arl y

si tu at ed , et al ., Pl ai nti ff s Appe lle es Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us SHERIFF JACQUELINE BARRETT, Fu lt on Co un ty, St at e o f Geo rg ia , SHERIFF MYRON FREEMAN, Fu lt on Co un ty, St at e o f Geo rg ia , et al ., D ef en dants -Appe llants Cro ss -Ap pe ll ees .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 23, 200 7) Before BL ACK

and HU LL , C ircuit Judg es, a nd RYSK AMP , District Judge.

* BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e:2 I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Allegations in the Complaint Concernin g the Jail’s Strip Search Policy 1 . St ri

p Sea rc he s a s p ar t o

f Po in t-o f En tr y Boo ki ng

in to th e Ja il

(AR G roup ) 2 . Strip Se arc hes af

te r B ec om ing

E nti tle d to R el ea se at the J ail ( A L G roup ) 3. Str ip S ea rc hes up on R eturni ng f rom Co urt

A ppe aran ce (

CR G roup ) B. Section 198 3 Claims based on the Jail’s Strip Search Policy 1. Claim s again st t

he She rif fs 2. Claim s again st t

he Co unt y and the B oard 3. Claim s again st t

he Ci ty C. District Court’s Order II. DISCUS SION A. E le ve nth A m en dm en t I m m uni ty fro m Sui t i n O

ffi ci al C apac ity 1. E le ve nth A m en dm en t F ac tor s a. How state law defines the sheriff’s offi ce b. W he re sta te lawv es ts c ontrol c. W he re the e nti tyde riv es it

s fu nds d. L iab ili tyfor

and pay m en t of

adv er se jud gm en ts 2. L oc al C

onst itu tio nal

A m en dm en ts B. Q ual ifi ed

I m m uni tyfro m Sui t i n I

ndi vi dual Ca pac ity 1. Co nst itu tio nal

V iolati on a. Str ip s ea rc hes of

A R G roup P lai nti

ffs b. Str ip s ea rc hes of

A L and CR G roup P lai nti ffs 2. Cl ea rlyE

sta bli she d L aw a. Str ip S ea rc hes of

A R G roup P lai nti

ffs b . Strip Se arc hes of

A L and CR G roup P lai nti ffs C. M uni ci pal L iab ili tyof the Co unt

y and the Ci tyund

er § 19 83 1. Liability of th e City 2. Li abi lit

y of t he Co unt y III. CONCLUSI ONPlaintiffs also broug ht state law ne g lige nce c laims ag ainst the Sheriffs. Those claims are 1 no t be fo re us on

a pp e a l. The district cour

t’s J uly 5, 2005 order

relies, in par

t, on a pre vious order dated 2 Janu ary 13 , 2 00 5, in whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt a dd re sse d th e County ’s and

City ’s mot ion s to dismiss the Fir st Amended Complaint. We include in this opi nion the pertinent a naly sis from the J anuar y 13, 2005 order . 3 Plaintiffs, 11 m ale form er detainees at the Fulton Cou nty Jail (the Jail), filed a put at ive c la ss a ct ionund er 42 U . S. C. § 19 83 a ga ins t the f or m er and c ur re nt she ri ff s of the Ja il (the S he ri ff

s) , F ult on C ounty

( the Co unty ), the m em

be rs of the Fu lto n C ounty

Bo ar d of Co m m iss ion er s ( the Bo ar d) , and the Ci ty of A tlanta ( the Ci ty ) (c oll ec tiv el y , D ef

en dants ). I n th ei r Fo urth A m en de d C om pla int ( the 1 Com plaint), Plaintiffs c laim

their constitut ional rights we re violated when they we re subj ected at the Jail to “blanket strip searches,” or strip searches w ithou t an ind ivi dua liz ed

f ind ing of r ea sona ble sus pic ionthat e ac h P la int if f w as c onc ea lin g w ea pons , dr ugs, or oth er c ontra band. D ef

en dants f ile d m oti ons to d ism iss the Co m pl ai nt forfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , arg ui ng , int er ali a , the S heriffs w ere entitled to b othE le ve nthA m en dm en t i m m uni ty and qua lif

ie d im m uni ty and the Co unty

and City lacked the requisite control over the policies at the Jail to be liable as m unicipalit ies under § 198 3. I n an order dated July 5, 2005 (the Or der), the district co urt gr an te d inpart

and d en ie d inpart

D ef en dants ’ m oti ons to d ism iss . I n th is 2 appeal and cross-appeal, the parties challenge the district court’ s Or der. A fterIn their Complaint, Pl aintiffs also cla im their constitutional rights wer e violated whe n 3 they wer e deta ined past midnight on their sc heduled r elea se date s, or “ove rdeta ined.” The district court grante d in part and de nied in part De fenda nts’ motions t o dismiss the over detention claims. We addre ss the district court’s orde rs on the over detention claims in a sepa rate , unpublished opinion. P l ai n t i ff s n am e t h e m em b er s o f t h e B o ar d as d ef en d an t s i nth ei r C o mp l ai n t . Al th o u gh 4 Plaintiffs have e x presse d their intent to dismis s their suit ag ainst the Boa rd, it appea

rs Plaintiffs have not yet done so. None theless, bec ause the parties do not tre at the County and the B oard separ ately in their brief

s, we, like the district c ourt, treat the County and the B oard a s one in our discussion of municipal liability . Although the Complaint i s not entirely clea r, it appea rs Plaintiffs seek injunctive r elief 5 specific ally

ag ainst the County , the City , and Sheriff Fr eema n in his official ca

pacity . Be cause these c lasses have not y et bee n cer tified by the district court, we ref

er to them a s 6 "groups" throug hout the opinion, and we use the names a ssigne d to eac h putative class in the Com pla int . 4 he ar ing or al arg um en t, c onsi de ri ng the part ie s’ br ie fs , and r ev ie w ing the pe rt ine nt re co rd , w e af

fi rm in part , r ev er se in part , and r em an d inpart . 3

I. BACK GROUND In the Com

plaint, Plaintiffs sue form er S heriff Jacqueline Barr ett in her indiv idual capacity , c urrent Sher iff My ron Free m an in his official and indi vidu al capacities, the County , the B oard, and the City . Plaintiffs seek both m onetary 4 dam ages and injunctive relief against Def

endants. Plaintiffs challenge the blanket

5 str ip s earc he s a t the Ja il on b eh al f of thr ee put at ive c la sse s: the A rr es te e Stri p Sear ch Class (A R G roup), A lpha Strip Sear ch Class (A L G roup), and Court Re turn Stri p S earc h C la ss ( CR

G ro up) . A lth oughthe Co m pla int c ont ai ns a

c hart sho w ing 6 the Plaintiffs included in each strip search group, there are som e discrepanciesC. Alan Powell is a Plaintiff for both the AR Group a nd AL Group. Ac cordingto the 7 Complaint, P owell was a

rre sted on Marc h 20, 2004 on char g es of “ disorderly conduct” and “not paying a bar ta b.” On Ma

rch 21, 2004, someone posted bond for Powe ll. Bef ore be ing r elea sed, Powell was strip sear ched. T his strip searc h is the basis of Powell’s involvement in the AL Group. At some point af

ter Powell wa s relea sed, his bond was re voked. On Ma y 20, 2004, he wa s r e -a rr e ste d a nd bo ok e d b a c k into t

he Jail on the same c ha

rg e s f oll ow ingre vo c atio n o f h is bond. Upon booking , he wa s strip searc hed. This sec ond strip searc h is the basis of Powell’s involvement in the AR Group. Two of the e leven plaintiffs in this case , Tory Dunlap and L ee Antonio Sm ith, are not 8 included in any

of the strip sea

rch groups. Plaintiffs Dunlap and Smith only asser t overde tention c la ims a g a ins t D e fe nd ants . The Complaint states that “[b] lanket strip sea rch me ans a strip sea

rch c onducted without 9 any deter mination of whether

a basis to conduc t the sear ch exists.” Thus, as used in this opini on, “blanke t strip searc h” is a strip sea rch w ithout an individualiz ed findingof re asonable suspicion that eac h Plaintiff was conc ealingwea pons, drug s, or other c ontraba nd. 5 be tw ee n th e ch ar

t and the a lle ga tio ns i n th e Co m pla int . T he c hart

that a ppe ar s in the appe ndi x to thi s op ini on i s c onsi ste nt w iththe a lle ga tio ns i n th e Co m pla int , and w e re ly on the appe nde d c hart

f or pur pose s of our opi nio n. A s sh ow n inthe c hart , the P la int if

fs and the ir

r es pe ct ive str ip s earc h gr oups are a s f oll ow s: C . A lan P ow el l (AR an d AL Gro up s) , Davi d Ev an s (AR an d C R Gro up s) , Sta nl ey Cle m on s (AR 7 G ro up) , A lle n M idd le ton( A R G ro up) , A nth ony W es tbr ook (A R G ro up) , Be nj am in Blake (A R G roup), H arry W itherspoo n (AR

Gr oup), A ntion ne W olf (A R and CR Gr oups ), and Kr istop her A lan Matkin (AL Gr oup). Plaintiffs identify three ty pes 8 of blanke t stri p se ar ch es the y c ont en d vi olate d th ei r Fo urth and F ourte en th 9 Am endm ent rights: (1) blanket st rip searc hes of arr estees as part of their point-ofen tr y boo kin g in to the Ja il (A R G ro up) ; ( 2) blanke t stri p se ar ch es of de ta ine es w hoPla int if fs c ha lle ng e the c on sti tut ion a lity of the str ip s e arc he s o nly

un de r t he F ourt h 10 Amendment, as ma de applica ble to the states by

the Four teenth Amendme nt. See U nited States v . D av is , 313 F.3d 1300, 1302 ( 11th Cir. 2002). Plainti ffs do not conte nd in their brief s that the strip searc hes violated rights arisingindepende ntly under the Due Proc ess Clause of the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt. F ur

the r, un de r t

he law o f t

his Cir c uit , w e ana ly

ze t he c on sti tut ion a lity of a strip sea

rch c onducted without re asonable suspicion under the F ourth Amendment. See Cue sta v . S c ho ol B d. of M

iam i- Da deCou nty , 2 8 5 F . 3 d

9 6 2 , 9 6 9 n . 6 ( 1 1 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We the re fo re a

pp ly F ourt h A me ndme nt s tand ard s in a dd re ssi ngthe c on sti tut ion a lity of the str ip sear ches at issue here . Plaintiffs use the term “ booked” to r efe r to the proc ess duringwhich a pe rson 11 c omm itt e d to the Jail is f

ing e rp ri nte d, ide nti fi e d, and e nte re d into t

he Jail ’s c omp ute ri zed

inm ate manag ement sy stem. Plainti ffs e x plain that blanket strip sea rche s are also a pa

rt of the booking pr oc e ss. 6 post ed bon d or w er e or de re d r el ea se d a t the Ja il be fo re the ir poi nt- of -e ntr y boo kin g int o th e Ja il w as start ed

or c om ple te d ( A L G ro up) ; and ( 3) blanke t st ri p se ar ch es of de ta ine es w ho r et

ur n f ro m ac ourt a ppe ar an ce a ft er

havin g be enor de re d r el ea se d in state court (CR

Gr oup). 10 W e fi rs t sum

m ar iz e the f

ac tua l a lle ga tio ns i n th e Co m pla int a s th ey pe rt ai n to ea chgr oup. W e the n e xpl ai n th e cl ai m s a ga ins t the vari ous D ef en dants and sum m ar iz e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ngs on those c la im s. A. Factual Allegations in the Complaint Concernin g the Jail’s Strip Search Policy 1. Strip Se arc hes as par t of P oin t- of-E

ntr y B ook ing into th e Ja il (A R G roup

) A cc or din g to the Co m

pla int , the re is a pol ic y

a t the Ja il w he re by

e ve ry m al e ar re ste e “ book ed ” int o th e Ja il’ s ge ne ra l po pul at ionupo n e nte ri ng the Ja il, 11 regardless of the cr im e for which he is arrested, is subjected to a strip sear chBe cause there are no fac tual alleg ations in the Complaint reg ardingfema le ar restee s, we 12 ref er to Plaintiffs her einaf

ter a s “ar restee s” without ref

ere nce to g ender . Although Plaintiffs’ a lleg ations state that the AL Group Plaintiffs ar e re lease d either at 13 the J ail or at one of the c ourthouses, the two AL Group Plaintiffs neve r left the Jail. C. Alan Powell was re lease d afte r his family posted bond for him, and K ristopher Ala

n Matkin was order ed re lease d by

a judicial off

icer at the Jail. 7 w ith out an in div idu al iz ed

f ind ing of r ea sona ble sus pic ionthat the arr es te e is co nc ea lin g w ea

pons , dr ugs, or oth er c ontra band. E ac h m al e ar

re ste e is p la ce d ina room with a group of 30 or 40 oth er per sons , r em oves all of his cloth ing and p laces it in bo xes, and, along with the group , takes a shower. Ea ch arr estee then either 12 by him se lf or standi ng i n li ne w ithoth er s is vis ua lly ins pe ct ed

f ro nt and b ac k by de put ie s. T he boo kin g stri p se ar chpr oc es s is r ef er re d to a s “ dr es sin g ou t. ” T he A R G ro up P la int if

fs a lle ge the y

w er e subj ec te d to blanke t stri p se ar ch es a s part of the ir poi nt- of -e ntr y boo kin g in to the Ja il. 2 . Strip Se arc hes af

te r B ec om ing

E nti tle d to R el ea se at the J ail ( A L G roup ) A cc or din g to the Co m

pla int , the Ja il’ s in m at e m an ag em en t sy ste m is so ine ff ic ie nt tha t m an y

pe rs ons co m

m itt ed to the Ja il ei the r post

bon d ( or have som eone post it for them ) or ar e ordere d released at First Appearance hearings at the Ja il be fo re the ir

poi nt- of -e ntr y boo kin g in to the Ja il ha s be enstart ed or co m ple te d. B ec au se the se de ta ine es w er e not boo ke d im

m ed ia te ly upo n e nte ri ng 13 the Ja il, the y

are sub j ec te d to the boo kin g pr oc es s–i nc lud ing the boo kin g stri pWhil e Plaintiffs alleg e that “ma ny”–as oppose d to “all”– de tainees who have poste d 14 bo nd or have be e n o rd e re d r e le a se d b y a jud ic ia l of

fi c e r at th e Jail are su

bje c te d to bo ok ingstr ip se arc he s, we no ne the le ss c on str ue the Com

pla int a s a lle g inga

po lic y or pr a c tic e wi th r e sp e c t to the AL Group strip sea

rche s. Plainti ffs re fer

to it as a “pra ctice” in other par ts of the Complaint. 8 se ar ch es – after

postin g bon d or having been ordered r eleased at the Jail. Plaintiffs al le ge that, a s ar es ult , the re is a pr ac tic e of sub j ec tin g de ta ine es who are to be re le as ed to book ing str ip s earc he s be fo re the y are r el ea se d f

ro m the Ja il. The AL

14 G ro up P la int if

fs a lle ge the y

w er e subj ec te d to boo kin g stri p se ar ch es a ft er havin g post ed bon d, in the c as e of

P ow el l, or

havin g be en

or de re d r el ea se d a t a

F ir st Appe ar an ce he ar ing a t the Ja il, in the c as e of Matki n. I t i s no t c le ar

w hy Ja il of fic ia ls in cl ud edth e st rip sea rch es as p artof t he lat e b oo ki ng pro ces s fo r th e AL Gro up Pla in ti ffs gi ve n t ha t t he y were t o b e rel eas ed . Howev er, we as su m e th e AL Gr o up Pl ai n t i ff

s we re s t ri p s ea rc h ed b ec au s e t h ey we re p l ac ed i n t o th e J ai l ’s ge ne ra l po pul at ion , w he re the y w er e he ld whil e the sta ff in the Re co rd s R oom ch eck edforot he r de te nt io n o rd ers , warran ts , or h ol ds an d p ro ces se d t he ir r el eas e. 3. Str ip S ea rc hes up on R eturni ng f rom Co urt

A ppe aran ce (

CR G roup ) Furthe r, P la int if

fs a lle ge the Ja il ha s apol ic y w he re by de ta ine es w ho h av e be enor de re d r el ea se d by aj udge in state c ourt are r et ur ne d to the Ja il fo llo w ing the ir c ourt a ppe ar an ce ins te ad

of be ing r el ea se d f

ro m the c ourtho use . Upon the ir return to the Jail, these detainee s are subj ected to blanket strip searches and book edAg ain, while Plaintiffs alleg e that “ma ny”–as oppose d to “all”–de tainees who are 15 re tur ne d to the Jail fo llo wi nga c ourt a pp e ara nc e are su bje c te d to str ip s e arc he s, we no ne the le ss c on str ue the Com

pla int a s a lle g inga

po lic y or pr a c tic e wi th r e sp e c t to the CR G ro up str ip se arc he s. Pla int if

fs re fe r t o it

a s a “ po lic y” in o the r p art s o f t he Com pla int . Ba sed on Plaintiffs’ alleg ations that ever y person booke d into the J ail is strip searc hed, 16 we must assume that be cause the CR Group Plaintiffs have be en “booke d” into the J ail, they have a lrea dy

been strip se arc hed once . 9 ba ck int o th e Ja il’ s ge ne ra l po pul at ionw hil e the Re co rd Ro om s st af

f ch ec ke d f

or oth er w ar rants or hol ds and p ro ce sse d th ei r re le as e. T he CR G ro up P la int if

fs , 15 E vans and W olf

, a lle ge the y

w er e subj ec te d to blanke t stri p se ar ch es upo n re tur nin g to the Ja il af

te r the ir c ourt a ppe ar an ce s. U nli ke the A L G ro up P la int if fs , the CR G ro up P la int if

fs w er e im

m ed ia te ly boo ke d up on e nte ri ng the Ja il an d thus w er e al re ady

str ip s earc he d on ce be fo re . T he CR G ro up P la int if

fs a lle ge that, 16 while in transit to and from the Jail and while at the c ourthou se, they we re under constant su pervision and wer e not perm itted to have contact with any one other than the S he ri ff

’ s de put ie s and the ir

a tto rn ey s. A cc or din g to the Co m pla int , the de ta ine es ’ vis its w iththe ir a tto rn ey s w hil e at

the c ourtho use w er e “ subj ec t t o su pe rv is io n b y

th e Fu lt on Co un ty Sheri ff’s d ep ut ie s.” B. Section 198 3 Claims based on the Jail’s Strip Search Policy Plaintiffs assert § 1983 claim s against Defe ndants b ased on the Jail’ s policies of conductin g: (1) blanket strip searches of ar restees a s part of their point-of-entry book ing int o th e Ja il (A R G ro up) ; ( 2) blanke t stri p se ar ch es of de ta ine es w hoPla int if fs c ha lle ng e the c on sti tut ion a lity of the str ip s e arc he s o nly

un de r t he F ourt h 17 Amendment, as ma de applica ble to the states by

the Four teenth Amendme nt. See U nited States v . D av is , 313 F.3d 1300, 1302 ( 11th Cir. 2002). Plainti ffs do not conte nd in their brief s that the strip searc hes violated rights arisingindepende ntly under the Due Proc ess Clause of the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt. F ur

the r, un de r t

he law o f t

his Cir c uit , w e ana ly

ze t he c on sti tut ion a lity of a strip sea

rch c onducted without re asonable suspicion under the F ourth Amendment. See Cue sta v . S c ho ol B d. of M

iam i- Da deCou nty , 2 8 5 F . 3 d

9 6 2 , 9 6 9 n . 6 ( 1 1 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We the re fo re a

pp ly F ourt h A me ndme nt s tand ard s in a dd re ssi ngthe c on sti tut ion a lity of the str ip sear ches at issue here . 10 post ed bon d or w er e or de re d r el ea se d a t the Ja il be fo re the ir poi nt- of -e ntr y boo kin g int o th e Ja il w as start ed

or c om ple te d ( A L G ro up) ; and ( 3) blanke t st ri p se ar ch es of de ta ine es w ho r et

ur n f ro m ac ourt a ppe ar an ce a ft er

havin g be enor de re d r el ea se d in state court (CR

Gr oup). 17 1. Claim s again st t

he She rif fs T he A R, A L , and C R G ro ups as se rt § 19 83 c la im s a ga ins t the S he ri ff s in Counts 1, 5, and 9 of the Com plaint, respectively . Plaintiffs allege the S heriffs kn ew of th e st rip sea rch po li ci es at t he Jai l an d a cq ui es cedin th e st rip sea rch es . A cc or din g to P la int if

fs , the S he ri ff

s’ f ai lur e to a ct

w as the “ m ovi ng f

or ce ” be hin d the constitu tional vi olation s and, by m aintaining or acquiescing in the strip search policies, the Sherif

fs w ere deliberately

indifferent to the risk of constitut ional in jury. 2. Claim s again st t

he Co unt y and the B oard11

T he A R, A L , and C R G ro ups as se rt § 19 83 c la im s a ga ins t the Co unty and the Bo ar d inCo unt s 3, 7, and 1 1 of the Co m pla int , r es pe ct ive ly . P la int if fs a lle ge the Co unty

and the Bo ar d ha d “ ult im at e au tho ri ty ” ove r the Ja il, f ai le d to ad equa te ly

f und an d st af

f the Ja il an d th e Co unty ’ s c ri m ina l j ust ic e ne tw ork, and failed to train the Sher iffs and their staff . A cc or din g to P la int if

fs , the Co unty

and the Bo ar d have auth or ity to

“ m ai nta in and o pe rate f

ac ili tie s f or the de te nti on, inc ar ce ratio n or c onf ine m en t of al l pe rs ons subj ec t t o c onf ine m en t un de r the law s of the state , any

c ounty re sol uti on, or

any c ity or din an ce . ” T he y

c la im the Co unty

e xe rc ise d it s auth or ity w he n it bui lt the c ur

re nt J ai l. A cc or din g to P la int if fs , the Bo ar d ha s th e pow er to de sig na te the pe rs on who c ontro ls the Co unty ’ s in carc er at ionf ac ili tie s, and the Bo ardha s d es ig na te d t he sh eri ff as th e p ers on who op erat es an d c on tro ls th e Ja il . Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge , the re fo re , that “ the Bo ar d, not the she ri ff

, ha s ul tim at e co ntr ol” ov er t he Jai l. Pl ai nti ff s a lso a lle ge the Co unty , thr oughthe Bo ar d, se ts the bud ge t f or the Ja il; a dm ini ste rs the F ult on C ounty Ci vil S er vic e Sy ste m , w hic h go ve rn s a ll co unty em plo y ee s, inc lud ing de put ie s, Re co rd s R oom sta ff , and o the r Ja il sta ff

; m ai nta ins a uni fi ed pe nsi on s y ste m

f or a ll co unty

e m plo y ee s, inc lud ing the she ri ff and the she ri ff ’ s st af f; and s upe rv ise s th e she ri ff ’ s du tie s to hir e, dis ci pli ne , and f ir e Ja il12

em plo y ee s, a s w el l a s th e she ri ff ’ s du tie s to f

orm ulate , im ple m en t, and e xe cu te

“ pol ic ie s c onc er

nin g th e ope ratio n of

the F ult on C ounty

Ja il fa ci lit ie s su

bj ec t t o th e authorityof the Board. ” L astly , P laintiffs allege the Boar d controls andoperates the F ult on C ounty

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, w hic h tr an spor

ts the ind ivi dua ls i t arr es ts t o th e Ja il forco nf

in em en t. Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge the Co unty

and the Bo ar d “ kne wor

sho uld have kno w n” of the il le ga l stri p se ar ch es a t the Ja il an d w er e “ de lib er at el y ind if fe re nt” to the r igh ts of P la int if fs to be f re e fr om suc h stri p se ar ch es . P la int if fs c la im the Co unty ’ s and the Bo ar d’ s “ de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e” w as the “ m oti va tin g f ac tor ” of P la int if fs ’ inj ur ie s. 3. Claim s again st t

he Ci ty T he A R, A L , and C R G ro ups as se rt § 19 83 c la im s a ga ins t the Ci ty in Co unt s 4 , 8 , an d1 2 o f

th e C o mp l a i n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y. P la int if fs a lle ge the Ci ty

ha s c ontro l ove r the A tlanta

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t’ s po lic y

of c harg ing pe rs ons ar

re ste d w ith in the m uni ci pa lity

w ithe ith er

m uni ci pa l or

state of fe nse s and o ve r w he re to inc ar ce rate th os e p ers on s, ev en th os e ch arg edwit h s ta te off en se s. Specifica lly , P laintiffs state that, prior to January 1, 2003, the A tlanta Police D ep ar tm en t c om

m itt ed a ll pe rs ons it ar

re ste d, e ve n th ose it

c harg ed w ithstate of fe nse s, to a Ci ty

of A tlanta de te nti on f

ac ili ty ins te ad of the Co unty

Ja il. T he Ci ty13

de ta ine d and a ssu m ed

r es pons ibi lity

f or c ondu ct ing pr oba

ble c au se he ar ing s f

or a ll pe rs ons its of

fi ce rs arr es te d, w he the r the pe rs ons w er e ar re ste d onstate or m uni ci pa l c harg es . P er sons arr es te d f or state of fe nse s f or w hom pr oba ble c au se wa s found were then transferre d to the Jail. H owever , m any of the persons arre sted fo r state of

fe nse s ha d th ei r ch ar ge s r ed uc ed to m uni ci pa l of

fe nse s a t the ir

pr oba ble cau se he ari ng s, an d t hu s m an y arre st ees were n ev er t ran sf erre d t o t he Co un ty Jail . Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge that duri ng 2 002, the m ay or de ve lop ed

–and the c ity

c ounc il ap pr ove d–ane wpol ic y

to “ sa ve m one y

f or the Ci ty . ” A s of

January 1, 200 3, the City cease d its po licy

of com m itting persons arrested w ithin the m unicipalit y

to an Atl an ta de te nt io n fa ci li ty andho ld in g t he ir F irs t Ap pe aran ce h eari ng s t he re. In ste ad , und er

the ne wpol ic y , the A tlanta P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t be gan c harg ing a ll ar re ste es w ithstate of

fe nse s, w he ne ve r poss ibl e, and c om m itt ing tho se pe rs ons directly to the Jail, instead of detaining th em in the City

detention facility

as they ha d p rev io us ly don e. A cc or din g to P la int if

fs , the Ci ty

kne wor sho uld have kno w n th e Ja il ha d a custom and policy

of subjec ting th e A R, AL , and CR Gr oup Plaintiffs to ill egal blanke t stri p se ar ch es and s til l c hose to ch an ge it s po lic y . P la int if fs a lle ge the Ci ty w as “ de lib er at el y

ind if fe re nt” to the r igh ts o f Pl ai nti ff s, and i ts d el ibe rate in di ffer en ce was th e “ m ov in g fo rce” be hi nd Pla in ti ffs ’ in juri es .14

C. District Court’s Order Init s O rd er , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ddr es se d D ef en dants ’ m oti ons to d ism iss the Com plaint for failure to state a claim under Federa l Rule of Civil Proce dure 12 (b )(6 ). P ow el l v . B arr et t , 37 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 34 0 (N.D. Ga. 2 00 5) . Inr es pons e to the S he ri ff s’ m oti on t o di sm iss , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ir st de te rm ine d S he ri ff

F re em anf

unc tio ns a s an arm

of the S ta te and, the re fo re , is entitled to Eleventh Am endm ent im m unityfrom

claim s against him

in his official cap aci ty seek in g m on et ary da m ag es . Id . a t 13 45- 46. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d on thi s C ourt’ s de ci sio ns i n G re ch v . Clay ton Co unt y , 335 F . 3d 1 326 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) (en ba nc ), Manders v. L ee , 338 F . 3d 1 304 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) ( enbanc ), and P urc el l exre l. E sta te of M

orga n v . T

oom bs C ount y , 400 F. 3d 13 13 (11th Cir. 2005 ), wher e we stated that a sheriff

“ functions as an ar

m of the State–not [the] County –when prom ulgatin g poli ces and procedures governing cond ition s of confinem ent at the [ ] CountyJail.” P ow el l , 376 F. Supp. 2d at 1345 (alterations in o riginal). The district court clarif

ied, howe ver, that the Eleventh A m endm ent did no t foreclose P laintiffs from seeking prosp ective, injunctive relief against Sheriff Free m an in his official c ap a c i t y. The district court also determ ined the Sheriffs w ere entitled to q ualified im m uni ty f ro m P la int if fs ’ str ip s earc h c la im s f

or m one tary

dam ag es a ga ins t theThe district cour t first addre ssed the County ’s and City ’s liability in its J anuar

y 13, 2005 18 order . In their motions to dis miss the Com plaint, the County and City reque sted the district court re c on sid e r, or , a lte rn ativ e ly , c lari fy its Janu ary

13 , 2 00 5 h old ingre g ard ingthe ir po te nti a l li a

bil ity un de r § 19 83 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e re qu e st f

or re c on sid e ratio n, but g ra

nte d th e re qu e st for c larifica

tion. 15 Sh er if fs in the ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es . I

d. at 1346-50 . Af

ter assum ing Plaintiffs had sufficiently

alleged constitu tional vi olation s, the district court determ ined that Pl ai nt iff s’ rig ht to be free fro m

bl an ke t s tri p s earc he s was no t cl earl y est ab li sh ed . Id . a t 13 46 n . 3, 134 9. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ana ly ze d th is C ourt’ s de ci sio ns i n W ils on v. Jones , 251 F . 3d 1 340 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) , and this Co urt’ s pane l and e n banc de ci sio ns i n Eva ns v. Cit

y o f Ze bu lo n, 35 1 F .3d48 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) , va ca te d by 364 F. 3d 1 298 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) , and E va ns v . Ste

phe ns , 407 F. 3d 12 72 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (e n banc) (

E va ns I and E va ns II , res pe ct iv el y ). Id

. at 1347-50 . It found that be ca use thi s C ir cu it ha d “pe rc ei ve [d ] r oom to de ba te the c ont our s of thi s co nst itu tio na l r igh t, ” the S he ri ff s c oul d no t j ust if

ia bly be c harg ed

w ithhavin g f

ai r w ar nin g th at c ondu ct ing str ip s earc he s a bse nt r ea sona

ble sus pic ionvio la te d th e la w. Id . a t1 3 4 9 . A c c o r d i n g l y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i s mi s s e dth e s tr i p s e a r c h c l a i ms ag ai ns t t he Sh eri ffs in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es . Id . a t 13 50. In response to the Coun ty ’ s and City ’ s m otion s to dis m iss, the district court agreed the County

and the City

lacked the requisite control over the strip search policies at the Jail to be liable un der § 1983 for such po licies. T he district court 1816

expla ine d th at , w ithr es pe ct to the Ci ty , P la int if

fs f ai le d to a dvanc e an y

a lle ga tio n that the City

“ controlled” or was “ actually responsibl e for” the strip search pr ac tic es a t the Ja il. W ithr es pe ct to the Co unty , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the Co unty could no t be held liable for the strip searc h practices at the Jail under Grec h and M ande rs , e xplaini ng that a Georgia sherif f ac ts as an arm

of the state in his or her co rr ec tio ns and d et ai ne e- ove rs igh t r ole s and the Co unty la ck s any

m eanin gf

ul authorityto direct the sheriff ’ s actions in th ose regards. Further, the district court re j ec te d P la int if

fs ’ arg um en t tha t thr ee “ loc al c onst itu tio na l am en dm en ts” ap pli ca ble onl y to Fu lto n C ounty

gave the Co unty

c ontro l ov er

the ope ratio n of

the Ja il an d tr eatm en t of

de ta ine es a t the Ja il. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at it f ound n o t h i n g i n th e a m en d m en t s o r t h e F u l t o n Co u n t y Co d e r ef l ec t i n g th e B o ar d ’s ex er ci se of any pot en tia l auth or ity

gr an te d by

the a m en dm en ts. A ddi tio na lly , it found th e am endm ents did n ot giv e the County the authority

to direct the policies of the S he ri ff

s, nor did the y a lte r the e sta

bli she d a llo catio n of

pow er be tw ee n th e Sh eri ffs an d C ou nt y

wit h re sp ectto co rrec ti on s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt no ne the le ss c onc lud ed P la int if fs ha d st at ed

ac la im a ga ins t t h e C o u n t y an dth e C i t y i n s o f a r a s P l a i n t i f

f s a l l e g e dth e C o u n t y an dth e C i t y, thr oughthe ir

r es pe ct ive pol ic e fo rc es , m ai nta ine d apol ic y of pla ci ng the ir respective ar

restees in the Jail w ith kn owledge of the Jail’ s uncons titutio nalAl te rn ativ e ly , Pl a int if fs c onte nd

that Sh e ri ff

F re e man is no t e nti tle d to El e ve nth 19 Amendment immunity

beca use suinghim in his officia l capa city amounts to suing the Sher iff’s office , which is neither a

n arm of the County

nor an a rm of the State but is instead an 17 pr ac tic es . A cc or din g to the dis tr ic t c ourt, in ad dit ionto the pol ic ie s a t the Ja il, Plaintiffs had identified another “ proxim ate ‘ m ovin g force’ ” behind their alleged co nst itu tio na l vi olatio ns, nam el y , the Co unty ’ s and C ity ’ s po lic ie s of pla ci ng the ir ar re ste es a t the Ja il. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that, be ca

use G eo rg ialawsug ge sts the C o u n t y an dth e C i t y do control where their respective police departm ents place arre st ees , th e Co un ty andth e Ci ty cou ldface § 1 98 3 l iabi li ty for t he se po li ci es . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e Co unty ’ s and C ity ’ s m oti ons to d ism iss . Id . a t 13 56, 136 0. II. D ISCU SSION On appeal, the County

and the City

m aintain they

cannot be held liable und er § 19 83 f or the ir pol ic ie s of

pla ci ng arr es te es a t the Ja il. T he y arg ue that be ca

use the y do n ot c ontro l the pol ic ie s a t the Ja il, P la int if fs ’ c la im s a ga ins t the m

m ust be di sm is se d. On cr oss-appeal, Pla intiffs co nte nd the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de te rm ini ng Sheriff Fre em an is entitled to Eleventh Am endm ent im m unitybecause, under three local constitu tional am endm ents applicable to Fulto n County , the C ount y operates the Jail and thus the Sherif f ac ts for the County

rather than the State of G eorgia. 19independe nt entity . Plaintiffs did not raise this argument befor e the district cour t, however , ar gu in go n ly

th at S h e r if

f F r e e ma na c ts f o r F u lt o nCo un ty

an d n o t a s anar

m o f th e St ate . We the re fo re de c lin e to c on sid e r whe the r t he sh e ri ff ’s of fi c e is i nd e pe nd e nt f

ro m bo th t

he County and the State. Madu v. U .S. Att’y Ge n. , 4 7 0 F . 3 d

1 3 6 2 , 1 3 6 6 n . 2 ( 1 1 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ [A ]n argument made f

or the fir st tim e in the cour t of appe als is ge nera lly

waived.” ); se e als o M

an de rs , 338 F.3d at 1328 n.54. Def endants c laim Plainti ffs lac k standingto sue Sheriff F ree man in his indivi dual 20 capa city beca use the a lleg ations in the Complaint s how that all Plaintiffs were rele ased f rom the Jail be fo re She ri ff

F re e man to ok

of fi c e . We a g re e and

re mand to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

to d ism iss Plaintiffs’ strip searc h claims for mone tary damag es ag ainst Sheriff F ree man in his indivi dual capa city . Thus, we a ddress qua lified immunit y only with respec t to the strip searc h claims for m o n e t ar y d am a g e s a g a i n s tS h e r i f

f B ar r e t ti nh e r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty. 18 Plaintiffs also cross-appeal the district court’ s determ ination that the Sheriff s are en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty f ro m the str ip s earc h c la im s a ga ins t the m in the ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es . P la int if fs arg ue the ir

c onst itu tio na l r igh ts t o be f re e fr om blanket strip searches wa s clearly established at the tim e they we re strip sear ched at the Ja il. W e m ust de te rm ine , the re fo re , w he the r (1 ) Sh er if f Fr ee m anis en tit le d to Eleventh A m endm ent im m unityfrom

Plaintiffs’ strip search cla im s for m onetary da m ag es a ga ins t hi m

in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity ; ( 2) S he ri ff Barr ett i s e nti tle d to qualified imm

unity from Plaintiffs’ strip search cla im s for m onetary dam ages ag ai nst he r in h er

ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity ; and ( 3) the Co unty and C ity are sub j ec t t o 20 m uni ci pa l l ia

bil ity und er § 19 83 f or P la int if fs ’ str ip s earc h c la im s. W e note at the outset that we have j urisdictio n to consi der the issues raised on b othappe al and c ro ss- ap pe al pur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 12 92( b) . S ec tio nTh e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s c e rt if ic atio n a nd thi s Co ur t’ s g ra nt o f p e rm iss ion

to a pp e a l a lso 21 included the issues a ddresse d in the district court’s January 13, 2005 order . 19 § 12 92( b) pe rm its thi s C ourt t o r ev ie wadis tr ic t c ourt or de r not oth er w ise appealable as an interlocutory decision if the district court certifies that its order

“ inv olv es ac ontro lli ng que sti on o f lawa s to w hic h th er e is s ubst an tia l gr ound f or dif fe re nc e of

opi nio n and tha t an im

m ed ia te appe al f

ro m the or de r m ay

m at er ia lly advanc e the ult im at e te rm inatio n of the li tig at ion . ” 28 U . S. C. § 12 92( b) . T he district court certified the issues addressed in its Order f or im m ediate appeal in an or de r da te d Augus t 1, 200 5. D ef en dants ti m el y

pe tit ion ed

and P la int if

fs ti m el y cr oss -p et iti one d th is C ourt f or pe rm iss ionto ap pe al the O rd er , and w e gr an te d th e pe tit ion s onD ec em

be r 8, 200 5. 21 W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ngs on a

m oti on t o di sm iss f

or f ai lur e to s t a t e ac l a i m de novo , a ccepting all factual allegations as true and construing them in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. H ill v . W hit e , 321 F . 3d 1 334, 133 5 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) ; see also Ass’n for Disabled Am ericans, Inc. v. Fla. Int’l U niv. , 405 F. 3d 9 54, 956 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( ap ply ing de novo s t an d ar dt o d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s g r a n to f amo t i o n t o d i s mi s s b a s e dup o n El e v e n t h Ame n d men ti mm u n i t y) ; Dal ry mpl e v. Ren o, 334 F. 3d 9 91, 994 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( ap ply ing de nov o standard to d istri ct c ourt’ s de ci sio n to gr an t or de ny the de fe nse of

qua lif ie d im m uni ty on a20

m otion to dism iss). “ Whil e a co m pla int a tta ck ed by aRu le 12( b) (6 ) m oti on t o dis m iss doe s no t ne ed

de ta ile d f

ac tua l a lle ga tio ns, apla int if f' s ob lig at ionto pr ovi de the gr ound s of

his e nti tle m en t t o r el ie f re qui re s m or e than la be ls and c onc lus ion s, and a form

ulaic rec itation o f the elem ents of a cause of action will not do.” B el l A tl. Co rp. v . T

wo m bly , __ U . S. __, 127 S . Ct . 195 5, 196 4- 65 ( 2007 ) (c itatio ns and int er na l qu otatio ns o m itt ed ). Ac om pla int is subj ec t t o di sm iss al und er Ru le 12(b)(6) w hen the allegations in the com plaint, on their face , show that an affi rm at iv e d efen se ba rs reco ve ry on th e cl ai m . M

ars h v . B utl er

Co unt y , 268 F . 3d 1014 , 1022 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A. E le ve nth A m en dm en t I m m uni ty fro m Sui t i n O

ffi ci al C apac ity W e fi rs t a ddr es s w he the r Sh er if f Fr ee m anis en tit le d to E le ve nthA m en dm en t im m uni ty f ro m P la int if fs ’ str ip s earc h c la im s f

or m one tary

dam ag es a ga ins t hi m

in his official capacity . “ The E leventh Am endm ent protects a State from being sued in federal c ourt without th e State ’ s consent.” M ande rs , 338 F . 3d at 13 08. T he E le ve nthA m en dm en t a lso bars sui ts b ro ught in fe de ra l c ourt a ga ins t a de fe ndant acting as an “ arm

of the State. ” Id

. T o determ ine whether a defe ndant is an “ arm of the S ta te , ” thi s C ourt e xa m ine s th e fo ur f ac tor s e num er at ed

in M ande rs : “ (1 ) how state lawdefines the entity ; (2) w hat degree of c ontrol th e State m aintains ov er the e nti ty ; ( 3) w he re the e nti ty de ri ve s it s f

unds ; and ( 4) w ho i s r es pons ibl e fo r21

j udgm ents against th e entity .” Id . a t 13 09. T he f

ac tor s m ust be c onsi de re d “ in l igh t of the part ic ular func tio n inw hic h th e de fe ndant w as e nga ge d w he n takin g th e actions out of w hich liabili ty is asserted to arise. ” Id. at 130 8. F urthe r, our de te rm inatio n is de pe nde nt o n th e lawof the state in w hic h th e she ri ff ope rate s, sin ce “ state s have e xtr em el y w ide la tit

ude in de te rm ini ng the ir

f orm s of governm ent and how state functions are perf orm ed.” Id

. at 1 30 9 n .10 . Ac cordingly , at issue in th e instant case is whether , under G eorgia law , S heriff Fr ee m ana ct ed

a s an arm

of the S ta te in pr om

ulg at ing pol ic ie s and p ro ce dur es to m ai nta in s ec ur ity

a t the Ja il fo r the sa fe ty

of de ta ine es , vis ito rs , and j ai l pe rs onne l, th ro ug h t he Jai l’s s tri p s earc h p ol ic y . In M ande rs , th i s C o urta d d r e s s e d wh e t h e r th e s h e r i f

f o f C l i n c h C o u n t y, G eo rg ia , w as an arm

of the S ta te w ithr es pe ct

to his “ fo rc e pol ic y

a t the j ai l and the training and d isciplin ing of his deputies in th at regar d.” Id . at 1 30 8- 09 . Rec og ni zi ng th atres ol ut io n o f th e is su e d ep en de d i n p arton st at e la w, we discuss ed the relationship am ong th e sheriff , the S tate, and Clinch Count y under Geo rg ia law. Id

. at 13 09- 18. B ec au se the ins tant c as e al so i nvol ve s th e relationship of a G eorgia sheriff with the county in which he operates and the State, w e re ly on the pe rt ine nt d isc uss ionof G eo rg ialawin M

ande rs .22

In M ande rs , w e not ed : G eo rg ia ’ s C onst itu tio n gr an ts the S ta te le gis la tur e the e xc lus ive auth or ity to es ta bli sh and t o c ontro l a

she ri ff ’ s po w er s and d

uti es . I nte rp re tin g th is constitu tional prov ision , the G eorgia Suprem e Court has explained that sheriffs ar e subjec t to the control of the Georgia legislature and are not co un ty em

pl oyees. . . . In co n t ra s tt o th e S t at e’s au t h o ri ty an dco n t ro l o v ers h er i ff s , Ge o rg i a’s Constitu tion g rants counties no legislative power or autho rity over sheriff

s an dex p re s s l y p re v en t s co u n t i es fr o m co n t ro l l i n g o r a ff

ec t i n g th e s h er i ff

’s office or the personnel thereof. In this regard, the Ge orgia Suprem e Court has concluded th at this const itutio nal restriction on the legisl ative power gr an te d to c ount ie s–ho m e ru le –pr ev en ts c ount ie s f ro m takin g a ct ion affe ct in g t he sh eri ff’s o ffi ce. . . . Further, in Georgia, counties also d o not d elegate any of their governm ental or police powers to sheriff s. I nstead, the sheriff

s’ authority

and duties are de riv eddi rect ly from

th e St at e. . . . Geo rg ia law l ik ewis e m ak es th e co un ty ent it y it se lf, h ere C li nc h C ou nt y , a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y i n d e p e n d e n to f th e s h e r i f

f ’s o f f i c e . . . . A s as e p a r a t e e n t i t y, Clinch Countyis headed by its Board of Com

m issio ners, which is given “ exclusive jurisdiction ov er and control o f county aff airs. ” In c ontrast, under G eo rg ia ’ s C onst itu tio n, the S ta te ha s e xc lus ive auth or ity and c ontro l ov er

the dut ie s and a ff

ai rs of the she ri ff

’ s of fi ce . A lth oughthe S ta te r equir es the co unty to fund the she ri ff

’ s bu dge t, G eo rg ia ’ s C onst itu tio n pr ec lud es the co unty f ro m e xe rc isi ng any

auth or ity ove r the she ri ff

, inc lud ing howthe sh eri ff s pe nd s t ha t b ud ge t. Id . a t 13 10- 11 ( em

pha sis in or igi na l) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); se e als o B d. of Co m m ’r s of Dou gh er ty Co un ty v. Sa ba , 598 S.E .2d 437, 439 (Ga. 2004 ) (“ The sher iff is an el ec te d c onst itu tio na l of

fi ce r an d no t an e m

plo y ee of the c ounty

c om m iss ion . ”) ; B d.Compare Brown v. Dorsey , 625 S.E.2d 16, 21 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) ( findingthat, for 22 purposes of municipa l liabilit y under § 1983, the sheriff of De kalb County , Geor g ia, did not act a s f ina l po lic y

make r f or the c ounty

wh e n u sin gde pa

rtme nta l pe rs onne l and

re so ur c e s to c omm it a murde r and thus the c ounty could not be liable f

or the sher iff’s a ctions under § 1983) , with Freem an v. Barnes , 6 40 S.E .2 d 6 11 , 6 15 -1 6 ( Ga . Ct . App . 2 00 6) (f ind ingthat th e sh e ri ff

is a county officia l for wor

kers’ compensation purposes).

23 O f C om m ’r s of R ando lph Co unt

y v. W ils on , 396 S . E . 2d 9 03, 903 ( G a. 199 0) (s am e). W ith this brief sum

m ary of the relations hip between the State, the sheriff, an d th e Co unty , w e tur

n to the f our f ac tor s in M

ande rs . A lth ough M

ande rs an al y zedth e fo urfact or s i n l ig ht of a sh eri ff’s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y , se e M ande rs, 338 F. 3d at 13 05, w e de te rm ine that the ana ly sis in M ande rs is ap pli ca

ble to Sh er if f Fr ee m an ’ s f

unc tio n of

m ai nta ini ng s ec ur ity

a t the Ja il. A nd, gui de d by M ande rs , w e co nc lud e the f ac tor s w ei gh i n f

av or of f ind ing that S he ri ff

F re em anis anarm of the S ta te in pe rf

orm ing thi s f

unc tio n . Se e P urc el l, 400 F . 3d at 13 25- 26 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( fi ndi ng, in a sui t a ga ins t the she ri ff of T oom bs C ounty , G eo rg ia fo r fa ilure to pr ev en t i nm at e- on- inm at e vio le nc e, the she ri ff a ct s a s an arm

of the St at e “ w he n pr om

ulg at ing pol ic ie s and p ro ce dur es gov er nin g c ondi tio ns o f confinem ent at the T oom bs Coun ty

Jail”). W e briefly

analy ze the f

our factors 22 be lo w.Under O.C.G.A. 42-4- 12, the sherif f has a duty to acc ept per sons char g ed with an 23 ind ic ta ble of fe ns e , a nd by imp lic atio n, a

ri g ht t o r e fu se to r e c e ive any mun ic ipa l pr iso ne r who is not char g ed with an of

fense ag ainst the State. Tate v. Nat’l Sur. Corp. , 200 S.E. 314, 315 (Ga. Ct. Ap p. 19 38 ). In th e ins tant c a se , a lth ou g h s ome of the Pla int if

fs we re arr e ste d b y

the At lanta Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt, we a ssume ba se d o n Pl a int if fs ’ a lle g atio ns that th e y

we re a ll c ha

rg e d w ith state off enses. 24 1. E le ve nth A m en dm en t F ac tor s a. How state law defines the sheriff’s off ice T he she ri ff

’ s of fi ce is a “ se parate and i nde pe nde nt o ff ic e” f ro m the c ounty an d i ts go ve rn in g b od y , no twi th st an di ng th atth e sh eri ff i s el ect edby cou nt y vo te rs . M ande rs , 338 F . 3d at 13 19; Brown v. Dorsey , 625 S . E . 2d 1 6, 21 ( G a. Ct . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “[T ]h e C o n s t i tu t i o n h a s mad e th e s h e r i f f i n d e p e n d e n tf

r o m th e C o u n t y, notw ith standi ng the de sig na tio n of the she ri ff

a s a‘ co unty

of fi ce r. ’ ”) . T he es se nti al gov er

nm en ta l natur e of

the she ri ff

’ s of fi ce is to ( 1) e nf

or ce the lawand pr es er ve the pe ac e on b eh al f of the S ta te and ( 2) pe rf

orm spe ci fi c statut or

y dut ie s, dir ec tlyass ign ed

bythe Sta te , in lawe nf

or ce m en t, state c ourts, and c or re ct ion s. M ande rs , 338 F . 3d at 13 19. W ithr es pe ct to co rr ec tio ns, in part ic ular, the S ta te re qui re s th e she ri ff

to take c ust ody

of pr e- tr ia l de ta ine es c harg ed w ithstate f

el ony an d m isd em eanor

of fe nse s. Id

. a t 13 15. T he S ta te a lso c harg es the she ri ff w ith 23 pr ov id in g fo r th e p ro te ct io n a nd well -b ei ng of t he de ta in ees in hi s cu st od ia l ca re.We note, as we did in Ma nd e rs , that this is nota ca se of f eeding , clothing, or

providing 24 medical c are to inmates, which ar e matter s over whic h Fulton County does have obligations and which ar e ther efor e county functions. Ma nd

e rs , 338 F.3d at 1319, 1322. 25 M ay o v . F ulton C ount y , 470 S . E . 2d 2 58, 259 ( G a. Ct . App. 199 6) . T hus, in 24 perform ing hi s State-a ssign ed function of m aintaining security at the Jail, Sheriff Fr ee m ana ct ed

f or the S ta te . B as ed

on M ande rs , the re fo re , w e co nc lud e the f ir st fact orweig hs in fav orof i m m un it y . b. W he re sta te lawv es ts c ontrol The S tate re quires, and funds, annual specialized training of sheriffs in law en fo rcem en t, i nv es ti ga ti on , jud ic ia l p ro ces s, an d c orrect io ns pra ct ic es . M ande rs, 338 F. 3d at 13 20. I t i s r ea sona ble to as sum e that the S ta te -m an da te d tr ai nin g in co rr ec tio ns i nc lud es ins tr uc tio n onm ai nta ini ng s ec ur ity a t the Ja il an d pr ote ct ing the sa fe ty of de ta ine es and o the rs a t the Ja il. I f a she ri ff f ai ls t o c om

ply w iththe an nua l tra ini ng r equir em en ts, the G ove rn or –on be ha lf

of the S ta te –m ay

sanc tio n th e sh eri ff fo r no nc om

pl ia nc e. Id

. a t 13 20. I n f

ac t, a s w e re co gni ze d in M ande rs , the G ove rn or

r et ai ns s ign if

ic an t c ontro l ov er

she ri ff s: [T ] he G ove rn or

ha s br oa d in ve sti ga tio n and s uspe nsi on p ow er s r eg ar din g any m iscondu ct by

a sheriff in the perform ance of any of his duti es. If a she ri ff ’ s po lic y pe rm its e xc es siv e fo rc e in the c ounty j ai l, pla inl y

the G ove rn or m ay dis ci pli ne the she ri ff

. I f a she ri ff

f ai ls t o take c ust ody

of state of fen de rs in th e co un ty j ai l, p la in ly the Gov ern orm ay di sc ip li ne th e sh eri ff. T he S ta te le gis la tur e expr es sly ha s m ad e [the S he ri ff

s] answ er ab le to the Gov ern or for[th ei r] con du ct. . . .26

Specifica lly , the G overnor m ay initiate an investig ation of any suspected m isc ondu ct

by any she ri ff and m ay sus pe nd the she ri ff

. . . . T he S ta te f

unds the inv es tig at ion . Id . at 1321 (citations om itted). In contrast to the State’ s and Governor’ s authorityover the sheriff’ s office, th e co un ti es ha ve no au th or it y or c on tro l o ve r th e sh eri ff’s co rrec ti on s dut ie s. See id. at 1322. While Georgia c ount ies have oblig ations regarding th e j ail structure an d in m at es ’ f

ood, c lothin g, and m ed ic al ne ce ssi tie s, tho se m atte rs are “ w hol ly se parate and d ist inc t” f

ro m the she ri ff

’ s po lic ie s go ve rn ing str ip s earc he s and rel eas e o f de ta in ees at t he Jai l. Se e id. G iven “ the State’ s direct and substant ial control over the sheriff’ s duties, training, and discipli ne and the county ’ s total lack thereof, ” id. , w e de te rm ine that the se co nd f ac tor a lso w ei ghs in f

av or of im m uni ty in this case. c. W

he re the e nti tyde riv es it

s fu nds State f unds are invol ved, to som e extent, in the f unction s at issue here, inc lud ing the annua l tra ini ng o f she ri ff s inc or re ct ion s m atte rs and i n th e Gov ern or ’s di sc ip li na ry

pro cedur e o ve r sh eri ffs form is co nd uc t. Se e id. at 1 32 3. Whil e co unt ie s be ar

the m aj or

bur de n of

f undi ng the she ri ff

’ s of fi ce and c ounty jail , th ey are re qu ire d t o d o s o b y

Sta te law. Id

. T he S ta te r equir es the Co unty to27

pay f or pr e- tr ia l st at e of

fe nde rs , m ai nta in the j ai l stru ct ur e, pr ovi de ne ce ssi tie s to in m at es , and pa y

th e sa la rie s o f th e Sh eri ffs an d t he ir d ep ut ie s. Id . at 1 32 3 & n.4 2. A lth oughthe Co unty

se ts and f

unds the she ri ff

’ s to ta l bu dge t, how ev er , it c an not dic ta te howthe she ri ff

spe nds that bu dge t i n th e ex er ci se of the S he ri ff

s’ dut ie s, in cl ud in g t he ir d ut ie s t o m ai nt ai n s ecu rit y at t he Jai l. Se e id. at

132 3; se e als o McMil la n v . Mon ro e Co un ty, 520 U . S. 781 , 791 , 117 S . Ct . 173 4, 174 0 ( 1997 ) (“ The c ount y ’ s paym ent of the sheriff’ s salary does not translate int o control ov er [the she ri ff

] , sin ce the c ounty

ne ith er ha s th e au tho ri ty

to ch an ge [ the she ri ff

’ s] salary nor the discretion to refuse paym ent com pletely .” ); Ch aff

in v . Ca lho un , 415 S. E. 2d 90 6, 907-08 (Ga. 1992 ). Bec ause both st ate and county funds are involved in the f unc tio n a t i ssu e he re , and b ec au se c ounty f unds are inv olv ed

onl y by vir tue of st at e la w, we con cl ud e th e th ird fact orweig hs in fav orof i m m un it y . See M ande rs , 338 F . 3d at 13 24.

d. L iab ili tyfor

and pay m en t of

adv er se jud gm en ts U nde r G eo rg ialaw , “ co unt ie s are not li ab le f or , and n ot r equir ed

to giv e sheriffs m oney

to pay , j udgm ents against sh eriff s in civil righ ts actions.” Id . at 1326 . W e not ed

in M ande rs , how ev er , that w hil e the c ount ie s w oul d no t be li ab le fo r jud gm en ts ag ai ns t t he sh eri ffs , th e St at e m ig ht no t b e li ab le eit he r. Id . a t 13 27. W e co uld not f ind aG eo rg ialawthat e xpr es sly r equir ed the S ta te to pay

an a dve rs eTh e fu ll t e xt of the JL CAis a s f

oll ow s: 25 The g overningauthority

of F ulton Count y

is hereby authorized to maintain and op e rate fac iliti es within or without the boundarie s of said County for the de tention, incar cer ation or conf

inement of a ll persons (includingjuveniles) subjec t to detention, incar cer ation or conf

inement under

the laws of this State, under any County resolution or under a ny City ordinanc e. Such fa cilities, whether de signated as a jail, public works camp or detention ce nter, shall be unde r the c ontrol of such pe rson or off icial as may

be de signate d b y

the g ov e rn inga

uth or ity of F ult on County , a

nd ne e d n ot b e us e d e xclu siv e ly for a ny one cla ss of prisoner or

person. H.R. 687-1585, 1972 Sess., at 1439 § 1 (Ga . 1972), c on tin ue d in e ffe c t in S. 503, 1986 S ess., at 44 28 (G a . 1 98 6) ; se e als o Fulton County , Ga., Code § 1- 122. Plaintiffs also rely

on two other c onstitut ional amendments, whic h they ref er to a s the “Civil S ervic e L ocal Constitutional Amendment” and the “ Pension L ocal Constitutional 28 jud gm en t ag ai ns t t he Sh eri ff i n h is off ic ia l capa ci ty. Id

. W e suggested, therefore , th atth e sh eri ff m ay

ha ve to pa y

a jud gm en t ag ai ns t h im

ou t o f hi s o wn b ud ge t. Id . Thi s co ul d, i n t urn, af

fect bo th st at e an d c ou nt y fun ds in di rect ly. Id

. T he sit ua tio n in M ande rs w ithr es pe ct

to the c ounty ’ s or

state ’ s li ab ili ty

f or a dve rs e j udgm en ts i s the sam e as that in the instant case. Thus, w e conclude, a s did th e M ande rs c ourt, that the f ourth f ac tor , “ at am ini m um , . . . doe s no t de fe at

S he ri ff [ Fr ee m an ’ s] im m unityclaim .” I

d. a t 13 28. 2. Lo ca l C

onst itu tio nal

A m en dm en ts Pl ai nti ff s m ai nta in o n a

ppe al that thr ee loc al c onst itu tio na l am en dm en ts applicable onlyto Fulton Cou nty alter the “ default” allocation of authority betwee n a G eo rg iashe ri ff

and the c ounty

e sta bli she d in M

ande rs . In particular, Plaintiffs re ly on the a m en dm en t the y

r ef er to as the “ Ja il L oc al Co nst itu tio na l A m en dm en t” (J L CA ). P la int if

fs c ont en d th at

be ca use the JL CAauth or iz es the Co unty to 25Amendment.” We a g ree with the district court that these a mendments do not establish the requisite contr ol on the part of the County to rende r the Sherif

f a c ounty actor . Th e te xt of

the loc a l a c t g ivi ngChatha m Co unty c ontr ol o ve r i ts j a il i s a s f oll ow s: 26 “Said Commiss ioners (of Chatham County) shall have power to make prope r rules a

nd regulations for the g overnme nt and control of sa id j ail of C ha tha m C ou nty , and the prisoners a

nd inmates there in, and, except as he reinbe fore provided, a re he reby invested with the manag ement and c are of said jail.” Gr iff in v . Ch ath am Cou nty , 261 S.E.2d 570, 572 (Ga . 1979) (e mphasis added) . 29 “ m ai nta in and o pe rate ” de te nti on f ac ili tie s and d es ign at e a pe rs on t o “ co ntr ol” tho se f ac ili tie s, the S he ri ff

a ct s f or the Co unty

r athe r than a s an arm

of the S ta te in ope ratin g th e Co unty ’ s Ja il. W e dis ag re e. T he thr ee loc al a m en dm en ts t o w hic h P la int if fs dr awour atte nti on d o no t a ff

ec t our re lianc e on M

ande rs . W e re co gni ze that, in M ande rs , w e state d inaf

ootnot e that a

loc al a ct of the S ta te le gis la tur e co uld giv e a G eo rg ia co unty c ontro l ov er

the c ounty

j ai l, suc h a s aloc al a ct

gr an tin g C ha tham

Co unty co ntr ol o ve r its j ai l. M

ande rs , 338 F. 3d at 131 8 n.34. T he Chatham County act 26 explicitlygives the comm issio ners of Chatham County the power to m ake “ rules an d r eg ulatio ns” f

or the “ gove rn m en t and c ontro l” of the Ch atha m

Co unty j ai l and inm ates. Further, the Chatham County act af firm atively

vests the comm issio ners w iththe “ m an ag em en t and c ar e” of the j ai l. B y

c ontra st, the JL CAdoe s no t gi ve th e Co un ty powe r to m ak e ru le s an d re gu la ti on s fo r th e ad m in is tra ti on of t he Jai l. Th e r e f o r e , th e J LC A d o e s n o ta l t e r th e r e l a t i o n s h i p a mo n g th e S t a t e , th e C o u n t y,The Eleve nth Amendment does not pre vent Plaintiffs from see king pr ospective, 27 injunctive relief

ag ainst Sheriff F ree man in his official c apac ity . See Frew ex rel. Frew v. Ha wk ins , 540 U.S. 431, 437, 124 S. C t. 899, 903 (2004). De fenda nts maintain, however , that 30 and the Sheriff

, a s the Countycontinu es to have no say in how the Sherif

f im ple m en ts h is p oli ci es a t the Ja il. H ow ev er , e ve n if the JL CAa lte re d th e an al y sis in M ande rs , the Co unty

ha s no t e xe rc ise d any

pot en tia l auth or ity

gr an te d to it under the JLCAbecause the Sher iff, an office established bythe State le gislature, co nt in ue s t o c on tro l t he Jai l. Under G eorgia law , the off ice of sherif

f carries w ith it all of its comm on-law du ti es an d p owe rs , exc ep t as m od ifi edby stat ut e. Elder v. Ca mp , 18 S . E . 2d 6 22, 625 (Ga. 1942 ). Where a statute lim its the comm on-law duties and powers of a she ri ff , it m ust be str ic tly

c onstru ed , part ic ularl y

w he re the li m itatio n or

r es tr ic tio n ap pl ie s t o o nl y

on e sh eri ff i n t he Sta te . W arr en v . W

alton , 202 S . E . 2d 4 05, 409 (G a. 197 3) . W e cannot

c onc lud e the JL CAde fi nit el y and p osi tiv el y

gr an ts t o th e Co unty the tr ad iti ona l po w er s a llo cate d to the she ri ff of aG eo rg iac ounty , the re by al te ri ng the e sta

bli she d a llo catio n of

pow er be tw ee n th e St at e, the Co unty , and Sheriff Fre em an. W e theref

ore af firm the district court’ s determ ination that Sheriff Fr ee m anis en tit le d to E le ve nthA m en dm en t i m m uni ty , and w e dis m iss P la int if fs ’ claim s against Sheriff F reem an in his official capacity to the extent Plaintiffs seek m one tary dam ag es . 27Pla int if

fs la c k s tand ingto p ur su e pr os pe c tiv e inj un c tiv e re lie f o n th e ir str ip s e arc h c la ims a g a ins t bo th S he ri ff

F re e man in

his of fi c ia l c a pa c ity and a g a ins t th e City . We ne e d o nly a dd re ss Pla int if fs ’ s tand ingto s e e k in

jun c tiv e re lie f a g a ins t Sh e ri ff F re e man in

his of fi c ia l c a pa c ity beca use we dismiss the strip sear ch cla ims ag ainst the County and the City

in section I I .C. below. In o rd e r t o me e t th e c on sti tut ion a l mi nim um f or sta nd ingto s e e k in

jun c tiv e re lie f, Pla int if

fs mus t show they

“[have] sustained or [are] immediately in dang er of

sustaining some dire ct injury as the re sult of the challeng ed off icial conduc t and the injury or threat of injury

must be both real and immediate, not conje ctura l or hy pothetical.” City of L os Angeles v . Lyons , 461 U.S. 95, 101- 102, 103 S. Ct . 1660, 1665 (1983) ( internal quotations omitted). “[P] ast exposure to illega l c on du c t do e s n ot i n it se lf sh owa pr e se nt c a se or

c ontr ov e rs y

re g ard inginj un c tiv e re lie f . . . if unacc ompanied by

any continuing, pr esent a dverse eff ects.” Id. (interna l quotations omi tted). All Plainti ffs (othe r than Stanley Clemons) had bee n rele ased f rom the Jail before they

wer e added a s parties to this suit. W e agree with the district court that the thre at they fac e of f uture un c on sti tut ion a l stri p s e arc he s is too sp e c ulativ e or c on je c tur a l and

no t r e a l and

imm e diate . See, e.g., Shain v. Ellison , 356 F.3d 211, 216 ( 2d Cir. 2004) (findingthe likelihood of plaintiff being subjected to unc onstitut ional strip searc h policy at cor rec tional center

afte r re lease is “too speculative and conje ctura l”). F urther, a lthough Clemons was still at the J ail at the time he wa s a dd e d a s a

pla int if f t o th is s uit , h e ha s si nc e be e n r e le a se d f ro m th e Jail , whic h mo ots his c la im for r elief. See Spe ars v. Thigpen , 8 46 F .2 d 1 32 7, 13 28 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 8) (h old ingthat c la ims re g ard ingtr e atme nt at a

fa c ili ty at w hic h p ri so ne r w a s n o lo ng e r i nc arc e rate d w e re moo t) ; see also W ahl v. Mc Ive r , 7 73 F .2 d 1 16 9, 11 73 (1 1th Cir .1 98 5) (e xpla ini ngthat a bs e nt c la ss c e rt if ic atio n, an inmate ' s c la im f or inj un c tiv e re lie f u

nd e r § 19 83 a c tio n is moo t on c e the inm ate has bee n transfe rre d). Clemons does not meet the two c onditions for the “c apable of re petition, y et eva ding r eview” exception to apply : (1) the c halleng ed ac tion mustbe of too short a duration to be fully

litigated pr ior to its cessation, and (2) a re asonable expectation must ex ist that the same c omplaining pa

rty will be subject to the same a ction ag ain. W e ins te in v . B ra dfo rd, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. C t. 347, 348 (1975). While the first condition may be satisfied, the second is not because Clemons has not demonstrated a rea sonable e x pectation that he will ag ain be arr ested, c ommitt ed to the Jail, and unconstituti onally strip searc hed. Thus, we conclude Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive r elief a g ainst Sheriff F ree man in his official c apac ity should be dismiss ed. 31 B. Q ual ifi ed

I m m uni tyfro m Sui t i n I

ndi vi dual Ca pac ity W e tur n ne xt t o w he the r Sh er if

f Barr ett i s e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty from Plaintiffs’ strip search cla im s for m onetary dam ages against her in her ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity . “ Q ua lif ie d im m uni ty of fe rs c om ple te pr ote ct ionf

or gove rn m en t of

fi ci al s su ed

in the ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es if

the ir c ondu ct ‘ doe s no t32

vio la te c le ar ly

e sta bli she d st at

uto ry or c onst itu tio na l r igh ts o f w hic h ar ea sona ble person would have kno wn. ’ ” V iny ard v. W

ils on , 311 F. 3d 13 40, 1346 (11t h Cir. 2002 ) (quot ing H

arl owv . F

itz ge rald , 457 U . S. 800 , 818 , 102 S . Ct . 272 7, 273 8 (1 982) ). T o r ec ei ve qua lif ie d im m uni ty , the gov er

nm en t of fi ci al f ir st m ust pr ove he w as a ct ing w ith in h is d isc re tio nary auth or ity w he n th e al le ge d w ro ngf ul a ct s oc cu rred . Id

. O nc e the gov er

nm en t of fi ci al e sta bli she s he w as a ct ing w ith in h is dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity , the bur de n sh if ts t o th e pla int if

f to s howthe de fe ndant i s no t en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . Id . T he S upr em e Co urt ha s e sta bli she d atw opart te st t o de te rm ine w he the r a de fe ndant i s e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty . “ T he thr es hol d in qui ry

ac ourt m

ust und er take . . . is w he the r [the ] pla int if f’ s a lle ga tio ns, if true, establish a constit ution al violation .” Hope v. Pe lzer , 536 U . S. 730 , 736 , 122 S. Ct . 250 8, 251 3 ( 2002 ) (c iti ng Sauc ie r v . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194 , 201 , 121 S . Ct . 2151 , 215 6 ( 2001 )) . I f, und er the pla int if

f’ s ve rs ionof

the f ac ts, the de fe ndant vio la te d ac onst itu tio na l r igh t, “ the ne xt, se que nti al ste p is to as k w he the r the r igh t wa s clearly

established.” Saucier , 533 U . S. a t 20 1, 121 S . Ct . a t 21 56. Sh er if f Barr ett i s un dis put ed ly

agov er nm en t of fi ci al . F urthe r, P la int if

fs do not di spute that Sheriff Barrett w as acting within the scope of her discretionary au th or it y in ha vi ng Pla in ti ffs st rip sea rch edto m ai nt ai n s ecu rit y at t he Jai l. T he re fo re , w e co nsi de r onl y w he the r, w ithr es pe ct

to the A R, A L , and C R G ro upWe note that, in the instant case, Plaintiffs do not cha lleng e the manner of the str ip 28 se arc he s. 33 Pl ai nti ff s, P la int if fs suf fi ci en tly a lle ge d vi olatio ns o f co nst itu tio na l r igh ts and, if so, w hether such rights were clear ly established at the tim e of the alleged vio la tio ns. 1. Co nst itu tio nal

V iolati on a. Str ip s ea rc hes of

A R G roup P lai nti

ffs W e first a ddress the consti tutio nality of the blanket strip searches conducted on the A R G ro up P la int if fs a s part of the ir poi nt- of -e ntr y boo kin g in to the Ja il. 28 Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge e ac h arr es te e book ed int o th e Ja il’ s ge ne ra l po pul at ion , r eg ar dle ss of the crim e for which the person is arr ested, is subje cted to a blanket strip search w ith out an in div idu al iz ed

f ind ing of r ea sona ble sus pic ionthat the pe rs on i s concealing drugs, wea

pons , or other contraband. U nder the lawof this Circuit, an arre stee to be detained in the general j ail popu lation has a consti tutio nal right und er the F ourth A m en dm en t t o be f re e fr om str ip s earc he s c ondu ct ed w ith out r ea sona ble su sp ic io n t ha t t he de ta in ee i s co nc eal in g weapo ns , dru gs , or o th er co nt rab an d. W ils on , 251 F. 3d at 134 1, 1343 (plaintiff arre sted for driving un der the influence); Skurstenis v. Jones , 236 F . 3d 6 78, 680 , 682 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( pla int if f ar re ste d f or driving under the influence). T hus, under our bind ing precedent, the Jail’ s alleged34

pol ic y of c ondu ct ing blanke t stri p se ar ch es on a ll ar re ste es a t bo oki ng, on the sin gle gr ound

the y are to be pla ce d inthe Ja il’ s ge ne ra l po pul at ion , m ust be de em edun co ns ti tu ti on al . Se e W il so n, 251 F. 3d at 13 43; Sk urs te nis , 236 F. 3d at 682. Our holding with respect to the Jail’ s policydoes not m ean, however, that the particular strip sear ch conducted on each A R G roup Plaintiff actually violated th atPla in ti ff’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . H ic ks v . M oore , 422 F . 3d 1 246, 125 1 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ; Sk

urs te nis , 236 F . 3d at 68 2. R ea sona ble sus pic ionm ay

have ex is te d t o ju st ify the sea rch es of s om e Pl ai nt iff s. Id . “ ‘ Whether an office r has reasonable suspicion is an objec tive questio n viewed fr om the standpo int of a re as ona ble [ ] of fi ce r at the sc en e. I t i s ba se d onthe tot al ity of the c ir cum stanc es , and is a questio n of law to be review ed de novo.’ ” Id . a t 12 52 ( quot ing Ev ans II , 407 F. 3d at 12 80) . I n de te rm ini ng whe the r re as ona ble sus pic ione xis te d f

or the strip search, it is imm aterial whether the specific arresting officer or j ailer ac tua lly and subj ec tiv el

yhad reasonable suspicio n, or whether any one at the tim e ac tua lly co nd uc te d a reas on ab le su sp ic io n a na lysis . Hick s , 422 F . 3d at 12 52. I nst ea d, our inquir y is w he the r, giv enthe c ir cum stanc es , r ea sona ble sus pic ion obj ec tiv el

y ex is te d t o ju st ify the sea rch . I d.At the time of her arr est for dr iving unde r the influenc e, “Skurstenis ha d a .38 spec ial 29 handgun, for whic h she had a n expired permit, in the floorboar d of her car .” Sk ur ste nis , 236 F.3d at 680. Skurstenis was ar rested only

for dr iving unde r the influenc e, howe ver, a nd was not char g ed with any

wea pons offe nse. See id . 35 O ur pr ec ed en t de m onstrate s th at r ea sona ble sus pic ionto j ust if

y the str ip se ar chof an arr es te e m ay

be ba se d on , a m ong oth er thi ngs, the c ir cum stanc es of the pe rs on ’s arres t an d/ orth e n atur e o f th e o ffen se forwhi ch th e p ers on was a rres te d. First, we have rec ogni zed that the circum stances surroundi ng a person’ s arre st m ay su pp or t re as on ab le su sp ic io n t o ju st ify a st rip sea rch up on bo ok in g i nt o t he jail . 236 F. 3d at 68 2. F or

e xa m ple , in Sk urs te nis , w e he ld tha t “poss es sio n of aw ea pon by ade ta ine e [at the ti m e of arr es t] pr ovi de s th e ‘ re as ona ble sus pic ion ’ ne ce ssary

to authorize a strip searc h.” Id . A lth oughw e not ed the j ai l’ s po lic y

of c ondu ct ing blanke t stri p se ar ch es on arr es te es be fo re be ing pla ce d inac el l or de te nti on r oom w as unc onst itu tio na l, w e uphe ld the part ic ular str ip s earc h c ondu ct ed on the pla int if f be ca use , a t t im e of

he r ar re st f or dr ivi ng unde r the inf

lue nc e, she ha d a ha nd gu n i n h er p os se ss io n. Id . 29 Se co nd, w e ha ve r ec ogni ze d th at “ a pe rs on’ s be ing c harg ed w ithac ri m e of vio le nc e is s uf

fi ci en t t o e voke r ea sona

ble sus pic ionthat the pe rs on m ay be concealing wea

pons or contraband.” Hick s , 422 F . 3d at 12 52; see also Masters v. Crouch , 872 F. 2d 12 48, 1255 (6th Cir. 1989 ). Sim ilarly , where a person is arrested36

for an off ense involv ing weapons or drugs– such as pos session or use of a f irear m an d po sse ssi on, use , or

dis tr ibu tio n of

an il le ga l su

bst an ce –it

is obj ec tiv el y reasonable to conduct a strip search of that person before he c om es into contact with other detainees. In such cases, the nature of the ar rest char ge itself, in de pe nd en t o f th e fac ts su rro un di ng th e arr es t, g iv es ris e to reas on ab le su sp ic io n. O n th e oth er

hand, w he re ape rs on i s arr es te d f or an of fe nse not ge ne ra lly as soc ia te d w ithvio le nc e an d no t i nvol vin g w ea pons or dr ugs, the sin gle f

ac t the ar re ste e w ill be pla ce d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ionis not suf fi ci en t j ust if

ic at ion fo r th e se arch un de r ou r bi nd in g p rece de nt . See H icks , 422 F. 3d at 125 1-52. In such a case, there m

ust be additi onal facts giving rise to rea sonable su spicion that the pe rs on i s c onc ea lin g w ea pons , dr ugs, or oth er c ontra band, suc h a s th e ci rc um stanc es sur

ro undi ng the pe rs on’ s arr es t, a s in Sk urs te nis . W e ha ve de cl ine d to dr awadis tin ct ionbe tw ee n f el oni es and m isd em eanor s, recognizing there exist both felonies and m isdem eanors that are crim es of violence or that i nvol ve w ea

pons or dr ugs an d w hose na tur e, the re fo re , giv e ri se to reasonable suspicion that the arre stee is concealing wea pons , drugs, or other co ntr ab an d. I n Hick

s , f or e xa m ple , apane l of

thi s C ourt f

ound that the m isdem eanor offe nse of “ fam ily violence battery ,” for which the detainee wa s ar re ste d and c harg ed , j ust if ie d th e str ip s earc h c ondu ct ed on the pla int if

f. 422 F . 3d37

at 125 2. B ec au se it

w as the f ir st t im e the pla int if

f ha d be enarr es te d f

or and charged w ith fam ily

violence battery , he wa s charged w ith a m isdem eanor. Se e id. at 1249 n .2. Finding th e offe nse was “ obvi ouslyone of violence,” the panel expla ine d th at

G eo rg ialawde fi ne d f

am ily vio le nc e ba tte ry

a s “ ‘ int en tio na lly ca us[ ing ] sub stanti al phy sic al harm or vis ibl e bodi ly

harm ’ to a ‘ pa st o r pr es en t s p o u s e. ’” I

d. a t 12 52 ( quot ing O . C. G . A . § 16 -5 -2 3. 1( a) ). T he pane l r ea ch ed it s c o n c l u s i o n n o tb y c o n s i d e r i n g wh e t h e r th e arr e s tc h a r g e wa s af e l o n y or m is de m ean or , bu t b y

lo ok in g t o t he ele m en ts of t he off en se . Se e id. The panel de te rm ine d th at , a lth oughthe arr es tin g of fi ce rs and j ai le rs did

not sub j ec tiv el y sus pe ct the de ta ine e of

c onc ea lin g w ea

pons or dr ugs, the na tur e of

the arr es t c harg e (o f whi ch th e jail ers were n ot ifi ed ) was su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify the st rip sea rch . Id . at 12 49 , 12 52 . W e stress that under Hick s , the que sti on o f w he the r anof fe nse is a cr im e of violence depends not on the offense’ s classification as a fe lonyor m isdem eanor, but ins te ad on the e le m en ts o f the of fe nse f or w hic h th e ar

re ste e w as arr es te d and ch ar ge d. Whe re the e le m en ts o f the of fe nse de m onstrate that i t i s ac ri m e of vio le nc e or

ac ri m e that i nvol ve s w ea pons or dr ugs, the of

fe nse it se lf

giv es r ise to re as ona ble sus pic ionto j ust if

y astr ip s earc h. O f co ur se , e ve n w he re the of fe nse is not a crim e of violence and does not in volv e w eapons or drugs, the circum stancesAc c or din gto t he Com pla int , A nth ony

Wes tbr oo k a lso wa s a

rr e ste d f or “ c hil d 30 abandonme nt (non-support)” and on a pr obation war rant for “for g ery .” Acc ordingto the Complaint, Benjamin B lake a lso was ar rested f or “tre spass” a

nd 31 “obstruction.” 38 sur ro undi ng the arr es t m ay

non ethe le ss s uppo rt

r ea sona ble sus pic ionthat the arre st ee i s co nc eal in g weapo ns , dru gs , or o th er co nt rab an d. Se e Sk urs te nis , 236 F. 3d at 68 2. In the instant case, ther e ar e no allegations abo ut the circum stances sur ro undi ng the arr es t of

e ac h A R G ro up P la int if

f. A cc or din gly , w e can lo ok o nly to the nature of the particular off enses for w hich the AR G roup Plaintiffs we re arre st edto de te rm in e if

th ei r st rip sea rch es were s up po rte d b y reas on ab le su sp ic io n. Bas edon th e al le ga ti on s i n t he Co m pl ai nt , we con cl ud e th e fo ll owi ng AR G ro up P la int if

fs w er e ar re ste d f or c ri m es of

vio le nc e or

c ri m es inv olv ing w ea

pons or drugs: David Evans, arr ested on a charge of disorderly conduct bu t transferr ed to the Jail on a warr ant for possessio n of a w eapon; AnthonyW estbrook, arre sted o n ac h a r g e o f

s i mp l e b a t t e ry; an dB e n ja mi n B l a k e , arr e s t e df

o r b a t t e ry. 30 31 Be ca use the str ip s earc he s of

the se A R G ro up P la int if fs w er e supp orte d by re as ona ble sus pic ionba se d onthe na tur e of the arr es t of

fe nse s, the a lle ga tio ns d o not e sta bli sh a vio la tio n of

the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts. W e the re fo re a ff irm theWe note that, in some circumstanc es, burg lary may be a c rime of violenc e. Howe ver, 32 the alleg ations in the instant case a re insuff icient for us to make that deter mination. At the summary

judgme nt stag e, De fenda nts may show fac ts reg arding

the 33 circ umstances of

eac h Plaintiff’s arr est, the nature of the a rre st offense s, or some other c onduct that support rea sonable suspicion. At this 12(b)(6) stag e, howe ver, w e look only to the a lle g atio ns in t

he Com pla int . 39 dis m iss al of

the str ip s earc h c la im s a sse rt ed by P la int if fs E vans, W es tbr ook, and Bl ak e. W e al so c onc lud e the f

oll ow ing A R G ro up P la int if fs w er e ar re ste d f or offenses that are not crim es of violence and do no t invo lve wea pons or drugs: C. Alan P owell, arr ested after revocation of bond for “ disorderly conduct” and failure to pay a “bar tab”; Stanley

Clem ons, arr ested on a charge of burglary ; Allen 32 Middleton , arrested on a w arrant for an “ unpaid$27 traffic ticket”; Harry W itherspoo n, ar

rested for “ driving under the influence”; and Antionne W olf, ar re ste d f or “ co nte m pt/nonp ay

m en t of c hil d su ppor t. ” T he str ip s earc he s of

thi s la tte r gr oup of

A R G ro up P la int if

fs , a s a lle ge d inthe Co m

pla int , w er e not su pp or te d b y

reas on ab le su sp ic io n b as edon th e n atur e o f th e arr es t o ffen se s al on e. Ther efore, the allegations in th e Com plaint, at least at this Rule 12(b)(6) stage, es ta bli sh a vio la tio n of

the F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts o f Pl ai nti ff s P ow el l, Cl em ons, Mi ddl et on, W ith er spoo n, and W olf . W e m ust pr oc ee d to c onsi de r w he the r the 33 rig ht s o f th es e AR Gro up Pla in ti ffs were cl earl y est ab li sh ed .40

Before doing so, however , w e point ou t that a m aj ority of our Court has expr es se d un ce rt ai nty

about our pr ec ed en t ho ldi ng tha t stri p se ar ch es of arr es te es to be pla ce d inthe j ai l’ s ge ne ra l po pul at ion , abse nt r ea sona ble sus pic ion , vio la te the Fo ur th Am en dm en t. See Ev ans II , 407 F . 3d at 12 78. I n im posi ng a r equir em en t of r e a s o n ab l e s u s p i c i o n , o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n s r e l i e do n , b u tmi s c o n s t r u e d , th e S up r e me Co urt’ s de ci sio n in B el l v . W olf ish , 44 1 U.S. 5 20 , 99 S. Ct. 1 86 1 (1 97 9) . See W ils on , 251 F . 3d at 13 42- 43; Sk urs te nis , 236 F . 3d at 68 1- 82; Ju sti ce v . Ci tyof P ea ch tre e Ci ty , 961 F . 2d 1 88, 193 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) . W e ha ve sin ce r ec ogni ze d our m isinterpretation of B el l , stating: “ Most of us are uncertain that j ailers ar e re quired to h av e a re as ona

ble sus pic ionof

w ea pons or c ontra band b ef or e str ip s earc hin g–f

or security and safety

purposes– arre stees boun d for the general j ail popu lation. N ever has the Suprem e Court im posed su ch a re quirem ent.” E va ns II , 407 F . 3d at 12 79 (c itatio ns o m itt ed ). N one the le ss, w e re co gni ze w e ar e boun d by our Ci rc uit ’ s pr ior pane l de ci sio ns tha t a

j ai l’ s ge ne ra l pr ac tic e of c ondu ct ing blanke t stri p se ar ch es on arre stees on the sing le ground th at they will be place d in the jail’ s general popu lation is u nconsti tutio nal under W ils on and Sk

urs te nis . Fo r the r ea sons state d a

bove , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the str ip s earc h c la im s a sse rt ed by P la int if fs E vans, W es tbr ook, and B lake , c onc lud ing the a lle ga tio ns d o no t e sta bli sh a vio la tio n of

the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts. W ithPlaintiffs do not challeng e the late booking pr ocess a s a whole. F or example, Plaintiffs 34 do not challeng e the pr ocess dur ing which a pe rson committed to the J ail is finge rprinted, identified, and e ntere d into the J ail’s computer ized inmate manag ement sy stem. Rather, 41 res pe ctto Pla in ti ffs Po well , Cle m on s, M id dl et on , W it he rs po on , and W ol f, we co nc lud e the a lle ga tio ns i n th e Co m pla int do e sta bli sh a vio la tio n of

the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts, and w e co nsi de r in s ec tio n I I. B. 2. a. w he the r the r igh ts o f the se AR Gro up Pla in ti ffs were cl earl y est ab li sh ed . b. Str ip s ea rc hes of

A L and CR G roup P lai nti ffs W e tur n ne xt t o th e co nst itu tio na lity of blanke t stri p se ar ch es c ondu ct ed on the AL and CR G roup Plaintiffs after becom ing entit led to release. Plaintiffs allege, with respect to the A L G roup, the Jail has a prac tice of conducting b lanket strip searches on detainees w ho have pos ted bond or w ho have been ordered relea sed at a Fir st Appearance hearing at the Jail. T he AL Gr oup Plaintiffs wer e subjected to the bookin g process, including the book ing strip searc hes, af ter becom ing entit led to release bec ause their point-of-entry book ing in to the Jail was not start ed or c om ple te d up on the ir

arr iva l a t the Ja il. W e as sum e the A L G ro up Pl ai nti ff s w er e subj ec te d to str ip s earc he s a s part of thi s late boo kin g pr oc es s be ca use the y w er e pla ce d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ionw hil e the sta ff in the Re co rd s R oom , a s part

of the r el ea se pr oc es s, se ar ch ed f or oth er de te nti on o rd er s, w ar rants , and h old s. 34Plaintiffs challeng e the policy of conduc ting bookingstrip searc hes, as pa rt of the late booking proce ss, after

they have poste d bond or have been or dere d rele ased by a judicial off

icer at the Jail . 42 Pl ai nti ff s a lso a lle ge , w ithr es pe ct to the CR

G ro up, the Ja il ha s apol ic y of co nduc tin g bl an ke t stri p se ar ch es on p er sons w ho are r et ur ne d to Ja il fo llo w ing a co urt a ppe ar an ce a t w hic h th ey

w er e or de re d r el ea se d, de spi te the f ac t tha t the se

“ i n -c u s t o d y d ef

en d an t s ” w er e u n d erth e c o n s t an ts up er v i s i o n o f t h e S h er i ff ’s de put ie s, w er e not

pe rm itt ed

to ha ve c ont ac t w ithany one w hil e in transi t or a t the co urtho use , and w er e al re ady str ip s earc he d up on e nte ri ng the Ja il. T he CR G ro up Pl ai nti ff s w er e str ip s earc he d up on the ir r et ur n f ro m the c ourtho use be fo re be ing book ed ba ck int o th e ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ion , w he re the y w er e he ld whil e the Re co rd s R oom

se ar ch ed f or out standi ng d et en tio n or de rs , w ar rants , and o the r hol ds before r eleasing them . The C R G roup Plaintiffs had already been strip searched onc e as part

of the ir poi nt- of -e ntr y boo kin g in to the Ja il an d thus w er e subj ec te d to blanket strip searches twice . A s w itharr es te e str ip s earc he s, the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ea sona ble ne ss t es t ar tic ulate d in B el l

is th e ap pl ic ab le st an da rdto ev al ua te th e st rip sea rch es of t he AL and CR G roup Plaintiffs. I n each ca se, the te st requires “ a balancing of the need for the particular

searc h against the inv asion of personal right s that the search en ta ils . C ourts m

ust c onsi de r the sc ope of

the part ic ular intru sio n, the m an ne r inBe cause the AL and CR Group Plaintiffs do not challeng e the sc ope, plac e, or ma nner 35 o f t h ei r s tri p s ea rc h es , we ad dre s s o n l y th e “ j u s t i fi ca t i o n ” p ro n g. We rec og nize that the ALGroup Plaintiffs who posted bond still have cha rg es pending 36 a g a ins t th e m. 43 which it is conducted, the j ustification for initi ating it, and the place in which it w as conducted.” B el l , 441 U. S. at 559, 99 S. Ct. at 1884. T his Court cond ucted such 35 a ba lanc ing in W

ils on and Sk

urs te nis , e xpl ai nin g th e “ j ust if ic at ion ” pr ong of

the B el l te st and f

ind ing that stri p se ar ch es of arr es te es a s th ey

e nte r the Ja il cannot

be j ustified on the single grou nd that th e ar restees w ill be placed in the Jail’ s general po pu la ti on . W

ils on , 251 F . 3d at 13 42- 43; Sk urs te nis , 236 F. 3d at 682 . Rather, unde r the lawof

thi s C ir cu it, an arr es te e to b e de ta ine d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l popu la tio n ha s ac onst itu tio na l r igh t un de r the F ourth A m en dm en t t o be f re e fr om str ip s earc he s c ondu ct ed

w ith out r ea sona ble sus pic ionthat the de ta ine e is co nc eal in g weapo ns , dru gs , or o th er co nt rab an d. W ils on , 251 F . 3d at 13 41- 43; Sk urs te nis , 236 F . 3d at 67 8, 680 , 682 . H er e, the j ust if ic at ionis the sam e as in W ils on and Sk

urs te nis , th atis , con ti nu edde te nt io n i n t he ge ne ral jail po pu la ti on . Additionally , the privac y interests of the AL and CR G roup Plaintiffs are the sam e, or arg uably gr eate r than, tho se of

arr es te es be ca

use the y are e nti tle d to r el ea se and the ba sis f

or the ir de te nti on at the Ja il no l onge r ex ist s. A cc or din gly , if our 36 pr ec ed en t r equir es r ea sona ble sus pic ionto j ust if

y poi nt- of -e ntr y str ip s earc he s of44

ar re ste es bound f

or the ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ion , the n a t a m ini m um , r ea sona

ble sus pic ionm

ust e xis t t o j ust if

y str ip s earc he s of

pe rs ons en tit le d to r el ea se f ro m the Jail who are to be placed in the general j ail popu lation while their rec ords are checked for other dete ntion orders, warrants, or holds. Ther efore, we m ust deem unc onst itu tio na l the Ja il’ s po lic ie s of c ondu ct ing blanke t st

ri p se ar ch es on detainees who ar e entitled to release f rom the Jail under the factual cir cum stances pr es en te d h ere. A lth oughw e co nc lud e the Ja il’ s po lic y is unc onst itu tio na l, w e m ust de te rm ine w he the r re as ona ble sus pic ione xis te d to j ust if y the part ic ular str ip se ar ch es of

the A L and C R G ro up P la int if fs . W e fi rs t di sc uss the tw o P la int if fs in the AL Gr oup, Powe ll and Matkin. Bec ause Powe ll post ed bond , r ather than ha vin g be enor de re d r el ea se d, his arr es t c harg e re m ai ne d pe ndi ng a ga ins t hi m a t the tim e he w as strip searched. T herefor e, the nature of the off ense for which he was ar re ste d m ay

giv e ri se to re as ona

ble sus pic ionto j ust if

y his str ip s earc h. P ow el l was arre st edon ch arg es of “ di so rd erl y co nd uc t” an d fa il ur e to pa y a “ ba r tab,” ne it he r of whi ch are cr im es of v io le nc e o r in vo lv e weap on s o r drug s. Th us , we co nc lud e that P ow el l’ s stri p se ar cha ft er havin g po ste d bo nd w as not sup porte d by re as ona ble sus pic ionba se d onthe na tur e of the arr es t c harg e al one . Matki n, how ev er , w as or de re d r el ea se d by aj udi ci al of

fi ce r at the Ja il. A cc or din g to theSee su pra note 33. 37 45 Com plaint, Matkin was arrested on Mar ch 18, 2004 on a char ge of “ aggravated assault”; on March 19, 2004, a j udicial officer at t he J ail dism issed the aggravated assault charge and ordered Matkin released; instead of being released, M atkin was book ed into th e Jail, strip searched, and held for four day s; Matkin was perm itted to leave the Jail only

on March 23, 2004. Ba sed on the allegation s, w e cannot say at thi s 12 (b )( 6) sta ge that M atkin ’ s stri p se ar chw as sup porte d by r ea sona ble sus pic ion . 37 T he tw o P la int if

fs in the CR

G ro up, E vans and W olf

, ha d a lr ea dy

be enstr ip se ar ch ed upo n e nte ri ng the Ja il an d w er e or de re d r el ea se d instate c ourt. T hus, there w ere no pend ing charges against them at the tim e they

we re strip sear ched ag ai n, and w e cannot

loo k to the na tur e of

the ir arr es t c harg es to fi nd r ea sona ble susp icion. Further , a ccording to th e Com plaint, the CR G roup Plaintiffs we re unde r co nst an t su

pe rv isi on whil e in transi t t o and f ro m the Ja il an d w hil e at

the co urtho use , and the y

w er e not pe rm itt ed

to ha ve c ont ac t w ithany one oth er than th e Sh er if f’ s de put ie s and the ir

a tto rn ey s. P la int if

fs m ak e no a lle ga tio ns i ndi catin gBe cause the alleg ations do not give rise to re asonable suspicion as requir ed under our 38 pr e c e de nt, we ne e d n ot d e te rm ine wh at pa rt ic ula r l e ve l of c a us e is n e c e ssa

ry to j us tif y the str ip sear ches of

the AL and CR Group Plaintiffs. Fur ther, at this 12(b)(6) stag e, De fenda nts have ha d no opportunity

to present e vidence on, or re spond about, whethe r there was c onstant supervision and no conta ct or, e ven so, whe ther ther e we re oppor tunities to obt ain wea

pons, other contra band, or items fr om which wea pons could be made . As we c oncluded a

bove, Powell’s strip sea

rch upon be ing booke d into the J ail, which 39 wa s b a se d o n h is s e c on d c omm itm e nt t o th e Jail a ft e r h is b on d w a s r e vo ke d, a lso vio late d h is Four th Amendment rig hts. Although the strip searc h conducte d on Evans upon beingbooked into the J ail did not 40 violate his Fourth Ame ndment rig hts, se e su pra , his strip searc h afte r re turningfrom a c ourt appea ranc e at whic h he wa s order ed re lease d lacke d rea sonable suspicion and, unde r our pr e c e de nt, vio late d h is F ourt h A me ndme nt r ig hts .

46 the y ha d an op portun ity

to ac qui re c ontra

band d ur ing the ir

tr an sf er s w ith in the Ja il or betwe en the Jail and the courthou se. 38 W e the re fo re c onc lud e that a ll Pl ai nti ff s of the A L G ro up–P ow el l and 39 Ma tki n–and a ll Pl ai nti ff

s of the CR G ro up–E vans and W olf –have suf fi ci en tly 40 al le ge d vi olatio ns o f the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts. W e pr oc ee d to de te rm ine whe th er t he ir r ig ht s wer e cl earl y est ab li sh edin sec ti on II.B.2 .b. b el ow. 2. Cl ea rlyE

sta bli she d L aw Inde te rm ini ng whe the r a co nst itu tio na l r igh t i s c le ar ly e sta bli she d, “ [t ] he relevant, dispo sitive inq uiry . . . is whether it w ouldbe clear to a rea sonable officer th athi s co nd uc t was un la wfu l i n t he si tu at io n h e co nf ro nt ed .” Saucier , 533 U. S. at 202, 121 S . Ct . a t 21 56. T his inquir y “ m ust be und er take n inli ght

of the spe ci fi c context of the case, not as a broad general propositio n.” Id . at 201, 121 S. C t. at47

2156 . T he c ont our s of

the r igh t m

ust be suf fi ci en tly c le ar suc h th at ar ea sona

ble of fic ia l wo ul d u nd ers ta nd th athi s co nd uc t v io la te s t ha t ri gh t. H ope , 536 U. S. at 739, 122 S . Ct . a t 25 15. “ T his is not to say that an of

fi ci al a ct ionis pr ote ct ed

by qua lif ie d im m uni ty unl es s th e ve ry

a ct ionin que sti on h as pr ev iou sly be enhe ld unl aw fu l; but

it is to s ay that i n th e lig ht o f pr e- ex ist ing lawthe unl aw fu lne ss m ust be apparent. ” Id

. ( quot ing A nde rso n v . Cr ei ght on , 483 U . S. 635 , 640 , 107 S . Ct . 3034 , 3039 (1987) (citation om itted)). T he salient questio n, there fore, is whether the state of

the lawgave the gov er

nm en t of fi ci al “ fa ir

w ar nin g” that hi s tr eatm en t of th e p la in ti ff was un co ns ti tu ti on al . Id. at 741 , 122 S . Ct . a t 25 16; se e als o M ars h v. B utl er Co unt y , 268 F . 3d 1 014, 103 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( enbanc ) (s ta tin g “ fa ir and clear notice to gov ernm ent officials is the cornerstone of qualified im m unity ”). Inm ost ins tanc es , “ fa ir

w ar nin g” w ill be giv enby

c as e lawe xis tin g a t the ti m e o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on . Se e V iny ard , 311 F . 3d at 13 51. I n f ind ing appl ic ab le ca se law , w e loo k to de ci sio ns o f the U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt, de ci sio ns o f th is Co ur t, an d d eci si on s o f th e h ig he st co ur t o f th e p ert in en t s ta te . M ars h , 268 F. 3d at 10 32- 33 n . 10; H

am ilton v . Ca nnon , 80 F. 3d 15 25, 1532 n .7 (11th Cir. 1996 ). I n m an y

ins tanc es , c as e laww ill announc e a hol din g th at is tie d to a pa rti cu la r se t o f fac ts . V

iny ard , 311 F . 3d at 13 51- 52. Whe n su chf ac t- spe ci fi c pr ec ed en ts are sa id t o c le ar ly e sta bli sh the law , the c ir cum stanc es in the ins tant48

ca se f ac ing the gov er

nm en t of fi ci al m ust be “ m at er ia lly

sim ilar” to tho se in the pr ee xis tin g c as e lawf

or us t o c onc lud e the gov er nm en t of fi ci al ha d f

ai r w ar nin g of th e u nc on st it ut io na li ty of hi s co nd uc t. Se e id. at 1352. How ever, althoug h cases w ithm at er ia lly

sim ilar fa ct s c anpr ovi de e spe ci al ly str ong supp ort f

or ac onc lus ion th atth e la w is cle arl y

est ab li sh ed , th ey

are n ot alwa y s n eces sa ry . H op e, 536 U.S . at 741, 122 S. Ct. at 2516. Agovernm ental official c an be on noti ce that his conduct vi ol at es th e la w eve n i n n ov el fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces . Id . ; se e V iny ard , 311 F. 3d at 1351 -5 2. Whe re c as e lawannounc es br oa d pr inc ipl es of lawthat are not

ti ed to part ic ulari ze d f

ac ts, suc h c as e lawc anc le ar ly e sta bli sh the lawappl ic ab le in a va rie ty of di ffer en t fa ctua l ci rcu m st an ces . V iny ard , 311 F . 3d at 13 51. W e ha ve cautioned, however, that if a broad principle is to clearly establish th e law ap pli ca ble to a spe ci fi c se t of

f ac ts, “ it m

ust do s o ‘ w ithobv iou s c lari ty ’ to the poi nt tha t e ve ry

obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble gov er nm en t of fi ci al f ac ing the ci rc um stanc es w oul d kn owthat the of fi ci al ’ s conduct

did vio late fe deral lawwhen the official ac ted.” Id. (em phasis add ed). a. Str ip S ea rc hes of

A R G roup P lai nti

ffs W e fi rs t c onsi de r w he the r the F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts o f Pl ai nti ff s P ow el l, Cl em ons, Mi ddl et on, W ith er spoo n, and W olf of the A R G ro up w er e cl earl y es ta bli she d. T his Co urt’ s pane l de ci sio ns i n bo th Sk urs te nis and W

il so n, issued49

before the strip sear ches in the instant case occ urred, m ake clear that j ailers ar e re qui re d to have r ea sona

ble sus pic ionof

w ea pons , dr ugs, or oth er c ontra band be fo re s tri p- se arch in g a rres te es bo un d fo r th e g en eral jail po pu la ti on . W ils on , 251 F. 3d at 13 43 ( hol din g th e str ip s earc h of the pla int if

f ab se nt r ea sona

ble sus pic ion , as we ll as Shelby

County Jail’ s policyauthorizing th e strip searc h, w ere unc onst itu tio na l) ; Sk

urs te nis , 236 F. 3d at 682 (holding Shelby County Jail’ s policy of str ip- se ar ch ing inm at es w ith out r ea sona ble sus pic ionw as unc onst itu tio na l) ; see als o C uesta v . Sc hool

B d. of M iam i-D ade Co unt

y , 285 F. 3d 96 2, 969 (11th Cir. 2002 ) (“ This Court has explained the ‘ j ustification’ prong of the B el l de ci sio n in tw o r ec en t c as es : Skurstenis v. Jones and W ilson v. Jones . Both cases m ake clear that the F ourth A m en dm en t r equir es j ai l of fi ci al s to have ‘ re as ona

ble sus pic ion ’ t h a tan arr e s t e e i s c o n c e a l i n g w e ap o n s o r c o n t r ab a n db e f

o r e th e y c a n p e r f

o rm a st rip sea rch .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Furthe r, on at l ea st tw o oc ca sio ns, thi s C ourt ha s e m pha siz ed the hol din g of W ils on . I n Hick

s , f or e xa m ple , apane l of

thi s C our t a ddr es se d th e co nst itu tio na lity of ac ounty j ai l’ s pr ac tic e of

str ip s earc hin g e ve ry

arr es te e to b e pla ce d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ion . C iti ng W ils on , w e state d: “ [G ] ive n th e Ci rc uit ’ s pr ec ed en t, w e m ust c onc lud e the se ar chof

P la int if f cannot be j ust if ie d un de r the Co nst itu tio n on the sin gle ground that Plaintiff w as about to be pl aced in the Jail’ s general50

popu la tio n, ” an d “ w e ac ce pt tha t r ea sona ble sus pic ionis re qui re d by the lawof

thi s Circuit.” Hick

s , 422 F . 3d at 12 51. I n E va ns I , w e ag ai n r ec ite d th e hol din g of W ils on : “ Ar

restees who are to be detained in the general j ail popu lation can co nst itu tio na lly

be sub j ec te d to astr ip s earc h on ly if the se ar chis supp orte d by reasonable suspicion that such a search w ill reveal w eapons or contraband.” E va ns I , 351 F. 3d at 490 . Ac cordingly , w e conclude Sheriff Bar rett had fair

warning that the blanket strip searches conducted on the AR Gr oup Plaintiffs wer e un co ns ti tu ti on al . It is tr ue , a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt po int ed out , that w e ha ve que sti one d our req ui rem en t o f rea so nabl e su sp ic io n. See E vans II , 407 F . 3d at 12 78 ( “ Mos t of us ar e unc er ta in tha t j ai le rs are r equir ed to ha ve ar ea sona

ble sus pic ionof

w ea pons or co ntr ab an d be fo re str ip s earc hin g–f or se curi ty and s af ety pur pose s–arr es te es bound fo r the ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ion ); Hick s , 42 2 F .3dat 1 25 1 n .5 (“ W e pe rs ona lly que sti on tha t su chapr ac tic e vio la te s th e Fo urth A m en dm en t. ”) . H ow ev er , our que sti oni ng h as be enm er el y dic ta , and w e ha ve pr ev iou sly r ec ogni ze d th at

dic ta play s no r ole in the c le ar ly e sta bli she d ana ly sis : “ T he lawc annot be e sta bli she d by dic ta . D ic tais part ic ularl y unh el pf ul i n qu al if

ie d im m uni ty c as es w he re w e se ek

to identify clear ly established law.” H

am ilton , 80 F . 3d at 15 30. H ow ev er , e ve n if our dic tain Ev ans II

and Hick s c oul d be sa id t o “ m

uddl e” the lawof

thi s C ir cu it, the51

opi nio ns i n bo th c as es w er e iss ue d after the a lle ge d stri p se ar ch es in the ins tant cas e o ccu rred an d t hu s co ul d n ot ha ve affec te d S he rif f Barret t. W e al so d isa gr ee w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the re is a

“ pr onounc ed

dis sim ilari ty ” be tw ee n th e str ip s ea rc he s in W

ils on and those in the instant case such thatW

ils on c oul d no t have giv enS he ri ff Barr ett f ai r w ar nin g of our r equir em en t of

r ea sona ble sus pic ion . S pe ci fi ca lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the str ip s earc he s a lle ge d inthe ins tant c as e w er e “ m ar ke dly le ss i nva siv e” than th ose in W il so n. This ignores the allegations in the instant case that P laintiffs we re re qui re d no t on ly

to re m ove the ir

c lothin g bu t a lso to show er tog ethe r w ithagr oup of thi rty or f orty oth er pe rs ons. E ac h arr es te e the n e ith er sin gly or standi ng i n li ne w ithoth er s w as vis ua lly

ins pe ct ed

f ro nt and b ac k. I n W

ils on , the plaintiff w as required to rem ove her clothing , “ squat, spread her buttocks, and cough three tim es.” W

ils on , 251 F . 3d at 13 41. T he f em al e of fi ce r in W ils on c he ck ed

the pl ai nt iff’s ears , m ou th , no se , and bre as ts du rin g t he sea rch . Id . a t 13 41- 42. Whil e the str ip s earc h in W

ils on and those in the ins tant c as e w er e co nduc te d indif fe re nt m an ne rs , e ac h w as inv as ive and w e cannot c onc lud e that any

dif fe re nc e in the de gr ee o f in va si ve ne ss is m at eri al . Like th e in st an t ca se , W ils on ad dr es se d stri p searches of arre stees to be placed in the general j ail popu lation withou t an in di vi du al iz edfin di ng of r eas on ab le su sp ic io n. Se e id. a t 13 41. T hus, w hil eWe n ote that W ils on ’s ho ldi ngimp os inga re qu ir e me nt o f r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

wa s in 41 no wa y qu a lif ie d b y the mann e r i n whic h th e str ip s e arc h w a s c on du c te d. Ho we ve r, be c a us e judicial opinions “cannot make law beyond the fa cts of the c ases in which those decision ar e ann ounc e d, ” we re c ognize that th e ho ldi ngis l imi te d to a c e rt a in e xtent by

the mate ri a l f

a c ts prese nted to the Court. W atts v. BellSouth Telecomms., I nc. , 316 F.3d 1203, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 52 W ils on ’ s ho ldi ng i s to ac er ta in e xte nt t ie d to the part ic ular fa ct s a t i ssu e, the pe rt ine nt f

ac ts o f both c as es are m at er ia lly sim ilar. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e

41 Sh er if f Barr ett ha d f

ai r w ar nin g th at str ip- se ar ch ing the A R G ro up P la int if fs abse nt re as ona ble sus pic ionvio la te d th ei r Fo urth A m en dm en t r igh ts. Be ca use P la int if

fs P ow el l, Cl em ons, Mi ddl et on, W ith er spoo n, and W olf sufficiently

alleged violation s of their Fourth Am endm ent rights, and because such ri ght s w er e cl earl y

e sta bli she d, w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the str ip search c laim s for m onetary dam ages against Sheriff

Bar rett in her individu al c ap a c i t y. b. Strip Se arc hes of A L and CR G roup P lai nti ffs W e ne xt c onsi de r w he the r the F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts o f Pl ai nti ff s P ow el l an d M atkin , of

the A L G ro up, and P la int if fs E vans and W olf

, of the CR G ro up, we re c learly

established. T he conduct challenged in the ins tant case–routine, ind isc ri m inate str ip s earc he s–i s th e sa m e as the c ondu ct w e ad dr es se d in W

ils on . Furthe r, in both W

ils on and the ins tant c as e, the pur porte d j ust if

ic at ionf or the ro uti ne , ind isc ri m inate str ip s earc he s w as that the arr es te es w oul d be pla ce d inthe53

ge ne ral jail po pu la ti on . W il so n, 251 F. 3d at 13 41; see also Hicks , 422 F. 3d at 1251 . W e co nc lud ed

in W ils on that su chaj ust if

ic at ion , a lon e, w as not

suf fi ci en t t o jus ti fy th e ch al le ng edco nd uc t. See W ils on , 251 F . 3d at 13 41, 134 3. T o th e ex te nt the r ule announc ed

in W ils on w as ti ed

to part ic ulari ze d f

ac ts, w e de te rm ine the fa ct s of the ins tant c as e w ithr es pe ct to the A L and C R G ro ups ar e m at er ia lly sim ilar to the pe rt ine nt f

ac ts i n W ils on . The f act that the A L and CR Gr oup Plaintiffs wer e not newly -adm itted arre stees m akes it even m ore obviou s under W ils on that their strip searches w ere unc onst itu tio na l. T he y , unl ike ne w ly -a dm itt ed arr es te es , w er e en tit le d to r el ea se fr om the Ja il an d, in ca se of

tho se P la int if

fs or de re d r el ea se d e ith er a t the Ja il or

in state c ourt, no l onge r ha d pe ndi ng c harg es a ga ins t the m . A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e Sh er if f Barr ett ha d f

ai r w ar nin g, und er

thi s C ir cu it’ s pr ec ed en t, that stri p- se ar ch ing the A L and C R G ro up P la int if fs abse nt r ea sona

ble sus pic ionvio la te d th ei r Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Be ca use the A L and C R G ro up P la int if fs suf fi ci en tly a lle ge d vi olatio ns o f the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts, and b ec au se suc h r igh ts w er e cl earl y e sta bli she d, we rever se the district court’ s dism issal of their strip search cla im s against Sheriff B a rr e t ti n h e r

i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y.54

C. M uni ci pal L iab ili tyof the Co unt

y and the Ci tyund

er § 19 83 T he que sti on o f m

uni ci pa l l ia

bil ity und er § 19 83 i s r el ev an t on ly

w he n a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n h as oc cu rred . R oone y v. W ats on , 101 F . 3d 1 378, 138 1 (1 1thCi r. 199 6) . T hus, w e ad dr es s th e Co unty ’ s and C ity ’ s li ab ili ty und er § 19 83 onl y w ithr es pe ct

to tho se P la int if

fs w ho h av e suf

fi ci en tly a lle ge d vi olatio ns o f the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts, nam el y P la int if fs P ow el l, Mi ddl et on, W ith er spoo n, Mat ki n, Wol f, an d Ev an s.

“ The S uprem e Court has placed strict lim itations on m unicipal liabi lity

under § 198 3.” Grec h , 335 F. 3d at 132 9. Am unicipalit y

can be f ound liable under § 198 3 onlywher e the m

unicipalit y

itself causes the constituti onal vio lation at is su e. Ci tyof Ca nto n v . H arr is , 48 9 U.S. 3 78 , 38 5, 1 09 S. Ct. 1 19 7, 1 20 3 (1 98 9) . T hus, apla int if

f se ek ing to im

pose li ab ili ty

on a m uni ci pa lity

und er § 19 83 m

ust id en ti fy a m un ic ip al po li cy

or c us to m

th atcau se d t he pl ai nt iff’s in jury. Grec h , 335 F. 3d at 132 9. Be cause a m unicipalit y

will rarely

have an officia lly -adopted pol icy of pe rm itt ing apart ic ular co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n, m ost pla int if fs m ust sho wthe loc al gov er

nm en t ha s ac ust om

or pr ac tic e that e vid en ce s a“ de lib er at e in di ffer en ce” t o t he pl ai nt iff’s rig ht . Se e id. ; Mc Dowell v . B rown , 392 F . 3d 1 283, 1289 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . O nly w he re the m

uni ci pa lity ’ s c ust om

or pr ac tic e re fl ec ts a

“ de lib er at e” or

“ co nsc iou s” c hoi ce f

ro m am ong vari ous al te rn at ive s c anthe55

m un ic ip al it y

be li ab le forit s co nd uc t. H arr is, 48 9 U.S. at 38 8, 1 09 S. Ct. at 12 05 . H ow ev er , it

is not e noug h to ide nti fy

c ondu ct pr ope rl y a ttr ibu ta ble to the m un ic ip al it y . Id

. Apla int if

f m ust a lso de m onstrate that the m uni ci pa lity ’ s c ust om is the “ direct causal link ” betwe en the m unicipalit y

and the constitu tional in

j ury su ch th atth e m

un ic ip al it y ’s act io n was th e “ m ov in g fo rce” be hi nd th e v io la ti on . Id. at38 5, 3 89 . O ur de ci sio n to day

that S he ri ff

F re em ana ct s a s an arm

of the S ta te fo re cl ose s P la int if

fs ’ arg um en t tha t the Co unty c anbe he ld l ia

ble und er § 19 83 ba se d onit s c ontro l of

the str ip s earc h po lic ie s a t the Ja il. A s w e pr ev iou sly expla ine d, the S he ri ff

s do not a ct a s po lic ym ak er s f

or the Co unty

w he n pe rf

orm ing th ei r fu nc ti on of m ai nt ai ni ng sec ur it y at t he Jai l. See M

ande rs , 338 F. 3d at 1328 ; Grec h , 33 5 F .3dat 1 33 2. H ow ev er , pla int if

fs ide nti fy

anothe r se t of

“pol ic ie s” w hic h th ey

c la im the Ci ty and C ounty

do c ontro l, nam el y

the Co unty ’ s and the Ci ty ’ s po lic ie s of co m m i t t i n g arre s t ee s t o th e J ai l th ro u g h th ei r r es p ec t i v e p o l i ce d ep ar t m en t s . We ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t, w he n r ea d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to Pl ai nti ff

s, th e Co m pl ai nt can be readto all eg e th es e o th er “ po li ci es .” Non et he le ss , as we expla in b el ow , w e co nc lud e that P la int if fs ’ c la im s of

m uni ci pa l l ia

bil ity a ga ins t the56

Countyand City

for the violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Am endm ent rights, even whe n b as edon th es e o th er “ po li ci es ,” fai l. 1. Li abi lit

y of t he Ci ty W ithr es pe ct

to the Ci ty , not

one of the P la int if

fs w ho s uf

fi ci en tly a lle ge d a vio la tio n of

the ir F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts w as arr es te d by the Ci ty of A tlanta P o l i c e De p a rt men t . Th e r e ar e n o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i n ju r i e s a t t r i b u t ab l e th e C i t y, the re fo re , be ca

use the Ci ty

did not pla ce a t the Ja il an y

of the P la int if

fs w ho suf fi ci en tly a lle ge d c onst itu tio na l i nj ur ie s. B ec au se the Ci ty did not vio la te the co nst itu tio na l r igh ts o f the se P la int if fs , P la int if

fs ’ str ip s earc h c la im s a ga ins t the Ci ty und er § 19 83 m

us t b e d is m is se d. See R ooney , 101 F . 3d at 13 81 ( expla ini ng that i nqui ry

int o agov er

nm en ta l e nti ty ' s c ust om

or pol ic y is re le vant o nly

w he n a co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n h as oc cu rred ). 2. Li abi lit

y of t he Co unt y W ithr es pe ct

to the Co unty , P la int if

fs c la im the Co unty

“ kne wor sho uld ha ve kno w n” of

the unc onst itu tio na l stri p se ar ch es and w er e “ de lib er at el y indifferent” to Plaintiffs’ rights “ to be free from illegal strip searches. ” Pla intiffs al le ge the Co unty ’ s de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e w as the “ m ovi ng f or ce ” or “ m oti va tin g fa ct or ” be hin d P la int if

fs ’ c onst itu tio na l i nj ur ie s. A lth oughP la int if fs a lle ge that the Co u n t y wa s “ d el i b er at el y i n d i ff er en t ,” we qu es t i o n wh et h erth e C o u n t y’ s57

co m m itm en t of

arr es te es a t the Ja il w as in fa ct a“ de lib er at e ch oic e fr om a m ong vari ous al te rn at ive s. ” I n f ac t, unl ike the ir

a lle ga tio ns a

bout the Ci ty , P la int if

fs do not spe ci fi ca lly

a lle ge that the Co unty

ha s ac hoi ce ove r w he re to co m m it its arre st ees . E ve n a ssu m ing , how ev er , the Co unty ’ s pl ac em en t of arr es te es a t the Ja il co nst itu te s apol ic y

that r ef le ct s ade lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e to P la int if

fs ’ F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts, thi s c as e pr es en ts a ddi tio na l pr obl em s of c au sa tio n. T he li nk betwee n the County ’ s policyof placing arre stees at the Jail and the strip searches co nduc te d a t the Ja il by

the S he ri ff

and h is d ep uti es –ove r w hic h th e Co unty ha s no co nt ro l– is to o a tt en ua te d t o i m po se li ab il it y

on th e Co un ty. See Turquitt v. Je ffe rso n C ount y , 137 F. 3d 12 85, 1292 (11t h Cir. 1998 ) (“ [L ] ocal governm ents can never be liable under § 1983 for the acts of those whom the local governm ent has no a uth or ity to co ntr ol. ”) . W e re co gni ze that ha d th e Co unty not pla ce d it s arre stees at the Jail, those person s would not b e subjec ted to the strip searches at t h e J ai l ; b u twe ca n n o ts ay, b as ed o n Pl ai n t i ff s ’ al l eg at i o n s , t h at th e C o u n t y’ s placem ent of arr estees at the Jail w as the direct ca usal linkor the m ovin g force that an im at ed the be ha vio r of

the S he ri ff

s and the ir

de put ie s th at

r es ult ed in the c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s a l l e g e d . “O b v i o u s l y i f o n e r e t r e a t s f

a r e n o u g h f r o m a co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n so m e m uni ci pa l ‘ pol ic y ’ c anbe ide nti fi ed be hin d a lm ostWe note that Plaintiffs do not argue on appe al the County was de liberate ly

indiffer ent 42 based on its fa ilure to train the Sher iffs and the ir staff. 58 any . . . harm inflicted by

a m unicipal official.” O klahom a Cityv . T utt le , 471 U. S. 808, 823, 105 S. Ct. 2427 , 2436 (1985) (plurality opini on). F or exam

ple, P laintiffs w o u l dn e v e r

h a v e b e e n c o mm i t t e dt o th e J a i l i f th e C o u n t y d i dn o th a v e a“p o l i c y” of arr es tin g st at e of

fe nde rs , and P la int if

fs w oul d ne ve r ha ve be enarr es te d, if the Co un ty didno t h av e “ po li cy ” o f es tabl is hi ng a po li ce fo rce. Se e id. B ut the Suprem e Court’ s rigorous st andards of culpabilityand causation that appl y wher e a m unicipalit y ’ s actions are fa cially valid require m ore, which Pla intiffs have failed to sh ow. Se e H

arr is , 489 U. S. at 388, 109 S. C t. at 1205 . Plaintiffs’ conclusory statem ent that the Countywa s the “ m ovin g force” behind Plainti ffs’ injuries does no t cu re t hi s d efec t. Se e Two mbl y, 127 S. Ct . a t 19 64- 65 ( re qui ri ng m or e than a fo rm ula ic r ec itatio n of

the e le m en ts o f a ca

use of a ct ionto sur

viv e a m oti on t o d i s m i s s ). We t h er ef

o re re v er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d en i al o f t h e C o u n t y’ s an dCi t y’ s m oti ons to d ism iss . 42 III. CO NC LUS ION Ba se d onthe f

or eg oin g, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the str ip search c laim s for m onetary dam ages against Sheriff

Fre em an in his official ca pa ci ty ; w e af

fi rm in part and r ev er se in part

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the59

strip search claim s for m onetary dam ages against Sheriff

Bar rett in her individu al cap ac i t y; we re v er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d en i al o f t h e C o u n t y’ s an dth e C i t y’ s m otion s to dis m iss Plaintiffs’ strip search cla im s; and we r em and for the district court to dism iss Plaintiffs’ strip search cla im s for m onetary dam ages against Sheriff Fr ee m anin his ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity and P la int if

fs ’ str ip s earc h c la im s f

or inj unc tiv e rel ie f ag ai ns t Sh eri ff Fre em an in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty. A f t e r r e man dc o n s i s t e n tw i t h o u r i n s t r u c t i o n s , o n l y t h e s t r i p s e a r c h c l a i ms fo r m one tary

dam ag es a sse rt ed

by P la int if fs P ow el l ( both hi s A R and A L G ro up claim s), Clem ons, Middleton , W itherspoo n, W olf, Matkin, and Evans (only his CR G ro up c la im ) ag ai nst

S he ri ff Barr ett i n he r ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity w ill r em ai n. A F F IRM ED IN P A R T, REV ER SE D IN P A R T, A N D REM A N D ED IN PA RT.60 Appe ndi x: AR GROUP B lan ke t st

rip se arc hes as par t of

poi nt- of e ntr

y book ing into th e Ja il N am e C ha rg e C. A lan P ow el l Bo nd r ev oc at ionon c harg es of dis or de rl y conduct and failure to pay a bar tab D av id E vans D iso rd er ly c ondu ct , w ea

pons w ar rant S t a n l e y C l e mo n s B u r g l a ry A lan M idd le ton T ra ff ic ti ck et w ar rant A nth ony W es tbr ook Si m ple ba tte ry , c hil d a

bandon m en t ( nonsupp ort) , f

or ge ry pr oba tio n w ar

rant Be nj am in B lake Batte ry , tr es pa ss, obs tr uc tio n Harry W it he rs po on DUI Antionne W olf Contem pt/no n-paym ent of child sup port AL GROUP B lan ke t st

rip se arc hes of

de tai ne es wh o po ste d bo nd o r w er e orde re d re le ase d at the Jail before their p oint-of-entry bo oking in to the Jail was sta rted or completed N am e C ha rg e R ea son f or R el ea se C. Alan P owell Disorderly conduct, failure to pay a bar tab Po ste d bo nd at the Ja il K ri sto phe r A lan M atkin A ggr av at ed a ssa ult Ch ar ge s di sm iss ed by j udi ci al of

fi ce r at the Ja il CR GROUP Blanket strip searches of detainees upo n return ing fro m a c ourt a ppeara nce after hav ing be en ord er ed re le ase d in sta te c ourt N am e C ha rg e D av id E vans D iso rd er ly c ondu ct , w ea

pons w ar rant Antionne W olf Contem pt/no n-paym ent of child sup port