# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 28 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ken dr ic k C . Sto ry ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

,

v.

Max ci e Fo ot e, Majo r, Ran da ll W il li am s Un it , ADC; J oh n Lo we, Depu ty W ard en , Ran da ll W il li am s Un it , ADC; Larry May , Chi ef Dep ut y Dire ct or , Ran da ll

W il li am s Un it , ADC; J oh n Her rin gt on , Cap ta in , Ran da ll W il li am s Un it , ADC,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - P in e Bl uf f

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 11 , 20 14
Fil ed : Ap ril 9, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ken dr ic k C. St or y , an A f r i c an -Am eri can in m at e in Ark an sa s, su ed fo ur

co rrec ti on al of

fic ers pu rs ua nt to 42 U

. S .C. § 19 83

, al le gi ng th at th ey vi ol at ed hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d se e k i n g da m ag es

. St or y ’s pr o se co m pl ai nt an d am en de d

co m pl ai nt fo cu s on a vi su al bo dy-cav it y se a r c h t h at on e or m or e of fic ers al le ge dl yco nd uc te d of St or y ’s pe rs on on Apr il 16

, 20 13

. Th e s earc h oc cu rred aft er St or y

ret ur ne d to th e W il li am s Corr ect io na l Faci li ty fro m th e Pi ne Blu ff u ni t s ch oo l. The

di st ric t co u r t

, sc reen in g th e co m pl ai nt s be fo re se rv ic e of pr oc es s pu rs ua nt to 28 1

U.S.C. § 19 15 A, di sm is se d th em wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

. St or y

ap pe al ed

, an d th is c o ur t req ue st ed a res po ns e fro m th e co rrec ti on al of fic ers

co nc ern in g St or y ’s cl ai m s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. W e r e vi ew th e di sm is sa l

de no vo an d a ffi rm

.

To st at e a cl ai m , S to ry ’s co m pl ai nt “ m us t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r,

acce pt ed as tru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face.’” Ash cr of t v.
Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 6 78 (2 00 9) ( qu ot in g Bell Atl an ti c Co rp . v . Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S.

54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) ). Co rrec ti on al of fic ers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y un le ss th ey
vi ol at ed cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht s of th e in m at e of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld

ha ve kn own , se e Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 55 5 U.S. 22 3, 23 1 (2 00 9)

, an d we m ay

co ns id er th e de fen se of qu al ifi ed im m un it y in rev iewin g th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr es erv ic e
di sm is sa l. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 A(b )(2 ); Man es s v. Dis t. Co ur t, Lo ga n Cn ty .-N. Div.

, 49 5 F.3d 94 3, 9 44 -4 5 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ); Bur li so n v . Uni te d S ta te s , 62 7 F .2d 11 9, 12 2
(8 th Ci r. 19 80 ). Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is s e d t h e co m pl ai nt s fo r fai lu re to

st at e a cl ai m wit ho ut ad dr es si ng qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we m ay affi rm o n a ny g ro un d

su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Ja co bs on v. McCo rmi ck

, 76 3 F.3 d 9 1 4

, 9 1 6 -1 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ); Gra ves v. Ci ty of

Co eu r d ’Ale ne , 33 9 F .3d 82 8, 84 5 n.2 3 (9 th Ci r. 20 03 ). It

is un ne ces sa ry an d in effi ci en t to ad d r es s whe th er St or y ad eq ua te ly pl ead ed a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, se e Pea rs on , 55 5 U.S. at 23 6- 37

, if th e de fen se of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y is est ab li sh ed on th e fac e o f th e co m pl ai nt

.

“ Qua li fie d im m

un it y gi ve s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls br eat hi ng ro om to m ak e

reas on ab le bu t mi s t a ke n jud gm en ts

, an d pr ot ect s al l bu t th e pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt or

The Hon or ab le D. Pri ce Mar sh al l, Jr

., Uni te d St a t e s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-th os e who kn owi ng ly vi ol at e th e la w.” St an to n v. Si ms , 13 4 S. C t

. 3

, 5 (2 01 3)

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. To ov erco m e qu al ifi ed im m un it y , a pl ai nt iff m

us t

be ab le to pr ov e th at “ ev ery reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th at wha t he

is do in g vi ol at es ” a co ns ti tu ti on al ri g ht

, Ash cr of t v. al -Ki dd

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 20 74

, 20 83
(2 0 1 1 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, an d th at th e co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on was

“ be y on d de ba te .” Id .; se e al so La ne v. Fra nk

s , 13 4 S. Ct

. 23 69

, 23 83 (2 01 4) ; St an to n , 13 4 S . Ct. at 7.

St or y ’s le ad p o i n t on ap pe al is th at he st at ed a cl ai m th at th e de fen da nt s
vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s by co nd uc ti ng a vi su al bo dy-cav it y se arch of

hi s pe rs on

. Acco rd in g to th e co m pl ai nt an d m at eri al s at ta ch ed th eret o, St or y ret ur ne d

on th e da te in qu es ti on to th e W il li am s Co rrec ti on al Faci li ty fro m th e Pi ne Bl uf f un it

sc ho ol

. W he n he arri ve d at th e ga te

, he was met by Cap ta in Jo hn Herri ng to n an d
Majo r Max ci e Fo ot e. St or y al le ge s th at of fic ers to ld hi m to rem ov e hi s cl ot he s, to li ft

hi s ge ni ta ls

, an d to be nd ov er an d sp read hi s bu tt oc ks to faci li ta te a vi su al bo dy-cav it y

se arch

. He cl ai m s th at th e se arch to ok pl ace in fro nt of ot he r in m at es an d in vi ew of

t w o se cu rit y cam eras

. He co m pl ai ns th at on e or m or e fem al e co rrec ti on al of fi c e r s
ob se rv ed th e se arch th ro ug h a v i d e o f eed fro m th e cam eras in th e m as te r co nt ro l

ro om

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ne ve r ha s res ol ve d whe th er c o n v i c te d in m at es ret ai n a

Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es whi le in cu st od y

. The Co ur t

in Bell v. W

ol fi sh , 4 41 U.S. 5 20 ( 1 9 7 9 )

, a ss um ed th e po in t fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s.

Id

. at 55 7. In Hud

so n v. Pal mer , 46 8 U.S. 51 7 (1 98 4)

, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e Fo ur th

Amen d men t d i d n ot ap pl y to a se arch of a pr is on cel l, reas on in g th at “ [a] rig ht of

pr iv acy in tra di ti on al Fo ur th Am en dm en t te rm s is fu nd am en ta ll y in co m pa ti bl e wit h

th e cl os e an d co nt in ua l su rv ei ll an ce of in m at es an d th ei r cel ls req ui red to en su re

in st it ut io na l se cu rit y an d in te rn al or de r.” Id

. at 52 7- 28

. The Sev en th Ci rcu it

, in th e
wak e of Hud

so n , r u l e d t h at in m at es ret ai n no rig ht un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

ag ai ns t vi su al in sp ect io ns by pr is on gu ard s. Jo hn so n v. Phe la n , 69 F.3 d 14 4, 14 6- 47

-3

-(7 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Thi s co ur t, ho wev er, ha s sa id th a t “ pr is on in m at es are en ti tl ed to

Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es of th ei r bo di es ,” Levi ne

v. Roe bu ck

, 55 0 F.3 d 68 4, 68 7 (8 th C ir. 20 08 ), an d al lo wed a Fo ur th Am en dm en t

cl ai m ch al le ng in g st rip se arch es to pr oc eed in Se lt ze r- Bey v. Delo

, 66 F.3 d 96 1, 96 3
(8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Th e A r k a n s as Su pr em e Co ur t, as be st we can te ll

, ha s ne ve r
ad dr es se d th e qu es ti on

. The Su pr em e Co ur t rece nt ly ha s res erv ed jud gm en t twi ce on

th e qu es ti on whe th er de ci si on s of a fed eral co ur t of ap pe al s are a s o u r ce of cl earl y

es ta bl is he d la w fo r pu rp os es of qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s. Se e Ca rr ol l v. Ca rma n , 13 5 S. Ct

. 34 8, 35 0 (2 01 4) (p er cu ria m ); Reic hl e v. How ar ds

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 20 88

, 20 94
(2 01 2)

. Fo ll owi ng th e ap pr oa ch of th e Co ur t in th os e cas es , we as su m e fo r th e sa ke

of an al y si s th at ou r de ci si on s c l e a r l y e st ab li sh th at a co nv ic te d in m at e ha s rig ht s

un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le sea rch es of h is bo dy.

W he th er St or y ’s al le ga ti on s st at e a cl ai m th at co rrec ti on al of fic ers vi ol at ed hi s
cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t m us t be co ns id ered in li gh t

of pr io r de ci si on s in th is area

. In W ol fi sh

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d th at vi su al bo dycav it y in sp ect io ns of in m at es at a fed eral cu st od ia l faci li ty— c o n d uc te d aft er ev ery

co nt act vi si t wit h a pe rs on fro m ou ts id e th e in st it ut io n— were no t un reas on ab le

. 44 1

U.S. at 55 8 & n.3 9. In Gof f v. Ni x , 80 3 F.2 d 35 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ), th is co ur t he ld th at

it was reas on ab le fo r o f

f ic ia ls to co nd uc t vi su al bo dy-cav it y se arch es of in m at es at

a st at e pe ni te nt ia ry whe ne ve r an in m at e le ft or en te red th e in st it ut io n. Id

. at 36 4- 67

. Mo st rece nt ly, in Flo re nc e v. Boa rd of Ch os en Free ho ld er s of Co un ty of

Bur li ng to n , 13 2 S. Ct

. 15 10 (2 01 2)

, th e Co ur t ru le d th at co rrec ti on al of fic ers m us t be al lo wed to

co nduc t an ef

fecti ve se arch of de ta in ees —ev en th os e he ld fo r m in or of fen se s— be fo re

th ey are ad m it te d to a ge ne ral jail po pu la ti on , an d th at “ th is wil l req ui re at le as t so m e
de ta in ees to li ft t he ir g en it al s o r co ug h i n a sq ua tt in g p os it io n.” Id . at 1 52 0.

The se de ci si on s, whi le ack no wled gi ng th e pr iv acy co nc ern s of i n mat es ,

em ph as iz e th at de t e n t io n faci li ti es are “ frau gh t wit h se rio us se cu rit y da ng ers ,”

W ol fi sh , 4 41 U.S. a t 55 9, an d th at co rrec ti on al in st it ut io ns ha ve a st ro ng in t e r es t in

-4

-pr ev en ti ng an d de te rri ng th e sm ug gl in g of m on ey , dr u g s , weap on s, an d ot he r

co nt rab an d. Flo re nc e , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 15 16 -1 7; W ol fi sh

, 44 1 U.S. at 55 9; Gof f

, 80 3

F.2 d at 36 4- 65

. “ [M]ain ta in in g in st it ut io na l se cu rit y a n d p r es erv in g in te rn al or de r

an d di sc ip li ne are es se nt ia l go al s th at m ay req ui re li m it at io n or ret ract io n of th e

re t a i ne d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of bo th co nv ic te d pr is on ers an d pr et ria l de ta in ees .”

W ol fi sh , 44 1 U.S. at 54 6.

Here, St or y al le ge s th at of fic er s c o n du ct ed a vi su al bo dy-cav it y in sp ect io n
whe n St or y ret ur ne d to th e W il li am s faci li ty fro m ou ts id e th e in st it ut io n. Giv en wha t

th e Su pr em e Co ur t an d th is co ur t ha ve sa id ab ou t th e st ro ng in st it ut io na l in te res ts in

m ai nt ai ni ng se cu rit y , an d ab ou t th e reas on ab le ne ss of vi su al bo dy-cav it y in sp ect io ns
whe n de ta in ees en te r a faci li ty, St or y ’s al le g at io n of a bo dy-cav it y se arch by it se lf

do es no t s ta te a cl ai m

for th e v io la ti on of a cle arl y est ab li sh ed rig ht

.

St or y a r g ue s, ho wev er, th at th e m an ne r in whi ch th is pa rti cu la r se arch was

co nd uc te d vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. He hi gh li gh ts an al le ga ti on th at a fem al e

co rrec ti on al of

fic er was wor ki ng in th e m as te r co nt ro l ro om at th e ti m e of th e se arch

,

an d th at sh e vi ewed th e se arch on a vi de o sc reen

. He ci te s th is co ur t’s st at em en t— in

a cas e ab ou t a st rip se arch of an arre st ee in a m ot el ro om —t ha t “ st rip se arch es sh ou ld

b e c o n d uc te d by of

fic ia ls of th e sa m e se x as th e in di vi du al to be se arch ed

. ”

Rich mon d v . Cit

y o f Br oo kl yn Cen te r , 49 0 F .3d 10 02 , 10 08 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The sea rch in th is cas e, co ns is te nt wit h Rich mon d ’s gen eral ad m on it io n, was

co nd uc te d by m al e co rrec ti on al of fic ers

. St or y do es no t al le ge th at th e m al e of fic ers

kn ew th at fem al e of

fic ers wou ld ob se rv e th e vi de o feed fro m th e m as te r co nt ro l un it

. In an y ev en t, th e m al e of fic ers di d no t vi ol at e St or y ’s cl ea r l y es ta bl is he d rig ht s by

co nd uc ti ng th e in sp ect io n in a lo cat io n whe re a fem al e of fic er al so m ay ha ve vi ewed

th e se arch fro m th e m as te r co nt ro l ro om th ro ug h a vi de o feed fro m a se cu rit y cam era.

Thi s co ur t in T

i m m v. Gun te r , 91 7 F.2 d 10 93 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ), he ld th at pr is on
ad m in is tra to rs di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts of i nm at es by al lo win g

-5

-in te rm it te nt vi su al su rv ei ll an ce of m al e in m at es by fem al e gu ard s whi le th e in m at es

us ed sh owe rs an d ba th ro o m s or sl ep t wit ho ut cl ot hi ng in th ei r cel ls

. Our op in io n
ci te d th e “ rat io na l co nn ect io n be twee n se x- ne ut ral vi su al su rv ei ll an ce of in m at es an d

th e go al of pr is on se cu rit y ,” an d ob se rv ed th at st affi ng ad jus tm en ts (ak in to rem ov in g

fem al e of fic ers fro m th e m as te r co nt ro l ro om du rin g se arch es in th is cas e) w ou ld

in te rfer e wit h eq ua l em

pl oym en t op po rtu ni ti es fo r wom en an d req ui re si gn ifi can t

ex pe nd it ur es by the pri so n. Id . at 11 02

. W e al so ha ve he ld th at th e us e of cam eras

to m on it or act iv it ie s fro m a co nt ro l bo ot h is reas on ab le

, ev en whe n bo dy-cav it y

se arch es are i nv ol ve d. Fra nk li n v . Loc kh ar t , 88 3 F.2d 65 4, 65 6 (8t h Cir. 19 89 ). In

li gh t of th es e pr eced en ts

, it was no t be y on d de ba te th at a re a s o n a b l e co rrec ti on al

of fic er was fo rb id de n to pr oc eed wit h a vi su al bo dy-cav i t y s e a r c h in an area

m on it or ed by se cu rit y cam eras w h i le a fem al e of fic er was as si gn ed to th e m as te r

co nt ro l u ni t.

St or y al so co m

pl ai ns th at of

fic ers co nd uc te d th e se arch in th e pr es en ce of ot he r

in m at es

. As a ge ne ral pr op os it io n, th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t req ui res a ba la nc in g of th e

ne ed fo r a pa rti cu la r se arch ag ai ns t th e in va si on of pe rs on al rig ht s in vo lv ed

. W ol fi sh

, 44 1 U.S. at 55 8. In Fra nk li n , ho wev er, th is co ur t he ld r e a s o n a b l e a pr act ic e of

co nd uc ti ng vi su al bo dy-cav it y se arch es wit h i n v ie w of fiv e in m at es , at le as t whe re

th e reco rd di d no t su pp or t a fin di n g t h at a le ss pu bl ic m ean s of se arch in g was

co ns is te nt wit h in st it ut io na l se cu rit y

. 88 3 F.2 d at 65 6- 57

. The Nin th Ci rcu it si m il arl y

up he ld bo dy-cav it y se arch es co nd uc te d in a “ sa ll y po rt” area th at was vi si bl e to ot he r

in m at es an d to fem al e of fic ers wor ki ng in a “ co nt ro l bu bb le ,” at le as t w h e r e t h e r e

were no read y al te rn at ive s tha t w oul d en ha

nc e pr ivac y wit ho ut co m

pr om is in g se cu rit y

or in crea si ng co st

. Mic he nf el de r v. S umn er , 86 0 F .2d 32 8, 3 33 (9t h C ir. 1 98 8)

.

St or y do es no t al le ge th at a m or e pr iv at e, y et eq ua ll y se cu re an d co st -eff ect iv e

m ean s of co nd uc ti ng th e bo dy-cav it y in sp ect io n was read il y av ai la bl e to th e of fic ers

. The Su pr em e Co ur t, m or eo ve r, ha s no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at th e pr es en ce of ot he r

in m at es ren de rs a bo dy-cav it y se arch un reas on ab le

. St or y ci te s no ci rcu it pr eced en t

-6

-t h a t ha s es ta bl is he d th e pr op os it io n; an un pu bl is he d an d no n- pr eced en ti al de ci si o n

co nc ern in g st rip se arch es in a pr is on y ard

, Mil ls v. W hi te

, 36 4 F. App ’x 30 8, 30 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ) (p er cu r i a m), is in su ffi ci en t to m ak e th e as se rte d rig ht cl ear. Se e Bla ze k

v. Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty

, 76 1 F.3 d 92 0, 92 5 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Gen eral ly sp eak in g,

“ [t]he Fo ur th Am en dm en t d oe s n ot req ui re of fic ers to us e th e le as t i nt ru si ve or l es s

in tru si ve m ean s to effe ct ua te a se arch bu t in st ead pe rm it s a r a n g e o f ob jecti ve ly

reaso na bl e co nd uc t.” Rich mon d

, 49 0 F.3 d at 10 09 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ar ks om itt ed ).

W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th at th e al le ge d pr es en ce of ot he r i n mat e s du rin g St or y ’s

se arch do es no t s ta te a cl ai m for th e v io la ti on of c le arl y

est ab li sh ed rig ht s.

St or y ne xt co nt en ds th at Fo ot e un reas on ab ly co nd uc te d th e se arch whe n he

cal le d St or y a “ m on ke y ” aft er St or y was un ab le to be nd ov er as far as Fo ot e wan te d

St or y to be nd

. To be su re, bo dy-cav it y se arch es sh ou ld no t be pe rfo rm ed “ in a
de gr ad in g, hu m il ia ti ng o r a b u si ve fas hi on .” Id

. Abu si ve co nd uc t by se arch in g

of fic ers —s uc h as “ in su lt in gl y su gg es ti ve rem ark s or ba na l bu t te rri fy in g ex pr es si on s

of ag gr es si on ,” U.S. ex r e l

. Wo l fi sh v. Levi

, 43 9 F. Su pp

. 11 4, 14 7 (S.D.N.Y.

19 77 )—c an no t be co nd on ed

. W ol fi sh

, 44 1 U.S. at 56 0. W e can no t sa y , ho wev er, th at

Fo ot e’s si ng le al le ge d us e of t h e te rm “ m on ke y ,” ev en wit h it s po te nt ia l raci al

ov ert on es , is su ffi ci en t to al le ge th e vi ol at io n of a cl ea rl y es ta bl is he d rig ht un de r th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t. St or y ci te s no su pp or ti ng cas e wit h an al og ou s fact s, an d rece nt

de ci si on s reject in g Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s b as ed on ve rb al ab us e al on e m il it at e

ag ai ns t a co nc lu si on th at th e al le ge d un l a w f u l n e s s of Fo ot e’s m an ne r of se arch in g

was be y on d d eb at e. Se e Daw so n v . And er so n C ou nt y, Tex. , 56 6 F . App ’x 36 9, 3 71
(5 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (h ol di ng th at “ ve rb al ab us e by a jail er al o n e ” di d no t gi ve ris e to a

Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m fo r un reas on ab le st rip se arch ); Gett ri dg e v. Ja cks on Par is h

Co rr

. Ct r. , No. 3: 12 -cv -3 14 8, 20 13 W L 11 8 0 9 1 9

, at *3 (W. D. La. Feb

. 19

, 20 13 )
( h o l d i ng th at cl ai m s of “ ve rb al ab us e or rid ic ul e” du rin g a st rip se arch are n o t

act io na bl e un d e r § 1 9 8 3 ) ; cf

. Lewi s v. Ja cks

, 48 6 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(“ Verb al ab us e by c o r r ect io na l of fic ia ls

, ev en th e us e of rep reh en si bl e raci al ly

de ro ga to ry la ng ua ge , is no t by it se lf un co ns ti tu ti on al race di sc riminat io n un le ss it is

-7

-pe rv as iv e or se ve re en ou gh to a mo u n t to raci al ha ras sm en t.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th at St or y ha s no t al l e g e d su ffi ci en t fact s to

su pp or t a pl au si bl e cl ai m th at th e vi su al bo dy-cav i ty in sp ect io n co nd uc te d of hi s

pe rs on on Apr il 16

, 20 13

, vi ol at ed hi s cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. The

of fic ers were no t on cl ear no ti ce th at th e as p e c t s o f th e se arch to whi ch St or y
ob jects —ex am in ed in di vi du al ly or ta ke n to ge th er— co nt rav en e d th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t.

W e ha ve co ns id ered St or y ’s ot he r cl ai m s al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t an d th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t, a n d w e c o nc lu de th at th ey were

pr op erl y di sm is se d, su bs ta nt ia ll y fo r th e reas on s gi ve n by th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e 8t h

Ci r. R. 47 B.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I di sa gr ee th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t s t r i p

- se arch cl ai m was pr op erl y di sm is se d

pr e-s erv ic e. In st ead

, I be li ev e th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to co nd uc t a ba la nc in g

te st be fo re di sm is si ng St or y 's Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m

. Add it io na ll y , I wou ld no t

fin d t he co rrec ti on al off

ic ers en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

I

I ag ree co rrec ti on al of

fic ers are gi ve n de fere nc e on se a r c h p o l i ci es ab se nt

ev id en c e d e m on st rat in g th ei r res po ns e is ex ag ge rat ed

. Fl or en ce v. Bd

. of Ch os en

Free ho ld ers of Cn ty. of Bu rli ng to n, 13 2 S. Ct

. 15 10

, 15 17 (2 01 2)

. Howev er, a st rip

se arch in a pr is on co nt ex t tr i g g e r s t h e ne ed fo r a di st ric t co ur t to en ga ge in a

-8

-ba la nc in g te st

. In Gof f v. Nix

, 80 3 F.2 d 35 8, 36 3- 65 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ), th is co ur t no te d

a pr is on in m at e ha s a far lo wer ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy th an do m os t ot he r in di vi du al s

in so ci et y , bu t st rip se arch es are "i nt ru si ve an d un pl ea s a nt ." Thi s Co ur t co ns id ers

Fo ur th Am en dm en t ch al le ng es to a pr is on 's st rip -s earc h po li cy un de r Bel l v. W ol fis h,

44 1 U.S. 52 0, 52 9 (1 97 9)

, whi ch req ui res a ba la nc in g te st whe re th e ne ed fo r se arch es
is weig he d ag ai ns t in va si on s of pe rs on al rig ht s to de te rm in e reas on ab le ne ss of

se arch es . Goff, 8 03 F.2d at 3 63 -6 5.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co nd uc t a ba la nc in g te st

, an d I am un ab le to co nc lu de

fro m th e co m

pl ai nt th e se arch was reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t as a

m at te r of la w. Des pi te br oa d rig ht s of co rrec ti on al of fic ers to se arch pr is on ers , th ere

are li m it s on whe n st rip se arch es are ap pr op ria te

. See, e.g ., Bea ul ie u v. Lud em an , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 29 -3 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng co ur ts m ay co ns id er av ai la bi li ty of

si m pl e, sa fe, an d le ss in va si ve te ch ni qu es whe n de te rm in i n g i f st rip se arch was

reas on ab le ); Sern a v. Goo dn o, 56 7 F.3 d 94 4, 95 4 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 9) (fi nd in g rel ev an t

th at th e se arch was co nd uc te d in a pr iv at e ba th ro om whe re on ly th os e in vo lv ed co ul d

ob se rv e); Ri ch m on d v. Ci ty of Bro ok lyn Ct r., 49 0 F.3 d 10 02

, 10 08 -0 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(h ol di ng st rip se arch es sh ou ld b e co nd uc te d as far fro m pu bl ic vi ew as po ss ib le

wit ho ut co m

pr om is in g le gi ti m at e se cu rit y co nc ern s, an d sh ou ld be do ne hygi en ic al ly

an d no t in a de gr ad in g, hu m il ia ti ng , or ab us iv e fas hi on ); Gof f, 80 3 F.2 d at 36 3- 65
(h ol di ng jus ti fic at io n fo r st rip se arch m us t be ba se d u po n c on cret e in fo rm at io n an d

no t m erel y

pe rcei ve d s ecu rit y

co nc ern s)

.

I n t h e p r es en t cas e, th e co m pl ai nt al le ge s tro ub li ng fact s whi ch req ui re th e
di st ric t co ur t to co nd uc t a ba la n c i n g t e s t

. See Gof f, 80 3 F.2 d at 36 3- 65

. In

de te rm in in g th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e st rip se arch of St or y , th e ne ed fo r a st rip se arch

m us t be weig he d ag ai ns t th e i n v a s io n of St or y 's pe rs on al rig ht s. St or y al le ge s th e

m et ho d of th e st rip se arch in va de d hi s pe rs on al rig ht s, in cl ud in g th at St or y was st rip

se arch ed in fro nt o f o t h e r i n m at es an d on e or m or e fem al e gu ard s were watc hi ng a

li ve -s tre am ed vi de o of th e se arch in th e co nt ro l ro om

. I ag ree th e rem ai nd er of St or y 's

-9

-cl ai m s do no t ha ve co ns ti tu ti on al si gn ifi can ce on th ei r own , bu t I be li ev e th os e cl ai m s

m ay be rel ev an t to th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e st rip se arch

. In pa rti cu la r, St or y al le ge s

un sa ni ta ry co nd it io ns an d raci al ha ras sm en t were ut il iz ed in th e st rip se ar ch

, th us

rai si ng co nc ern s th is pa rti cu la r st rip se arch was in vi ol at io n of St or y 's pe rs on al rig ht s.

See Ri ch m on d, 49 0 F.3 d at 10 09 ("[ S]tri p se arch es sh ou ld be pe rfo rm ed in a hygi en ic

fas hi on an d n ot in a de gr ad in g, h um il ia ti ng or a bu si ve fas hi on .").

In li gh t of th es e al le ga ti on s, an d wit ho ut an y reco rd of wha t se cu rit y co nc ern s

were at is su e, th e reco rd he re is no t su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d to co nc lu de

, as a m at te r

of la w, th e st rip se arch of St or y was reas on ab le

. St or y 's co m pl ai nt al le ge s he was

ret ur ni ng fro m a pr is on sc ho ol lo cat ed at th e Pi ne Bl uf f Uni t. Alt ho ug h th e m ajor it y
fo cu se s on St or y 's ret ur n to th e W il li am s Uni t "fr om ou ts id e th e in st it ut io n , " th e

reco rd do es no t es ta bl is h Pi ne Bl uf f Uni t whi ch co nt ai ns th e sc ho ol is an of f-ca m pu s

no n- se c u r e f

a c il it y or th ere are le gi ti m at e co nc ern s of sa fet y whe n in m at es tra ve l

be twee n th e W il li am s Uni t an d th e Pi ne Bl uf f Uni t. If St or y

was, i n fact , r et ur ni ng

to hi s ho us in g un it fro m a se cu re sc ho ol faci li ty th e ba la nc in g te st m ay well de te rm in e

a st rip se arch co n d u c te d in th is m an ne r was un reas on ab le

. Acco rd in gl y , I wou ld

rev er s e t h e p re-s erv ic e di sm is sa l of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t st rip -s earc h cl ai m , an d

rem an d fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t t o c on du ct th e p ro pe r ba la nc in g t es t.

II

I al so di sa gr ee th is co ur t sh ou ld ru le in fav or of th e co rrec ti on al of fic ers ba se d

on qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. The m ajor it y fin ds th e la w was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e

ti m e o f th e st rip sea rch , and th e o ffi cers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

The m ajor it y su a sp on te rai se s qu al ifi ed im m un it y , "an affi rm at iv e defen se th at

m us t b e p le ad ed by a defe nd an t o ffi ci al ." Harl ow v . Fit zg eral d, 4 57 U.S. 80 0, 8 15

, (1 98 2)

. The m ajor it y co rrec tl y no te s an ex cep ti on to th e ge ne ral pl ead in g

req ui rem en ts ex is ts in § 19 15 sc reen in g cas es whe re de fen da nt off ic ia ls ha ve no t be en

-1 0-se rv ed or ha d a ch an ce to res po nd

. See Man es s v. Dis t. Co ur t, Log an Cn ty.-N. Div

.,

49 5 F.3 d 94 3, 94 4- 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). In th e in st an t m at te r, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

di sc us s qu al ifi ed im m

un it y an d th e co rrec ti on al of fic ers do no t rai se qu a l ifi ed

im m un it y on ap pe al

. The m ajor it y do es no t ci te

, an d I ha ve be en un ab le to fin d, an y

cas es whe re th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it su a sp on te rai se d th e affi rm at iv e de fen se of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y aft er th e di st ric t co ur t di sm issed w ith out m en ti on of qu al ifi ed im m un it y an d

th e d efen da nt s fa il ed to bri ef a q ua li fie d i m m un it y de fen se on ap pe al

.

Fo r ex am pl e, in Man es s, th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d di sm is sa l fo r on e
de fen da nt ba se d up on qu al ifi ed im m un it y an d th e di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on

. Man es s v. Dis t. Co ur t of Log an Cn ty., N. Div

., No. 05 -2 11 4, Doc s. 4, 8 (W. D. Ark

. Nov

. 30

, 20 05 ). On ap pe al

, th is co ur t affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t's

di sm is sa l fo r th at de fen da nt ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Man es s, 49 5 F.3 d at 94 4-

45

. In Bu rli so n v. Uni te d St at es , 62 7 F.2 d 11 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ), th e pa rti es br ie fed th e

im m un it y de fen se be fo re th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it

. Id

. at 12 2. It ap pe ars th e m ajor it y 's su a

sp on te qu al i f

i e d i mm u ni ty ru li ng in th is cas e is un iq ue

. Unl ik e be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t, whe re th e co rrec ti on al of fic ers ha d no t be en se rv ed or h a d an op po rtu ni ty to

res po nd

, on ap pe al th e co rrec ti on al of fic ers ha d th e op po rt u n it y to br ie f an y
affi rm at iv e de fen se s th ey wis he d to rai se

. The co rrec ti on al of fic ers ch os e no t to rai se

a qu al ifi ed im m

un it y de fen se

. Gen eral ly, "a pa rty's fai lu re to rai se or di sc us s an is su e

in hi s bri ef is to be de em ed an ab an do nm en t of th at is su e." Hatl ey v. Lock ha rt, 99 0

F.2 d 10 70

, 10 73 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Fen ne y
v. Dako ta

, Mi nn

. & E

. R. Co ., 32 7 F .3d 70 7, 7 13 n.7 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ("[C ]laim s no t

rai se d on ap pe al are waiv ed [.]" (ci ti ng Eth eri dg e v. Uni te d St at es , 24 1 F.3 d 61 9, 62 2
(8 th Ci r. 20 01 ))). W hi le we ha ve di sc ret io n to co ns id er is su es no t rai se d in th e br ie fs

, th is is no t th e type of c a s e w h ere "s ub st an ti al pu bl ic in te res ts " weig h in fav or of

reac h i n g an un rai se d is su e. Co nt 'l In s. Co s. v. Ne. Ph arm

. & Ch em

. Co

., 84 2 F.2 d

-1 1-97 7, 98 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ). Acco rd in gl y , I do no t be li ev e it is ap pr op ria te fo r th is Co ur t

to su a s po nt e rai se th is de fen se on th e co rrec ti on al off ic ers ' be ha lf. 2

Eve n if a qu al ifi ed im

m un it y de fen se were pr op erl y be fo re th is co ur t, I wou ld

no t fin d de fen da nt s en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y at th is ti me. Dis m is sa l ba se d on

an affi rm at iv e de fen se is ap pr op ria te on ly whe re "t he de fen se is es ta bl is he d on th e

face of th e co m

pl ai nt ." Bu rli so n, 62 7 F.2 d at 12 2; cf. W eav er v. Cl ark e, 45 F.3 d

1 2 5 3, 12 55 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) ("B ecau se qu al ifi ed im m un it y is an affi rm at iv e de f e n s e

. . . it wil l be up he ld on a 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n on ly whe n th e im m un it y is es ta bl is he d on

th e f a ce of th e co m

pl ai nt ."). "We ap pl y a two -p art te st to de te rm in e whe th er a
d e f e n d a n t is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y : (1 ) whe th er th e pl ai nt iff can m ak e o u t

a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

, an d (2 ) whe th er th at rig ht was cl earl y

e st ab li sh ed at th e ti m e of th e de fen da nt 's al le ge d m is co nd uc t." Dowel l v. Lin co ln

Cn ty., Mo

., 76 2 F.3 d 77 0, 77 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. In

m y vi ew, th e face of th e co m pl ai nt do es no t su pp or t a jud gm en t for th e co rrec ti on al

of fic ers on eit he r pr on g o f a q ua li fie d i m m un it y de fen se

.

F irs t, fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d ab ov e, th e face of th e co m pl ai nt do es no t

es ta bl is h th at no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. A co rrec ti on al of fic er's po wer to

st rip se arch an in m at e m ay be br oa d, bu t it is no t un fet t e r e d

. S e e Fran kl in v.

Loc kh art , 7 69 F.2 d 50 9, 51 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (rev ers in g su m m ary jud gm e n t e nt ered

ag ai ns t an in m at e who all eg ed vi ol at io ns of h is Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts ba se d o n
twi ce a da y st rip se arch es ). Seco nd

, a reas on ab le co rrec ti on al of fic e r w o u l d ha ve

kn own an ov erl y -in tru si ve an d un ne ces sa ry st rip sea rch was u nc on st it ut io na l at th e

ti m e St or y was st rip se arch ed

. It was cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w th at un reas on ab le st rip

s e a r c h e s vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Bel l, 44 1 U.S. at 55 8. Perh ap s aft er t h e

To be cl ear, I do no t be li ev e th e co rrec ti on al of fic ers ha ve waiv ed th ei r rig ht 2

to r a i s e a qu al ifi ed im m

un it y de fen se in th e fu tu re. If se rv ic e were to oc cu r, th e

co rrec ti on al of

fic ers co ul d br in g a m ot i o n f o r s um m ary jud gm en t an d rai se th e de fen se of q ua li fie d i m

m un it y

.

-1 2-co m

pl et io n of di sc ov ery an d br ie fin g by th e pa rti es , it wil l be ap pr op ria te to fin d th e

co rrec ti on al of

fic ers en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y ag ai ns t St or y 's cl ai m s; ho wev er,

th e ti m e fo r su ch a fi nd in g i s n ot no w.

III

Acco rd in gl y , I wou ld rev e r s e th e pr e-s erv ic e di sm is sa l of th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t st rip -s earc h cl ai m , an d rem an d fo r the di st ric t co ur t to co nd uc t th e pr op er
ba la nc in g t es t. In all ot he r res pe ct s, I wo ul d a ffi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-