### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 31 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1368 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00036 CV -W CO- 2 JAN ET M. HI CKS , a. k. a. Jane t M . Br

y an t, P laintiff-Appellee, ve rs us RI CH A RD MO O RE , I ndi vid ua lly and i n hi s O f f i c i a l C ap a c i t y a s th e S h e r i f f o f Hab e r s h a m Co u n t y, MIC HAEL L ONG, BRIAN AUSBUR

N, HABERSHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA, JENNIE CLOUATRE, JOSHUA HIGHFILL, JOHN T AY LO R, RUSSELL GOSNELL, D ef en dants -Appe llants , JANE DOE, Ind iv id ua ll y , et al ., D ef en dants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 31, 200 5)Honora ble B . Avant Ede nfield, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of Ge org ia, * sitti ngby desig nation. 2 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL, Circu it Ju dg e, an d EDENFIELD , * District Judge. ED MON DS ON , C hief Judge: Th i s ci v i l ac t i o n fo r d amag es i s , a m o n g o t h erth i n g s , ab o u ta c o u n t y ja i l ’s pr ac tic e of

str ip s earc hin g a ll de ta ine es w ho w er e to b e pla ce d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l popu lation -- regar dless of whether r easonable susp icion existed for the search of a part ic ular pr etri al de ta ine e. B ec au se w e ar e ove rc om e by thi s C ir cu it’ s pr ec ed en t, w e m ust a gr ee w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t su chage ne ra l pr ac tic e, f or nowa t l ea st, is an un law fu l ba sis f

or the se ar ch es . B ut b ec au se the P la int if f’ s stri p se ar chin this case wa s supp orted by rea sonable su spicion , w e conclude that Def endants are en tit le d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t onthat gr ound and a cc or din gly

r ev er se , in part , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n.

Ba ck gr ound

Plaintiff-Appellee Janet M. Hicks w as arr ested in April 2001 by a corporal of the H ab er sham

Co unty , G eo rg ia , S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t a ft er

adom es tic dis put eF or thi s inte rl oc uto ry a pp e a l un de r 2 8 U .S. C. § 19 83 , w e re so lve a ll the pr op e rl y dis pute d f

a c ts 1 in a c c or d w ithPla int if

f’ s v e rs ion

of the fa c ts. Geor g ia def

ines family

violence battery

as “intentionally

caus[ing] substantial phy sical har m or 2 vis ibl e bo dil y

ha rm ” to a “ pa st or pr e se nt sp ou se [].” O. C.G .A . § 16 -5 -2 3. 1( a ), (f ). A f ir st o ff e ns e is a misdemeanor ; a re peat of fense is a felony . I d. § 16-5-23.1( f). Plaintiff had neve r bef ore be en char g ed or a

rre sted under § 16- 5-23.1. 3 with her e stranged hus band. A fter investigating at the scene, the Cor poral 1 de te rm ine d th at

P la int if f
-- tho ugh ex hib iti ng n o vi ole nt b eh av ior a ft er the Corporal arr ived -- w as the chief a ggressor and charged her w ith fam ily violence ba tte ry . T he Co rp or al too k P la int if f to the H ab er sham

Co unty Ja il w he re he 2 not if ie d th e j ai le rs of

the arr es t c harg e an d turn ed P la int if f ove r to the c ust ody

of the j ailers for processing. No j ailer who had cont act w ith Plaintiff during her book ing pr oc es s te sti fi ed that he sus pe ct ed

that P la int if

f w as c onc ea lin g w ea

pons or c ontra band. Pl ai nti ff arr ive d a t the Ja il be tw ee n 5: 30 and 6 :15 p. m . , the ti m e dur ing which shift changes at the Jail occurre d. Com ing on duty for the night shift at ab out the sam e tim e w as S hif

t C or por al Joh n T ay lor

and J ai l O ff

ic er Jos hua H igh fi ll. A lso on d

uty f ro m the day shi ft w as D isp at ch er

Je nni e Cl oua tr e, w ho
w a s t o g o o f

f du t y a tab o u t6 : 3 0 p . m. Upon Plaintiff’ s arrival, she wa s placed in a holdin g cell. Plaintiff w as al low ed to co m e out

of the c el l t o m ee t w ithhe r law y er and w as the n pu t ba ck

inDef

endants do not dispute that a strip sear ch wa s perf ormed on Plaintiff or of

fer an alter native 3 to Clouatre. We will assume at this stage that Clouatre per formed the strip searc h in this case. Taylor and High fi l l b o t h maintain that Taylor, not Hig hfill, finge rprinted Plaintiff. Plaintiff 4 c onte nd s H ig hf

ill fi ng e rp ri nte d h e r, and

we a ssume that to be tr

ue on summa ry jud g me nt. 4 the hold ing cell. Cor

poral Tay lor later r etrieved Plaintiff from the cell; a w om an the n to ok P la int if

f int o aba thr oom

to pe rf orm astr ip s earc h. P la int if

f be lie ve s th e wom an m ay

have been D ispatcher Clouatre, but she is n ot sure. 3 A c c o r d i n g t o P l a i n t i f

f , C l o u a t r e t o o kP l a i n t i f

f i n t o aw i n d o w l e s s b a t h r o o m

-- no o ne e lse w as in the r oom - - an d to ld h er

to dis ro be , li ft

he r br ea sts , and c ough th ree t im es whi le sq ua tt in g. Nev er d idClo ua tre , du rin g t he sea rch , to uc h P la in ti ff. Th e s ea rc h l as t ed ab o u tfi v e o r s i x m i n u t es . P l ai n t i ff t es t i fi ed th at Cl o u at re ’s dem eanor w as “ [j ] ust bu sinessli ke” and that Clouatre “ wa s just doing her job. ” Clouatre testified that she does not rem em ber Plaintiff in particular but that Cl oua tr e, a s aD isp at ch er , ha s pe rf orm ed str ip s earc he s be fo re a t the r eque st o f the Shift Corporal w hen no fem ale j ailer w as on duty . While Clouatre did not perform s t ri p s ea rc h es u n l es s d i re ct ed b y t h e S h i ft Co rp o ra l , s h e u n d er s t o o dth e J ai l ’s pr ac tic e w as to str ip s earc h e ve ry one w ho c am e to b e j ai le d r eg ar dle ss o f the ch arg e. Af ter the sear ch, P laintiff w as photo graphed and fingerprinted byOf ficer H igh fi ll. A cc or din g to P la int if f, O ff ic er H igh fi ll ins tr

uc te d he r to s tand d ir ec tly 45

b eh i n dh i m

wh i l e h e p u l l ed ea ch ar m ar o u n dh i s b o d y wh en m ak i n g Pl ai n t i ff ’s fi nge rp ri nts . P la int if

f te sti fi ed H igh fi ll expla ine d to he r that this m ethod en sur ed a m or e ac curate pr int ing . H igh fi ll pul le d P la int if f’ s arm aro und him

w iththe r oll ing o f e ac h fi n g er , c au s i n g Pl ai n t i ff ’s b re as t s an dp el v i s re p ea t ed l y t o t o u ch Hi g h fi l l ’s ba ck . Pl ai nti ff

sa id s he f

el t l ike she w as be ing “ toy ed w ith ” dur ing the pho tog ra ph an d f ing er pr int ing pr oc es s. S he of

fe re d tw o r ea sons : ( 1) she w as sc ar ed and ne rv ous, and s he be lie ve d th e of fi ce rs c oul d se e that; an d ( 2) the of fi ce rs ha d m ad e lig ht o f the r equir em en t t o ph oto gr ap h P la int if f’ s sc ar a s apr ec au tio n a ga ins t a poss ibl e es ca

pe a tte m pt. B ut a s w ithCl oua tr e, P la int if f te sti fi ed that, dur ing the fin ge rp rin ti ng , Hig hf

il l was “ jus t d oi ng hi s jo b” an d “ w[as no t] m ean to m e.” No officer in the Sheriff

’ s departm ent -- including Tay lor or H ighfill -- testified that he ha d e ve r fi nge rp ri nte d ade ta ine e by havin g ade ta ine e stand d ir ec tly be hin d th e of fi ce r, and tw o of

fi ce rs te sti fi ed

that su cham ethod w as ina dvi sa ble be ca use it put the of fi ce r at r isk . Co rp or al T ay lor

te sti fi ed that, dur ing the pr ev iou s S he ri ff ’ s a dm ini str at ion , he had questio ned a superior officer about the Jail’s blanket strip-searc h practice after Tay lor learned at j ail school th at “ we shoul dn’t strip search ever y bodythat co m es thr oughthe doo r. ” T he sup er ior ha d r ep lie d th at

he w oul d lo ok i nto it

but6

that the y w er e to “ fa ll ba ck

on d ep ar tm en t po lic y ” an d th at

he tho ught

the y “ co uld ge t aw ay w ithit . ” O ff

ic er H igh fi ll al so t es tif

ie d th at he w as ins tr

uc te d to str ip search e very

detainee that w as to be held in the Jail. A ll Def endants who testified sa id tha t the r ea son fo r suc h apr ac tic e w as f or the sa fe ty

and s ec ur ity

of the Ja il O ff ic er s and the inm at es . Sheriff Richard Moore a ssum ed the duties of his office in January 2001 , at which tim e a written policy requiring reasonable suspi cion for strip searches w as in place at the Jail: a policy put there by

a previous adm inistration . Sheriff Moore testified that he did no t read the policy upon taking office and that he delegated the day -t o- day

ope ratio ns at the Ja il
-- inc lud ing se ar ch es - - to the Ja il Adm inistrator, Ca

ptain Brian Ausburn. S heriff Moore contends he was unaware of the blanke t stri p- se ar chpr ac tic e unt il a law sui t a bout astr ip s earc h pe rf

orm ed in the pr ev iou s S he ri ff

’ s a dm ini str at ion- - a sui t f ile d inO ct obe r 2001 ( af

te r the se arch in th is cas e) -- p ro m pt edan in ve st ig at io n i nt o t he Jai l’s s earc h p ract ic e. T he spo use of

the pla int if

f in tha t e ar lie r law sui t c om pla ine d inJanuary

200 1 (b ef or e the se ar chin thi s c as e) to Sh er if f Moo re about

the spe ci fi c str ip s earc h in that c as e; and S he ri ff

Mo or e sa id h e w oul d lo ok i nto the m atte r. S om e te sti m ony in the record indicates that Sheriff Moore had been in the im m ediate vicinity

when jail ers were p rep ari ng to st rip sea rch ot he r de ta in ees .7

Ca pta in Ausburnte sti fi ed

that he a lso w as unaw ar e that a ge ne ra l stri p search pra ctice w as being followed at the Jail until h e -- at the behest of Sher iff Moo re upo n th e fi lin g of

the O ct obe r 2001 law sui t - - que sti one d j ai le rs in the f al l of 2001 abo ut strip searches. Captain Ausbu rn discovered that a form er adm inistration ’ s practice, requiring indi scrim inate strip searches, had been co nti nue d un de r Sh er if

f Moo re ’ s te nur e. P la int if f co nte nds Sh er if

f Moo re did

not i n s t r u c th i s d e p u t i e s t o s t o p th e p r a c t i c e i n th e J a i l u n t i l N o v e mb e r 2 0 0 1 ; th a ts a me m onth apam

phl et w as dis tr ibu te d to j ai le rs c ont ai nin g a“ de ci sio n tr ee ” to a id j ai le rs in the de te rm inatio n of r ea sona ble sus pic ionf

or str ip s earc he s. Pl ai nti ff br ough t bo th f

ed er al and s ta te -l awc la im s inthi s c as e, onl y af ewof
w hic h are pr es en te d f

or r ev ie win thi s a

ppe al . O n he r fe de ra l c la im s be fo re thi s Court, P laintiff contends th at her F ourth Am endm ent rights were violated when she w as str ip s earc he d purs uant t o th e Ja il’ s ge ne ra l pr ac tic e re qui ri ng the str ip search - - w ithou t regard f or particularize d reasonable suspicio n -- of a ll detainees to b e hous ed

in the Ja il. P la int if

f br ing s th is c la im

a ga ins t C lou atre f

or pe rf orm ing the se ar ch , and a ga ins t S he ri ff Mo or e, Ca

pta in Ausburnand S er ge an t G osne ll alleging su pervisory

liabilityfor f

ailure to train. Plaintiff f urther claim s that Highfill violated her constitu tional right s when he fingerprinted her in a way that8

ca use d he r body

to be pul le d a ga ins t hi s duri ng the pr oc es s. T he state -l awc la im in thi s a ppe al is ana ssa

ult and b atte ry

c la im a ga ins t H igh fi ll fo r the f ing er pr int ing . The district court concluded that the indi scrim inate strip-search pra ctice at the Ja il w as unc onst itu tio na l un de r our Ci rc uit ’ s de ci sio n inW ils on v . Jon es , 251 F. 3d 1 340 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) , and a lso c onc lud ed that the c ir cum stanc es he re did not supp ort a de te rm inatio n of

r ea sona ble sus pic ionf

or the str ip s earc h pe rf

orm ed on Pl ai nti ff spe ci fi ca lly . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d qu al if ie d im m uni ty to Cl oua tr e on the str ip s earc h it se lf

and d en ie d qu al if

ie d im m uni ty to Moo re , A usburnand G osne ll on the f

ai lur e- to- tr ai n c la im . T he c ourt a lso de nie d qu al if ie d im m uni ty to Highfill on the federal c laim for the f ingerprintin g and denied Highfill official imm un it y on th e st at e-l aw as sa ul t an d b at te ry cla im forth e fi ng erp rin ti ng . D e f e n d a n t s t o o k

an i n t e r l o c u t o ry a

p p e a l o n th e d e n i a l o f

i mm u n i t y.

D isc uss ion

I . F e d e r a l C l a i msWe per s o n al l y q uestion that such a pr actice violates the F ourth Amendment. See Evans v. 5 Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272, 1278- 79 (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Most of us a re unc erta in that jailers are require d to have a

rea sonable suspicion of wea pons or contraband before strip searc hing - - for secur ity and saf ety purposes -- arr estee s boun d for the g ener al jail population. . . . Never has the Supreme Court imposed such a require ment.”). F or bac kg round, see Evans, 407 F .3d at 1284-96 (C arn e s, J., con c ur

ri ng sp e c ia lly , join e d by Du bin a and Hu ll, JJ .) . B ut w e a c c e pt t hat “ re a so na

ble su sp ic ion ” is r e qu ir e d b y

the law o f t

he Cir c uit . 9 Whe n we c on si de r th e que st io n o f en ti tl em en t t o q ua li fie d i m m un it y , we fi rs t or din ar ily

a sk whe the r the Co nst itu tio n w as vio la te d a t a ll.

A . T he S tr ip S earc h. Plaintiff contends Clouatre (pursuant to the Jail’s pra ctice) violated Pl ai nti ff ’ s r igh ts unde r the F ourth A m en dm en t by str ip s earc hin g he r w ith out re as ona ble sus pic ion . S he a lso c la im s th at S he ri ff Mo or e, Ca

pta in Ausburn , and Se rg eant G osne ll ar e lia

ble to he r ba se d onathe or y of sup er vis or y li ab ili ty be ca use the y f ai le d to tr ai n j ai le rs pr ope rl y about w he n to c ondu ct

str ip s earc he s, instead adhering to the general pra ctice that re quired strip searches of all detainees reg ard le ss of t he ch arg e o r ci rcu m st an ces . W e w ill assum e that it wa s the practice of Ha bersham County to strip search ev er y de ta ine e w ho w as to be pla ce d inthe ge ne ra l po pul at ionof the Ja il. A nd

5 giv enthe 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 be10

j ust if ie d un de r the Co nst itu tio n onthe sin gle gr ound that P la int if

f w as about

to be pla ce d inthe Ja il’ s ge ne ra l po pul at ion . S ee W ils on v . Jon es , 251 F . 3d 1 340, 134 1, 1343 (11th Cir. 2001). That c onclusi on, however , does not m ean that Plaintiff’ s own constitu tional rights were violated when she wa s searched: j ust because she was strip sear ched at aj ai l tha t ha d ase ar chpr ac tic e that w oul d ge ne ra lly vio la te the Co nst itu tio n do es no t m ean ev ery se arch th atwas c on du ct edactua ll y vi ol at edth e Co ns ti tu ti on . Sk ur ste nis v. Jon es , 236 F . 3d 6 78, 682 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . W e sa id i n S kur ste nis th at“ ‘reaso nabl e su sp ic io n’ m ay jus ti fy a st rip sea rch of a pre tri al de ta in ee.” Id . Be ca use w e co nc lud e that r ea sona ble sus pic ione xis te d f

or thi s part ic ular str ip se ar ch , w e al so m

ust c onc lud e that no c onst itutio na l r igh t w as vio la te d by the se ar ch .

“ Whe the r anof

fi ce r ha s ar ea sona

ble sus pic ionis anobj ec tiv e que sti on vie w ed f ro m the standpo int

of ar ea sona

ble [ ] of fi ce r at the sc en e. I t i s ba se d on the totalityof the circ um stances, and is a questi on of law to be re viewed de novo.” Evans, 407 F.3d at 1280 (citations om itted). Plaintiff w as arr ested and charged w ith fam ily violence battery

under O . C. G . A . § 16 -5 -2 3. 1, the e le m en ts o f w hic h are “ int en tio na lly c au s[ ing ] subs tanti al phy sic al harm or vis ibl e bodi ly

harm ” to a

“pa st o r pr es en t sp ouse . ” I d.11

§ 16 -5 -2 3. 1( a) , ( f) . T his c ri m e is o bvi ousl y one of vio le nc e. W e ac ce pt tha t 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 susp icion that th e person m ay be concealing we apons or contraband. Ac cord Ma ste rs v. Cr ouc h, 872 F . 2d 1 248, 125 5 ( 6thCi r. 198 9) ( “ It is obj ec tiv el y reasonable to conduct a strip search of one charged w ith a crim e of violence before that person com es into contact with other inm ates.” ). W e know that both th e ar resting officer and the ja il shift sup ervisor testified that the y - - ba se d onthe ir

int er ac tio ns w ithP la int if f that e ve nin g - - did

not subjectively

suspect Plaintiff of possessin g wea pons or drugs. But w hether reasonable suspicion existed at the tim e is a question of law to be determ ined ult im at el y

by j udge s, not

pol ic em enor

j ai le rs . A nd the que sti on w e ar e fa ce d w ith he re is not

w he the r a spe ci fi c ar

re sti ng o ff

ic er or j ai le r ac tua lly

and s ubj ec tiv el y ha d th e pe rt ine nt r ea sona ble sus pic ion , but

w he the r, giv enthe c ir cum stanc es , reasonable suspicion objec tively existed to justify

such a searc h. T hat no on e, at the ti m e, a ct

ua lly c ondu ct ed

a“ re as ona

ble sus pic ion ” an al y sis is uni m portant t o w he the r re as ona

ble sus pic ionobj ec tiv el y e xis te d, giv enthe c ir cum stanc es . T he subjective intentions and beliefs of the j ailers conducting th e strip searc h “ are im m at er ia l t o th e Fo urth A m en dm en t ana ly sis . ” E vans, 407 F . 3d at 12 80 n . 9, citing Graham

v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 1872 (1989).12

Pl ai nti ff arg ue s th at

the thr ee c as es c ite d by

D ef en dants , Cu es tav. S ch ool Bd . of Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , 285 F . 3d 9 62 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ; S kur ste nis , 236 F . 3d at 678 ; and Just ic e v. P ea ch tr ee Ci ty , 961 F . 2d 1 88 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) , are ina ppos ite to whe the r Cl oua tr e ha d r ea sona ble sus pic ionto str ip s earc h P la int if f ba se d so le ly on an arrest char ge: in thos e case s, this Court considered circum stances other than the arr es t c harg e in d et er

m ini ng tha t r ea sona

ble sus pic ione xis te d f

or the str ip se ar ch es . C ue sta , 285 F . 3d at 97 0- 71 ( vio le nt and h at ef ul l an gua ge in pa m

phl et s distribu ted by

school child ren included in arrest af fidavit); Skurstenis, 236 F.3d at 682 (. 38 r ev olv er

in car at ti m e of arr es t) ; Ju sti ce , 961 F . 2d at 19 4 ( sus pic iou s drug-related ac tivityat tim e of ar rest m ade in drug-related location). W e ag re e that those c as es are not c ontro lli ng, but

f or anothe r re as on: non e of tho se c as es inv olv ed

an arr es t f

or an ob vio us c ri m e of

vio le nc e. C ue sta , 285 F. 3d at 96 5 ( pla int if

f ch ar ge d w ithdis tr ibu tin g publi catio ns tha t “ te nd t o e xpos e persons to h atred, contem pt, or r idicule”); Skurstenis, 236 F.3d at 680 (plaintiff ch ar ge d w ithD U I) ; Ju sti ce , 961 F . 2d at 19 0 ( pla int if f ch ar ge d w ithloi te ri ng and truancy ).Plaintiff does not argue tha t t h i s s ear ch wa s perf ormed in an a

busive manner , and we see no 6 evidenc e of a

buse in the re cord. Cf. Eva ns, 407 F.3d at 1281. 13 W e co nc lud e that the str ip s earc h pe rf orm ed on P la int if

f vio la te d no constitu tional right . A ccordingly , w e re verse the j udgm ent of the district court 6 d en yin g s u m

m ary ju d g m en tt o Cl o u at re . B ec au s e w e c o n cl u d e t h at Pl ai n t i ff ’s constitu tional right s wer e not viol ated by the searc h, Pla intiff cannot m aintain a § 1983 a ct ionf

or sup er vis or y li ab ili ty a ga ins t S he ri ff

Mo or e, Ca

pta in Ausburn , or Serg ean t Go sn el l fo r fai lu re t o t rai n. Ro on ey v. Wats on , 10 1 F .3d13 78 , 13 81 n.2 (1 1thCi r. 199 6) . W e al so r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t to M oor e, A usburnand G osne ll on tha t ba sis .
B. T he F ing er

pr int ing .
Plaintiff cla im s her Fourth Am endm ent rights were violated when Of ficer Highfill fingerprinted her in a w ay that caused her body

repeatedly

to be pressed ag ai nst H igh fi ll’ s ba ck . I n he r br ie f, P la int if f co nte nds H igh fi ll’ s a ct s vi olate d th e Fo urth A m en dm en t; the br ie f say s th at it is anobv iou s vi olatio n of the F ourth A m en dm en t t o “ fo ndl e, ” “ gr ope ” an d “ se xua lly a ssa ult ” a pr etri al de ta ine e. B ut i n he r co m pla int and d ep osi tio n, P la int if

f he rs el f ne ve r use d su chw or ds and d oe s no t“Claims involving the mistreatment of arr estee s or pre trial detaine es in custody are g overne d by 7 the Four teenth Amendme nt’s Due Proc ess Clause,” a nd require a showingof deliber ate indiffe renc e to a substantial risk of ser ious harm. Cottrell v . Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1490 ( 1996). Plaintiff asser ts protection under

the Four th Amendment standar d, which is c ommonly an easie r standard f or a plaintiff to mee t. At the t ime of t he finge rprinting , Plaintiff had alr eady been a rre sted, delivere d to the J ail, and had be gun -- but not completed -- the booking proce ss. The original a rre sting off

icer ha d tu rn e d Pl a int if

f o ve r t o ja ile rs , a

nd he wa s no t pr e se nt d

ur ingand did no t pa rt ic ipate in t

he e ve nts un d e r l yi n gth e c o mp l a i n t . T h e p r e c i s e p o i n tatw h i c ha s e i z ur e e n d s ( f

o r p ur p o s e s o f F o urth Am e n dme n t c o v e r a g e ) a

n d at w h ic h p r e tr ia l d e te n ti o n b e g in s ( g o v e r n e d un ti l a c o n v ic tion by the Four teenth Amendme nt) is not settled in this Circuit. We underline that De fenda nts never a

rgue that the str ip se arc h or fi ng e rp ri nti ng wa s se pa ra te fr om Pla int if

f’ s se izur e ; so we -- wi ll a ssume (f or thi s c a se ) P la int if

f w a s st ill be ingse ize d a

nd -- ana ly ze t he c la im und e r t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt. 14 hint at sexual im

propriety on Highfill’ s part; she describes Highfill’ s conduct during th e fingerprinting process as “ j ust do ing hi s job” and that Highfill “ w[ as not ] m ean to m e. ” F or

e xa m ple , no s ex ua l l an gua ge ( or e ve n se xua lly

sug ge sti ve la ng ua ge ) acc om

pa ni edth e fi ng erp rin ti ng . Af ter the dust has settled on this claim , what rem ains is that Plaintiff -- an ad ult w ho w as a lw ay s f

ull y c lothe d - - w as unc om fo rt ab le w he n sh e w as be ing fi nge rp ri nte d be ca

use he r body

w as pul le d in to the ba ck of O ff ic er H igh fi ll w ith the rolling o f ea ch finger. Plaintiff, at the tim e, said nothi ng abou t her discom fort; nor did she claim -- then or in her com

plaint, depositi on or brief -- that s h e wa s h u rto r

i n ju r e dp h ys i c a l l y. W e ac know le dge that a

F ourth A m en dm en t vio la tio n c anoc cur w ith out 7
m uc h f or ce be ing appl ie d duri ng a se iz ur e. T he A m en dm en t pr ote ct s pe opl e fr om

“ unr ea sona

ble ” se iz ur es , and “unr ea sona ble ” co nte m

plate s “ m or e than th e15

unne ce ssary

str ike of anig hts tic k, sti ng o f a bul le t, [ or ] thu d of aboo t. ” F ont an a v. H askin, 262 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2001 ) (c onclud ing po lice office r’ s “ sexual verbal and phy sical predation against a handcuffed arre stee” on ride to police st at io n was Fo ur th Am en dm en t v io la ti on ). Apar t fr om ex ces si ve for ce, we recognize that “ harassing and abus ive behavior” by an office r towards a detainee dur ing ase iz ur e can, in som e ca se s, r ise to the le ve l of “ unr ea sona

ble ” fo r Fo urth A m en dm en t purp ose s. S ee id. a t 87 9. B ut w e str es s th at not e ve ry intru sio n, tou ch ing , dis co m fo rt

or e m barr as sm en t duri ng an arr es t i s a ct ion ab le a s avio la tio n of the F ourth A m en dm en t. S om e of the se a ct s m ay

be pr ova bly a cc ide nta l or

j ust too ins ign if

ic an t and thus w ith in the r an ge of the c onst itu tio na lly

r ea sona ble . I d. at 880 ; c f. V iny ar d v. W ils on, 311 F . 3d 1 340, 134 4, 134 8 n. 13 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) (c onc lud ing de m ini m is f or ce w he n of

fi ce r dr ag ge d pl ai nti ff

ins ide j ai l, f

oll ow ing arre st , “ ei th er b y

he r sh irt , herarm , or h er h ai r”); Jo ne s v . Cit y of Do th an , Ala., 121 F.3d 145 6, 1460 (11th Cir. 1997 ) (c onclud ing de m inim is force when officers

“ slam m ed ” pla int if

f ag ai nst w al l) . W e co nc lud e that the pe rt ine nt f ing er pr int ing conduct is o f that nature.

“ The overr iding function of the Fourth Am endm ent is to protect personal pr iva cy and d ign ity

a ga ins t un w ar

rante d in tr

usi on b y the S ta te . ” S ch m er

be r v. California, 86 S.C t. 1826, 1834 (196 6). W e acc ept that Plaintiff w as16

unc om fo rt ab le w iththe f ing er pr int ing pr oc es s w he n sh e w as tou ch ing the ba ck of O ff ic er H igh fi ll w ithhe r body . W e al so a cc ep t tha t O ff ic er H igh fi ll’ s su

bj ec tiv e int en tio ns are uni m

portant i n de te rm ini ng whe the r the c om pla ine d- of

tou ch ing
w as - - obj ec tiv el y

- - too m uc h of an a ff ro nt t o P la int if

f’ s pe rs ona l pr iva cy

and dig nity in a co nst itu tio na l se nse and, the re fo re , unr ea sona ble und er the F ourth Am endm ent. “ What is reasonable, of course, depends on all of the circum stances surround ing th e sear ch or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself. ” Sk inn er v. Ra ilw ay

L ab or E xe cu tiv es ’ A ss’ n, 109 S . Ct . 140 2, 141 4 ( 1989 ) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). W e co nc lud e that the tou ch ing c om pla ine d of by P la int if f
-- giv enthe bus ine ss- lik e ci rc um stanc es sur ro undi ng the f

ing er pr int ing of an arr ested person and the lim ited and coincident al nature of the touching --
w as too sli ght

and w as w ith in the out sid e bor de rs of w ha t i s r ea sona

ble und er the Fo urth A m en dm en t.

II . S ta te -L awCl ai m
Pl ai nti ff a lso br ough t a

c la im a ga ins t O ff

ic er H igh fi ll unde r G eo rg ialawf or as sault and b atte ry

f or the f ing er pr int ing . H igh fi ll de nie s e ve r usi ng the17

fin ge rp rin ti ng m et ho d a ll eg edan d d en ie s al to ge th er t ak in g P la in ti ff’s fi ng erp rin ts . The district court properly left this factual dispute for a j ury to decide. W e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of state -l awof

fi ci al im m uni ty to Of ficer Highfill on this s tate-lawclaim . The G eorgia Constitut ion imm unizes state officials f

rom suit for conduct perform ed in the line of dutyif their ac ts are (1 ) dis cr et ion ar

y and d one w ith out

m al ic e; or

( 2) m ini ste ri al and d one w ith out ne gli ge nc e. G a. Co nst . art . I , § 2, ¶ 9( d) ( am en de d 19 91) . A lth oughthe j ur y in thi s c as e m ay

ult im at el y

de ci de the f

ac ts d if fe re ntl y , w e co nc lud e that e vid en ce is in the r ec or d to sup port a f ind ing - - as sum ing a t this sta ge that H igh fi ll w as the one that f ing er pr int ed P la int if f
-- that H igh fi ll ac te d w ithm al ic e (P la int if f sa id s he felt “ toy ed with” during the boo king process) and acte d neglig ently (offic ers testified that the fingerprinting m ethod us ed wa s inadvis able). Rea ding the rec ord in Plaintiff’ s favor, whether Highfill’ s fingerprinting of Plaintiff in the m anner al le ge d w as dis cr et ion ar

y or m ini ste ri al m ak es no d if fe re nc e; of

fi ci al im m uni ty w oul d pr ote ct

him in ne ith er

c as e. A cc or din gly , H igh fi ll is n ot e nti tle d to s u mmary j u d g me n to n th i s c l a i m.
Co nc lus ionToday ’s dec ision, in effec t, eliminates all fede ral cl ai m s i n t h i s case , leavingonly Plaintiff’s 8 state -l aw c la ims . We a llo w the dis tr ic t c ourt to e xer c ise its dis c re tio n, un de r the Gi bb s d oc tr ine , to decide whether

or not to consider Plainti ff’ s state-law claims on rema nd. See United Mine Worker s of Amer ica v. Gibbs, 86 S .Ct. 1130, 1139 (1966) (“Ce rtainly , if the fe dera l claims are dismiss ed befor e trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”) ; Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The decision to e x erc ise supplemental jurisdiction ove r penda nt state c la ims re sts wi thi n th e dis c re tio n o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt . We hav e e nc oura g e d d ist ri c t c ourt s to dis mis s any re ma ini ng state c la ims wh e n, a s her e , the fe de ra l cla ims have be e n dism iss e d p ri or to trial.”) ( citation omitted). 18 Gi v en th e c i rc u m s t an ce s , we s ee n o co n s t i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n i n Pl ai n t i ff ’s strip search. So, we rever se the denial of summ ary j udgm ent to Dispatcher Clouatre on the Fourth Am endm ent claim ; and we r everse the denial of sum m ary j udgm en t t o S he ri ff

Mo or e, Ca

pta in Ausburnand S er ge an t G osne ll on the superviso ry

liabilityclaim . Given the circ um stances, the c ontact with Plaintiff during th e fingerprinting process was too sligh t to am ount to a constitut ional vio la tio n; s o, w e re ve rs e the de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o O ff

ic er H igh fi ll on t h i s f e d e r a l c l a i m. W e af fi rm the de nia l of

state -l awof

fi ci al im m uni ty to O ff ic er H igh fi ll on the a ssa ult and b atte ry

c la im f or the f ing er pr int ing .
AFFIR MED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, an d R EMANDED. 8