PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ LARAMIE STERLING HINKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JARROD HINKLE, Plaintiff,

v. BECKHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; SCOTT JAY, in his individu al capacity; STRIDER ESTEP, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-6202

_________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-00497-SLP)

_________________________________ Brently C. Olsson (Mark S. Rains with him on the briefs), of Cheek Law Firm, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plai ntiff-Appellant, Laramie Hinkle. Wellon B. Poe (Jamison C. Wh itson with him on the brief), of Collins Zorn & Wagner, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant s-Appellees, Scott Jay and Strider Estep. Carson C. Smith (Robert S. Lafferrandre wi th him on the brief), of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Gr een, L.L.P., Oklahoma City , Oklahoma, for DefendantAppellee, Beckham County Boar d of County Commissioners. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 22, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 ________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, PHILLIPS , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ PHILLIPS , Circuit Judge.

_________________________________ A series of coincidences and mistaken beliefs led to the arrest of Laramie Hinkle for possessing a stolen trailer that was not even stolen. And things got worse from there. Despite Hinkle’s recently ha ving served as police chief in a nearby Oklahoma town and having vo luntarily presented himsel f for booking, the sheriff’s office immediately subjected him to a body-cavity strip se arch. Soon after that, the sheriff published a press release on his offi ce’s website chock full of incriminating allegations from the deputy’s arrest-warrant affidavit. After fu rther investigation showed Hinkle innocent, he sued, alleging as unlawful his arrest, the press release, and the body-cavity strip search. We sympat hize with Hinkle. But we conclude that the deputy sheriff had probable cause for the arrest, that the depu ty arrested Hinkle based on that probable cause, and that the district court did not err in dismissing Hinkle’s claim that the sherif f issued the press release to retaliate against Hinkle. That said, we conclude th at the body-cavity strip sear ch was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. And because this unl awful search was based on the County’s indiscriminate strip-search policy, we hold that the County is directly liable. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and re mand for further proceedings.3 BACKGROUND I. Factual Background A. The Investigation On November 6, 2012, Scott Jay defeated a challenger to win re-election as the Beckham County Sheriff. The next day, Laramie Hinkle resigned his office as the Chief of Police for Erick, Oklahoma, s ituated in Beckham County. Hinkle had supported Sheriff Jay’s opponent during the campaign. 1 In May 2013, Rod and Lynne Smith repor ted to the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office that for the past tw o weeks someone had abandoned a trailer on their property. Mr. Smith told Deputy Stride r Estep that Hinkle or Hinkl e’s father-in-law, Vaughn Keown, might own the trailer. Keown had recently done some work for the Smiths on their property. Deputy Estep went to the Smiths’ propert y and viewed the trailer. He wrote down its vehicle identification number (VIN) and information from a trailerdealership decal. Deputy Estep accessed the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, but that revealed nothing suggesting that the tra iler had been stolen. Next, after seeing its name on the decal, Deputy Estep cal led T-N-J Trailers, a South Carolina trailer dealership. A dealership representative to ld him that th e Carpenter’s Church in Anderson, South Carolina, had bought the trailer in 2001.

1 Though the timing of Hinkle’s re signation might sugg est a connection between Hinkle’s leaving and Sh eriff Jay’s victory, Hinkle testified that instead the mayor of Erick had forced him to resign because of a complaint.4 Deputy Estep called the church and told its pastor that “a tra iler was located in [the] county and that he was trying to disc over the owner[.]” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 391. Deputy Estep described the trailer a nd provided its VIN. The next day, after “check[ing] into the matter, ” the pastor called Deputy Estep and confirmed that someone had stolen the trailer “from the church in 2003.” Id. The pastor also told Deputy Estep that the church’s insurer, th e Palmetto Insurance Agency, had paid the church’s claim for the stolen trailer. Finally, the pastor “asked Deputy Estep if the trailer was in Erick[,] Oklahoma.” Id. When Deputy Estep confirmed that it was located “just outside Erick,” the pastor “informed Deputy Estep that the only persons he could think of that would be in that ar ea who might be in possession of the trailer were Laramie Hinkle or Vaughn Keown” —former members of the Carpenter’s Church. Id. With this information, Deputy Estep called the Anderson County Sheriff’s Department about the 2003 traile r theft. That office confirme d the theft of a trailer as described but advised that it s investigative report did not list a VIN for the trailer stolen from the Carpenter’s Church. Finally, Deputy Estep called the church’s insurer, the Pa lmetto Insurance Agency. Its representative conf irmed the pastor’s account of the stolen trailer and its having paid the church’s claim. Impor tantly, when Deputy Estep provided the Oklahoma trailer’s VIN, the insurer told hi m that it matched the VIN of the stolen trailer.5 Armed with this incriminating info rmation, Deputy Estep ran a covert operation. On May 10, 2013, using the name “John Larson,” Deputy Estep called Keown, who told him that Hinkle owned the trailer: DEPUTY ESTEP: Hey, is this Vaughn? VAUGHN KEOWN: Yes DEPUTY ESTEP: Hey Vaughn, this is John Larson. I was out there on Lynne Smith’s property the other day . . . VAUGHN KEOWN: On whose? DEPUTY ESTEP: Lynne Smith’s, just east of Erick over there. VAUGHN KEOWN: Yeah. DEPUTY ESTEP: Yeah, hey there’s a little trailer out there, a little Vnose white trailer . . . VAUGHN KEOWN: Yeah DEPUTY ESTEP: Hey, is that yours? VAUGHN KEOWN: Umm . . . Now who is this? DEPUTY ESTEP: This is J ohn Larson. Can you hear me? VAUGHN KEOWN: . . . I don’ t reckon I know you. DEPUTY ESTEP: I’m from over by Co rdell, I just do some work for them, just kind of a salesman, but I sa w that trailer out there, and they said, uh, you there? VAUGHN KEOWN: Yeah, I’m here. Ar e you interested in buying it or something? DEPUTY ESTEP: No, nah, I was just out there the other day, and they said they didn’t know whose it was, but they thought it might be yours, and I just was wondering if you were in terested in selling that thing? VAUGHN KEOWN: Um, I don’t know. Ac tually, my son-in-law owns that. I can ask him. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. Who’s your, is that, Laramie? They said it was either yours or Laramie’s. VAUGHN KEOWN: Really? Um, man you’re breaking up something fierce. DEPUTY ESTEP: Alright, hey, let me get to a better spot and I’ll call you back. Appellee’s Suppl. App. vol. 1 at 00:10–00:12, 01:24–03:10. Again using the “John Larson” alias, De puty Estep called Hinkle to ask about the trailer:6 LARAMIE HINKLE: Hello? DEPUTY ESTEP: Is this Laramie? LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes, it is. DEPUTY ESTEP: Hey, Laramie, this is John Larson, I know ol’ Lynne Smith over there in Erick. LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes, sir. DEPUTY ESTEP: Hey, I was over ther e the other day and we were just kind of tooling around th eir property and saw a little V nose trailer out there, about a 16 footer. LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes, sir. DEPUTY ESTEP: Yeah, hey, they said it might be yours or your fatherin-law’s, I called your father-i n-law, he said it was yours. LARAMIE HINKLE: Right. DEPUTY ESTEP: And I was wonderi ng if you would be willing to sell that thing. LARAMIE HINKLE: Well, let me te ll you something, Mark -- I mean, John, let me call you right back, can I get a number from you, I’m right in the middle of something here, and I n eed to try to take care of it, let me call you right back, okay, partner? DEPUTY ESTEP: You there? LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes, sir. Can I ca ll you right back? I’m right here in the middle something, I can’t real ly -- let me call you right back, okay, partner? Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1105– 06. About an hour later, at Deputy Estep’s direction, Beckham County Deputy Brett Moore st opped Hinkle’s automobile. And about fifteen minutes after that, Deputy Estep ar rived and identified hi mself to Hinkle as the phone caller, “John Larson.” Deputy Estep read Hinkle the Miranda warning, obtained Hinkle’s consent to record their conversation, and bega n questioning Hinkle about the trailer. Hinkle immediately told Deputy Estep th at he had unders tood “John Larson” to be asking about a different tr ailer on someone else’s property: DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. All right. Here ’s the deal, I called your father-inlaw. LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes.7 DEPUTY ESTEP: Is that Vaughn? LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. I desc ribed the trailer to him. LARAMIE HINKLE: Right. DEPUTY ESTEP: Down there on Lynne’s place. LARAMIE HINKLE: Right, yes, sir. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. And he said you’re the one that owned that trailer, okay? LARAMIE HINKLE: Okay. All right. DEPUTY ESTEP: Because I’m the one that called and asked if somebody wanted to sell it. LARAMIE HINKLE: Ok. Sure, sure, okay. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. I descri bed the trailer to him. LARAMIE HINKLE: Right. DEPUTY ESTEP: That that V no se trailer that’s down there. LARAMIE HINKLE: Okay. Now, explain to me, you say V nose, explain to me what the -- DEPUTY ESTEP: Just a V. LARAMIE HINKLE: I know, but is it a cargo trailer or what is it? DEPUTY ESTEP: It’s an enclosed trailer. LARAMIE HINKLE: Okay. Encl osed trailer, now, that’s the part I’m trying to get across. DEPUTY ESTEP: All right. All right. And I talked to him and described the trailer to him, he said you were the one that owned it. LARAMIE HINKLE: Yes, sir. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. Then I called yo u, you know, kind of described it to you, asked you if y ou were the one that owned it, and you said yeah. LARAMIE HINKLE: No, no, wait a minut e now, I’m thinking you were talking about a flatbed trailer that I had over here. I misunderstood. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. Well, I told you the one over at Lynn’s house, I kind of described it to you on the -- I got it on recording. LARAMIE HINKLE: Okay. Well, that’s fi ne, if you got a recording, but I’m telling you, I don’t own an enclosedtrailer, I own a flatbed trailer. DEPUTY ESTEP: Okay. LARAMIE HINKLE: I don’t even own th at, I own one trailer in South Carolina and have a flatbed over here at Ms. Branson’s (ph) neighbors’. DEPUTY ESTEP: All right. Well, I’m go ing based off what you said to me and what your father-in- law said to me, okay. LARAMIE HINKLE: Okay. Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1218–20. Later at his deposition, Hinkle explained that his uncovered, flatbed, V-nosed trailer was loca ted “a little over a quarter of a mile8 from” where the covered, V-nosed trailer was located, and that his trailer “looked similar to it.” Id. at 1080. 2 Further, Hinkle asserted that, in fact, he had only borrowed the flatbed trailer from one of his friends. After Hinkle told his side of the story, Deputy Este p and Hinkle called Keown and asked that he come discuss the matter. This time, Keown sa id that the covered trailer was a “family traile r,” that “we all bought it kind of together” from the Carpenter’s Church, and that Hinkle “didn’t have anything to do with it.” Appellee’s Suppl. App. vol. 3 at 07:28–07:52. Keown sa id that he was thirty minutes away and would come meet with Deputy Estep and Hinkle. Over the next three hours, Deputy Este p called Keown at least three times, with Keown reporting each time that he rema ined lost in the “B reaks.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 392, 477–78. Getting nowher e, Deputy Estep testif ied that he called Assistant District Attorney Gina Webb. After hearing Deput y Estep’s account, Prosecutor Webb advised him that he had probable cause to arrest Hinkle. 3 Without

2 Nothing in the record reveals wh ether Deputy Estep ever saw Hinkle’s flatbed trailer; apparently Deputy Estep knew about only one trailer. Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1041 (“Well, I told you the one over at Lynn[e]’s house . . . .” (emphasis added)). Because Hinkle testified that his trailer was a quarter of a mile away from the one on the Smiths’ property, it appears that Deputy Estep did not learn about the flatbed trailer until Hinkle said that Deputy Estep ha d the wrong trailer. Prosecutor Gina Webb testified that “the re was only one trailer on [the Smiths’] property at that time.” Appe llant’s App. vol. 4 at 852.

3 Prosecutor Webb’s testimony varied. Firs t, she stated that she had spoken with Sheriff Jay, not Deputy Estep. But she later said that she t hought “it was Strider [Estep] that called me first” and that she and he had discussed “probable cause.” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 609. Whenever Sheriff Jay and Prosecutor Webb spoke,9 seeking or obtaining a warra nt, Deputy Estep arrested Hinkle for three crimes— knowingly receiving or concealing stolen pr operty, transporting stolen property into Oklahoma, and conspiracy to commit a felony. In his opening brief, Hinkl e asserts that Deputy Este p, in coordination with Sheriff Jay, framed and arre sted him, solely for Hinkl e’s having supported Sheriff Jay’s election opponent. Ind eed, Hinkle claims that Sheriff Jay himself made the “decision to arrest Hinkle.” Appellant’s Op ening Br. 8. But the district court found that Sheriff Jay had played only a “pas sing role,” noting that Deputy Estep’s investigation had begun when the Smiths—and not Sheriff Jay—called him. Appellant’s App. vol. 6 at 1412. The court stated that Hinkle ha d provided “nothing beyond [his own] suspicions” to show th at Deputy Estep had fra med him at Sheriff Jay’s prompting. Id. at 1412, 1415. Hinkle testified that, after the arrest, a different offi cer transported him to the Beckham County Detention Center (BCDC), but left him out front so the officer could respond to a report of a fleeing suspect. 4 After voluntarily entering the BCDC,

some of the information Sheriff Jay gave her was incorrect. Prosecutor Webb testified that Sheriff Jay to ld her the trailer “came back stolen on the NCIC” hit, which is refuted by Deputy Estep’s probable- cause affidavit. Appe llant’s App. vol. 5 at 1148.

4 In contrast, Deputy Estep testified th at he transported Hinkle to the BCDC and “walked him in and filled out the paperw ork.” Appellant’s App. vol. 4 at 825. In reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, we credit Hinkle’s account. Genberg v. Porter , 882 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 2018) (“On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-moving part y.” (citation omitted)).10 Hinkle encountered Detention Officer Ja son Atwood, who patted him down in the booking area. Immediately af ter that, Officer Atwood t ook Hinkle into a private dressing room for a body-cavity strip se arch. As mandated by the BCDC’s stripsearch policy 5 applying to all detainees, Officer Atwood directed Hinkle to lift his scrotum and, soon after, to “spread his buttocks, and squat and cough.” Id. at 1408. During this search, Officer Atwood visual ly inspected Hinkle’s anal cavity from “a couple [of] feet away.” Appellant’s App. vol . 2 at 331. The body-cavity search lasted a minute or two. Then, wearing rubber gloves, Officer Atwood ran his fingers through Hinkle’s beard, agai n checking for contraband. Officer Atwood testified that the BCDC performed these searches on all incoming detainees before booking them or knowing where they would be housed. After the body-cavity strip search, Offi cer Atwood led Hinkle from the private dressing room and handcuffed him to a be nch in the booking area. Captain Bilbo, who was “in charge of the jail,” testified th at this meant that at this time, “they had not made a decision on where he was going to be housed.” Id. at 361, 367. About an hour later, “because [Hinkle] was the [fo rmer] police chief,” th e sheriff’s office transported Hinkle to the Elk City jail to avoid placing him in the BCDC’s general population. Id. at 326. 6 According to the Beckham County Board of County

5 The County describes the strip- search protocol as a policy.

6 The distance between the Elk City jail and the BCDC is 17.2 miles. See Oklahoma Atlas & Gazetteer 38–39 (6th ed., DeLorme 2019) . We take judicial notice of this distance. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), (c); Citizens for Peace in Space v. City of11 Commissioners (County), “the d ecision was made to transfer Plaintiff to Elk City to completely segregate him from the rest of the facility b ecause he was a former law enforcement officer.” Appellee Beckham Ct y. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs Resp. Br. 7. Detention Officer Atwood testified that Ca ptain Bilbo would have made the decision to transfer Hinkle, and that “[e]ither she knew ahead of time that he was coming in or one of us would have called her and discusse d it with her.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 327. Captain Bilbo, on the other hand, te stified that she had no “recollection of the[se] events,” because she was “on medical leave” and “ not doing any work at all.” Id. at 366.
B. The Case Unravels On May 14, 2013, just four days afte r Hinkle’s arrest, an agent working for Palmetto Insurance drafted a letter addressed “[t]o whom it may concern.” Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1318 (capital ization removed). The letter began by verifying that on October 23, 2003, a traile r was stolen from the Carpenter’s Church. But what the letter said next undid Deput y Estep’s case. The letter advised that in 2003 the church had owned two Haulmark trailers, and that Palmetto Insurance had now realized that it had mixed the tw o VINs in processing the stolen-trailer paperwork. The news was dire—Palmetto Insurance had “mistakenly reported the wrong VIN# as stolen” and woul d “be processing a correction.” Id. The letter

Colorado Springs , 477 F.3d 1212, 1218 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007); United States v. Piggie , 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir. 1980).12 summed up “that the trailer currently in possession of Mr. Laramie Hinkle” in fact “was NOT stolen.” Id. On May 21, 2013, the Carpenter’s Chur ch drafted its ow n letter addressed “[t]o whom it may concern” “to verify th at Vaughn Keown [i]s the rightful owner of the trailer [the trailer in Oklahoma that Deputy Estep ha d called about].” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 708. The church’s letter advised that Vaughn Ke own had “purchased the trailer from The Carpenter’ s Church in November, 2008.” Id. 7 Deputy Estep testified that about “two to three weeks” after Hinkle’s arrest (so sometime between about May 24 to J une 1, 2013), a Palmetto Insurance representative called him. Id. at 524. The representative told Deputy Estep that the VIN of the church’s stolen trailer did not match the VIN of the Oklahoma trailer. Deputy Estep testified that he “contacted the D.A.’s of fice immediately” after hearing about the “grave mistake.” Id. at 522. Prosecutor We bb testified to the contrary, saying that she never received a phone call from De puty Estep informing her “that the trailer in question was not st olen[.]” Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1150. On May 31, 2013, Palmetto Insurance’s representative faxe d to Deputy Estep a 2013 supplemental report generated by the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office

7 We are uncertain of the date that the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office received either letter. We note that both letters have re mnants of fax transmissions: both show “No. 5965,” the Palmetto In surance letter show s “P. 2” and the Carpenter’s Church letter s hows “P. 3,” and each shows tr ansmission “May 21, 2013 10:12 AM.” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 707–08. On summary-judgment review, and considering the earlier communications be tween Deputy Estep and the two letter writers, we see a fair inference that the sheriff’s office had bot h letters on May 21, 2013, and it faxed them el sewhere at 10:12 a.m.13 concerning the stolen traile r’s VIN. As mentioned, th e Anderson County Sheriff’s Office had no VIN listed in its 2003 incident report for the church’s stolen trailer. But in May 2013, after talking with the Palmetto Insurance representative, Deputy Nancy Hunt of the Anderson County Sheriff’ s Office “went to the old NCIC files” and “obtain[ed] the vin # that was entere d into NCIC” for th e stolen trailer. Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 382. As revealed in the supplemental report, Deputy Hunt saw that the VIN number the Anderson Count y Sheriff’s Office had entered differed from the VIN of the trailer in Oklahoma. De puty Estep testified that he “believe[d] [he] would have” received th e Palmetto Insurance’s repr esentative’s May 31 fax. Appellant’s App. vol. 4 at 813. Nonetheless, Deputy Estep also tes tified that he could not “really remember receiving this .” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 545. Deputy Estep testified that “on his way out” of the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office (he resigned on July 8, 2013), he “expl ained to Sheriff Jay th e situation[,] . . . told him where everything was,” and told him “that there was conclusive evidence” that Hinkle did not steal the trailer. See Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1139–40. Faced with Deputy Estep’s testimony that he ha d informed Sheriff Jay about Hinkle’s innocence “as he was getting ready to leave th e department,” Sheriff Jay testified that he could not “recall [having] any conversa tion with him.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 240–41. But Sheriff Jay also said that he was “not saying it didn’t happen.” Id. at 240. Furthermore, Sheriff Jay te stified that he did not “r ecall ever seeing” Palmetto Insurance’s letter before bei ng deposed on August 14, 2017. Id. at 237. Similarly, he14 claimed that he had “never laid ey es” on the Carpenter Church’s letter. Id. at 236–37. And Sheriff Jay said that he did not “r ecall ever seeing [the fax] before.” Id. at 238. Despite the exculpatory ev idence from the church a nd its insurer, Prosecutor Webb and the district attorn ey’s office delayed dismissing the case. According to Prosecutor Webb, Sheriff Jay had told her th at either the insura nce commission or the attorney general’s office was investigating the Palmetto Insuran ce Agency for fraud. The specifics of any such fraud inve stigation are unclear. Prosecutor Webb testified that the investigation might ha ve involved the Pa lmetto Insurance’s representative who had spoke n with Deputy Estep: “I ki nd of think that’s the lady that they were investiga ting.” Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1156. Prosecutor Webb could not remember whether she called “the insurance commissi on or the attorney general’s office” in South Caro lina about the investigation. Id. at 1160–62. But she recalled that a person from one of those office s told her that the investigation had run into “a dead end.” Id. at 1160. Soon after that convers ation, the district attorney’s office moved to dismiss the charges against Hinkle. And on September 12, 2013, the state district judge dismissed the case. C. The Press Release Sometime after Hinkle’s arrest, the Bec kham County Sheriff’ s Office posted a press release on its website, 8 entitled “Former Police Offi cer Arrested for Possessing

8 Neither the district court nor the partie s provide a date when the press release was first posted. A time stamp in the record indicates that the pr ess release may first have appeared on the website on August 21, 2013. Because this date would have been15 Stolen Property.” Appellant ’s App. vol. 3 at 710–11. The press release identified Hinkle’s charges and recounted the events leading to his arrest. It stated that the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office believed that Hinkle and Keown had “stole[n] a trailer from a church in South Carolina . . . and brought it to Western Oklahoma”; that Hinkle had been “arrested . . . for possession of stol en property, conspiracy to commit a felony, and bringing stolen property into the state”; and that “Hinkle previously served on the Erick Police Department.” Id. at 710. It claimed that Hinkle had “confirmed that he owned the trailer, according to the re port from the Beckham County Sheriff[’ s] Office.” Id. Sheriff Jay testified that he reviewed a ll press releases befo re authorizing them to be posted on the Beckham Count y Sheriff’s Office’s website. After posting the press release, Sheriff Jay le ft it on the website for almo st two years after the court dismissed Hinkle’s charges. In fact, the sheriff never de leted the press release—it remained available to the pub lic until a network crash dest royed all the office’s press releases. Nor did Sheriff Jay ever issue a pr ess release about the dismissal of Hinkle’s charges.

about two months after the Palmetto Insura nce representative’s call to Deputy Estep exonerating Hinkle, Sheriff Jay may have known that Hinkle was innocent before authorizing posting the press re lease. But Hinkle does not poi nt out this factual issue and advances no legal theory based on it. In fact, in his Amended Complaint, Hinkle alleges that the press releas e was posted on May 9, 2013. See Am. Compl. ¶ 61. Because “[i]t is not our role to sift through the record to find evidence not cited by the parties to support argumen ts they have not made,” Cordova v. Aragon , 569 F.3d 1183, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Gross v. Burggraf Construction Co. , 53 F.3d 1531, 1546 (10th Cir. 1995)), we stop here.16 II. Procedural Background Hinkle sued Sheriff Jay, Deputy Estep, and the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his First and Fo urth Amendment rights. He also sued Sheriff Jay and Deputy Estep for defamation, for publicly placing him in a false light, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hinkle alleged that Sherif f Jay, Deputy Estep, and th e County had violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating ag ainst him for supporting the sheriff’s election opponent. As the re taliatory acts, Hi nkle relied on the arrest, body-cavity strip search, and press release. In his Four th Amendment claims, Hinkle asserted that he had been arrested without probable cause and body-cavity strip searched under an unlawful policy. Finally, Hinkle alleged that Deputy Estep a nd Sheriff Jay had conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. First, the district court dismissed th e First Amendment claim on grounds that Deputy Estep had probable cause to arrest Hinkle, that the C ounty’s policy of bodycavity strip searching all detainees was lawful, and that the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office often re leased news releases a bout high-profile cases. Second, the district court dismissed Hi nkle’s Fourth Amendment false-arrest claims against Sheriff Jay, Deputy Estep, and the County . As grounds, the district court relied on its earlier conclusion that Deputy Estep had probabl e cause to arrest Hinkle. The district court relied on many factors, including these: (i) the Smiths had thought Hinkle or Keown owned the trailer, (ii) the church’s pastor had confirmed that the trailer was stolen and identified Hinkle and Ke own as men who might have17 the trailer, (iii) the Anderson County Sherif f’s Office had agreed that the stolen trailer matched the description of the traile r on the Smiths’ property, (iv) the church’s insurer had matched the VINs of the st olen trailer and the one on the Smiths’ property, and (v) Keown had said that Hi nkle owned the trailer. Though the NCIC database did not identify the trailer as stolen, and though Deputy Es tep learned before the arrest that Hinkle had earlier unders tood Deputy Estep to be asking about a different trailer (a flatbed, not a covered trailer), the district court concluded that these countervailing factors did “not vitiate the existence of probable cause.” Appellant’s App. vol. 6 at 1419–20. Accord ingly, the district court dismissed Hinkle’s Fourth Amendment false-arrest claims. Third, the district court dismissed Hinkle’s claim that the County, through Sheriff Jay, had implemented an uncons titutional policy requiring body-cavity strip searches of all detainees. Because the BCDC “did not have a true segregation option,” the district court ruled that the policy was lawful under Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders , 566 U.S. 318 (2012). Id. at 1425. The court also concluded that Officer Atwood did not violate Florence ’s touching exception by touching Hinkle’s beard—an unclothed ar ea of the body. Fourth, the district court dismissed Hinkl e’s claim that Sheriff Jay and Deputy Estep had conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. The court stated that “[f]or allegations of conspiracy to successfully cons titute a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff ‘must plead and prove not only a conspiracy, but also an ac tual deprivation of rights; pleading and proving one without the other will be insufficient.’” Id. at 1427 (citation18 omitted). And because Hinkle ha d not shown an actual depr ivation of any federally protected right, the court dismisse d his civil-conspi racy claim. After dismissing Hinkle’s federal claims, the district court turned to Hinkle’s state-law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367( c)(4), the court chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and dismissed them without prejudice, a decision Hinkle does not appeal. On appeal, Hinkle challenges only wh ether the district court properly dismissed his federal claims. We have appellate jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. DISCUSSION I. The Qualified-Immunity Standard Deputy Estep and Sheriff Jay successfully asserted qualified immunity against Hinkle’s § 1983 claims. We re view de novo “the award of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” Donahue v. Wihongi , 948 F.3d 1177, 1186 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lindsey v. Hyler , 918 F.3d 1109, 1113 (10th Cir. 2019)). Qualified immunity insulates “official s from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly establis hed statutory or cons titutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. Luna , 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (per curiam) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)). When “a defendant asserts a qualified immun ity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff.” Estate of Ceballos v. Husk , 919 F.3d 1204, 1212–13 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Medina v. Cram , 252 F.3d 1124, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001)). To meet that19 burden, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the rightwas clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Donahue , 948 F.3d at 1186 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cillo v. City of Greenwood Vill. , 739 F.3d 451, 460 (10th Cir. 2013)). Even though a plaintiff bears the bur den of meeting these two prongs, a defendant moving for summary judgment “must [still] ‘show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Estate of Booker v. Gomez , 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014)). And as always, when deciding whether summary judgment is proper, we “may not weigh evidence and must resolve genuine disputes of materi al fact in favor of the nonmoving party.” Stonecipher v. Valles , 759 F.3d 1134, 1141 ( 10th Cir. 2014) (citing Tolan v. Cotton , 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (per curiam)). In Tolan , the Court emphasized “the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant” for both prongs of the qualified-immunity analys is. 572 U.S. at 657. We can affirm the dismissal of Hinkle’ s claims against Sh eriff Jay and Deputy Estep under either prong or both. See Donahue , 948 F.3d at 1186 (quoting Doe v. Woodard , 912 F.3d 1278, 1289 (10th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. I.B. v. Woodard , 139 S. Ct. 2616 (2019)). Here, we rule that Hinkle has not met his summary-judgment burden to show a c onstitutional violation by Sheriff Jay or20 Deputy Estep. And because we conclude that Hinkle has not met prong one, he cannot have met his burden under prong two. 9
II. Hinkle’s Fourth Amendmen t False-Arrest Claim Hinkle raises three primary arguments to support his claim that Deputy Estep arrested him without probable cause. First, he claims that Deputy Estep falsely claimed in his arrest affida vit that Hinkle had admitted owning the tra iler suspected of being stolen, and he argues that this admission was necessary for probable cause. Second, Hinkle claims that even if Deput y Estep had probable cause that Hinkle was involved with a stolen traile r, Deputy Estep would still ha ve lacked probable cause to arrest, because Oklahoma law re quires that the property be recently stolen. Third, Hinkle claims that Deputy Estep lacked proba ble cause to arrest because the statute of limitations had run on each of his charges.

9 Because the County is a governmental entity and not an individual, it is not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity. E.g. , Owen v. City of Indep. , 445 U.S. 622, 657 (1980) (“[M ]unicipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutiona l violations . . . .”); Seifert v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty. , 779 F.3d 1141, 1159 (10th Cir. 2015) (“Only individuals, not governmental entities, can assert qualified immunity.” (citing Beedle v. Wilson , 422 F.3d 1059, 1069 (10th Cir. 2005)). Thus, we do not apply the qualified-immunity standard to Hinkle’s claims against the County. Rather, we will review de novo whether the County has shown the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, “drawing all reasonable inferences and reso lving all factual disputes in favor of [Hinkle].” Murphy v. City of Tulsa , 950 F.3d 641, 643 (10t h Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Yousuf v. Cohlmia , 741 F.3d 31, 37 (10th Cir. 2014)) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)) (applying the de novo standard of review when reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Tulsa on a plaintiff’s municipal-liability claim).21 A. Probable Cause Probable cause is a concept “incapab le of [a] precis e definition or quantification into percentages.” Maryland v. Pringle , 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (citing Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983); Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949)). But an officer must have probable caus e to obtain a warrant— the Constitution states that “no Warrants sh all issue, but upon pr obable cause.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Probable cause also re mains important outside of the warrant context, because “[a] warrantle ss arrest is permissible wh en an officer ‘has probable cause to believe that a person committed a crime.’” E.g. , Cortez v. McCauley , 478 F.3d 1108, 1115 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Romero v. Fay , 45 F.3d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995)). In reviewing “whether an officer had pr obable cause for an arrest, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whet her these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectiv ely reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.” District of Columbia v. Wesby , 138 S. Ct. 577, 586 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pringle , 540 U.S. at 371). Such facts amount to probable cause “when [they] . . . are suffic ient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an o ffense has been or is being committed.” Cortez , 478 F.3d at 1116 (internal quot ation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Valenzuela , 365 F.3d 892, 896 (10th Cir. 2004)). That belief must be anchored in a “substantial probability”—as opp osed to “a bare suspicion” —that an offense took or22 is taking place. Patel v. Hall , 849 F.3d 970, 981 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stonecipher , 759 F.3d at 1141). But probable cause “is not a high bar.” Kaley v. United States , 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014) (citations omitted). Officers need “only the kind of fair probability on which reasonable and prudent people, not legal technicians, act.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alte rations omitted) (quoting Florida v. Harris , 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013)). For that reas on, in considering whethe r the government has shown probable cause to indict, gra nd juries need not hear th e defendant’s side of an argument, id. (citing United States v. Williams , 504 U.S. 36, 51 (1992)), any crossexamination of the prosecution’s witnesses, id. (citing Gerstein v. Pugh , 420 U.S. 103, 121–22 (1975)), or any exculpatory evidence, id. (citing Williams , 504 U.S. at 51)—a reasonably prudent pers on could find that the low bar of probable cause was met without technical analysis. Formulatio n of probable cause “does not require the fine resolution of conflicting eviden ce that a reasonable-doubt or even a preponderance standard demands, and cred ibility determinations are seldom crucial in deciding whether the evidence supp orts a reasonable belief in guilt.” Gerstein , 420 U.S. at 121 (citation omitted). An officer’s subjective state of mi nd is irrelevant to the probable-cause calculus because the crux of the inquiry is whether “the circumstances, viewed objectivel y, justify [the arrest].” Devenpeck v. Alford , 543 U.S. 146, 153 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Whren v. United
States , 517 U.S. 806, 814 (1996)).23 Temporally, we judge probable cause to arrest by what fact s the officer knew

at arrest. Id. at 152 (citing Pringle , 540 U.S. at 371); see also United States v. Neal , 500 F.2d 305, 309 (10th Ci r. 1974). Information learne d after developing probable cause but before an arrest can dissipate probable cause. E.g. , United States v. Dalton , 918 F.3d 1117, 1128 (10th Ci r. 2019) (“[N]ew informa tion can dissipate probable cause.” (citing Harte v. Bd. of Comm’rs , 864 F.3d 1154, 1182 ( 10th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (opinion of Phillips, J.) (joined by Lucero, J.) (other citations omitted)); 10 United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez , 427 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A person may not be arrested, or must be released from arrest, if pr eviously established probable cause has dissipated.”); Bigford v. Taylor , 834 F.2d 1213, 1218 (5 th Cir. 1988) (“As a corollary, moreover, of the rule that the police may re ly on the totality of facts available to them in establ ishing probable cause, they al so may not disregard facts tending to dissipate probabl e cause.” (footnote and cita tions omitted)). And in reviewing the dissipation question, courts impute officers “with knowledge of any readily available exculpator y evidence that they unreas onably fail to ascertain.” Maresca v. Bernalillo Cty. , 804 F.3d 1301, 1310 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Though officers may not ignore evidence th at would dissipate probable cause, not all new evidence does so. Fo r instance, a soon-to-be arre stee’s bare proclamations

10 Whether reviewing a search or an a rrest, the same probable-cause standard applies. See Stonecipher , 759 F.3d at 1141 (“Officers mu st have probable cause to initiate a search, arrest, and prosecu tion under the Fourth Amendment.”).24 of innocence do not. Romero , 45 F.3d at 1480 (citations omitted) (“Once Defendants concluded that the initially discovered facts establishe d probable cause, they were under no obligation to forego arresting Plai ntiff or release him merely because he said he was innocent.”). Even “a plausible explanation” does not require “the officer to forego arrest pending further investigat ion if the facts as initially discovered provide probable cause.” Id. at 1480 n.6 (quoting Criss v. City of Kent , 867 F.2d 259, 263 (6th Cir. 1988)). In the comparable context of whethe r an arresting officer must release an already-detained suspect to avoid a false-im prisonment claim, the First Circuit has reasoned that “having once dete rmined that there is probable cause to arrest, an officer should not be required to reassess hi s probable cause conclusion at every turn, whether faced with the discove ry of some new evid ence or a suspect’s self-exonerating explanation from the back of the squad car.” Thompson v. Olson , 798 F.2d 552, 556 (1st Cir. 1986). Instead, arresting officers mu st release a suspect only if the police discover that “the suspic ion (probable cause) which forms the basis for the privilege to arrest is unfounded.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 134 cmt. f (Am. Law Inst. 1965)).
B. Deputy Estep Had Probable Caus e to Believe that Hinkle Was Involved in Crimes Connected to a Stolen Trailer. Applying this framework, we agree with the district court th at, at the time of Hinkle’s warrantless arrest , Deputy Estep had probabl e cause that Hinkle had committed a crime. An objectively reasona ble officer standing in Deputy Estep’s place would have plentiful information from reputable sources to support a25 substantial probability that Hinkle had stol en, helped steal, helped conceal, or wrongfully received the traile r left on the Smiths’ property. As mentioned, Deputy Estep invest igated for two weeks, obtaining incriminating information along the way from neutral, credible sources—the Smiths, the Carpenter’s Church past or, the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office, and Palmetto Insurance. The reported VIN match alone furnished probable cause that the trailer was stolen. Further, Deputy Estep had probable cause to attribut e that crime to Hinkle. Both the Smiths and the pastor named Hink le and Keown as men who might have the trailer, and Keown first stat ed that Hinkle owned the tra iler. When Deputy Estep told Hinkle of Keown’s statement, Hinkle did not protest, but just followed along by uttering “right.” Finally, af ter Deputy Estep later confront ed Keown about his initial statement, Keown still described the traile r as a “family trai ler.” And Hinkle was family—he was Keown’s son-in-law. 11 These facts gave Deputy Estep probabl e cause to believe that Hinkle had committed a crime. Indeed, Hinkle was ch arged with “conspiring and agreeing with Vaughn Keown to” knowingly c onceal stolen property. A ppellant’s App. vol. 3 at 697. A criminal conspiracy takes two or more people, United States v. Keck , 643 F.3d

11 Keown’s changing story also would have given Deputy Estep reason to question Keown’s veracity. Cf. 1 McCormick on Evidence § 34 (8th ed. Jan. 2020 update) (“[T]he fact of the in consistency gives the jury an insight into the witness’s state of mind; the inconsistency shows th at the witness is ei ther uncertain or untruthful. In either event, the incons istency calls into question the witness’s believability.”).26 789, 793 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Evans , 970 F.2d 663, 668 (10th Cir. 1992)), and Deputy Este p had a reasonable basis to be lieve that Keown and Hinkle were coconspirators. They were family members, they both had attended the Carpenter’s Church in South Carolina, and they both were tied to the trailer by the Smiths and the pastor. Accordingly, we conclude that Deput y Estep had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed and that Hinkle was one of the people committing the crime. C. Deputy Estep Had Probable Cause Even Without Hinkle’s Confirmation of Ownership, a nd That Probable Cause Never Dissipated. Hinkle asserts that “Estep . . . mischara cterize[d] Hinkle’s statement of ‘Right’ to be an affirmative statement of owners hip.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 27. He also claims that because “John Larson” did not clarify whether he was asking Hinkle about a covered trailer or a flatbed trai ler, Hinkle’s responding “right” was not a claim of ownership. Hinkle argues that “[w]ithout the ‘Right’ there is nothing indicating Hinkle had any possession of the trailer.” Id. at 31. We disagree. Even without Hinkle’s utte rance of “right,” th e reported match of VINs gave Deputy Estep proba ble cause to believe that a crime had been committed. And even without “right,” Deputy Estep still had proba ble cause to believe that Hinkle had committed that crime because the Smiths, the past or, and Keown had connected him to the trailer.27 Further, Hinkle’s later explanation that he had originally been referring to a different trailer—a flatbed one—did not dissi pate probable cause. As discussed, even “a plausible explanation” does not oblige “the officer to forego arrest pending further investigation if the facts as initia lly discovered provide probable cause.” Romero , 45 F.3d at 1480 n.6 (quoting Criss , 867 F.2d at 263). Hinkle may have thought Deputy Estep was referring to a differe nt trailer when Hinkle uttere d “right,” but that would not diminish the other evidence Deputy Es tep relied on in arresting Hinkle.
D. Recently Stolen Property Is Not an Element of Any of Hinkle’s Charges. Next, Hinkle argues that Deputy Estep lacked probable cause to arrest him because his suspected cr imes required that th e trailer have been recently stolen. Further, Hinkle disputes that “Estep . . . objectively es tablish[ed] that Hinkle had knowledge the trailer in question was stolen.” Appe llant’s Opening Br. 26–27 (citations omitted). He also claims that Deputy Estep made an unreasonable mistake of fact and that his mistak e “cannot furnish probable cause.” Id. at 27 (citations omitted). We disagree. The Information charged Hinkle with kno wingly concealing stolen property, in violation of title 21, section 1713 of the Oklahoma Statutes, cons piring to knowingly conceal stolen property, in violation of title 21, section 421 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and transporting stolen property into the state, in violation of title 21, section 1715 of the Oklahoma Statutes. We disagree with Hinkle that Deputy Estep would have lacked probable cause to arrest Hinkle fo r these crimes absent evidence that the28 trailer had been recently stol en. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1713A (West 2003), states that: Every person who buys or receives, in any manner, upon any consideration, any personal property of any value whatsoever that has been stolen, embezzled, obtained by false pretense or robbery, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the same to have been stolen, embezzled, obtained by false pretense, or robbery, or who conceals, withholds, or aids in concealing or withholding such property from the owner, shall be guilty of a felony. This statute does not require that the pr operty be recently stolen. If Hinkle had received the trailer, believi ng that Keown had stolen it, 12 or if Hinkle had aided Keown in concealing the trailer, he would have violat ed section 1713A. In an attempt to write a recently-stolen element into the statute, Hinkle cites Jackson v. State , 508 P.2d 277, 279–80 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973), and Miller v. State , 481 P.2d 175, 178 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969), for the proposition that under section 1713A, “mere possession of property recently stolen alone is not sufficient to convict the possessor of knowingly concealing stolen property.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 26.

12 Because receiving or concealing stol en property are accessory crimes, many courts reason that “[a] person cannot be c onvicted of receiving stolen property where the evidence shows that he acted as a princi pal in the underlying larceny.” Charles E. Torcia, 3 Wharton’s Criminal Law § 440 (15th ed. Sept. 2019 u pdate) (collecting cases). So if Hinkle stole the trailer hims elf, these accessory crimes may not be applicable. But if that were the case, Hinkle could be charged with the underlying larceny crime. Because “the probable cause i nquiry is not restricted to a particular offense, but rather requires merely that o fficers had reason to believe that a crime— any crime—occurred,” United States v. Turner , 553 F.3d 1337, 1345 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Devenpeck , 543 U.S. at 153), we conclude that the ultimate probable-cause inquiry is not affected by whether Deputy Estep thought Hinkle or Keown stole the trailer.29 That language comes from an aged 13 jury instruction, for which Jackson and Miller reviewed challenges that it improperly placed the burden of producing evidence on defendants. Jackson , 508 P.2d at 280; Miller , 481 P.2d at 178. But neither case grafted a recently-stolen-property elem ent into the statute. Nor will we. See tit. 21, § 1713A; see also Eslinger v. State , 734 P.2d 830, 832 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (“The essential elements of the crime of K nowingly Concealing Stolen Property are knowledge that the property was stolen and the act of concealing the property in some manner from the rightful owner.” (citation omitted)); Brewer v. State , 554 P.2d 18, 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976) (citations omitted) (listing the elements for receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property but omitti ng from both lists a requirement that the propert y be recently stolen). Hinkle also argues that Deputy Estep lacked probable cause that Hinkle knew the trailer was stolen. We agree with Hi nkle that Deputy Estep needed to develop probable cause for each el ement of the offense. See Donahue , 948 F.3d at 1188 n.14 (“[A] court can ‘determin[e] whether an officer had probabl e cause to make an arrest for a violation of state law’ by ‘applying the Fourth Amendment standard’ to the ‘identif[ied] . . . elements of a crime, based on state la w.’” (omission and second and

13 The current Oklahoma Uniform Jury In structions do not include a recentlystolen element for the crime of receiving-stolen proper ty. Vernon’s Okla. Forms 2d, OUJI-CR 5-111 (Nov. 2018 update) (emphasi s removed). And why this language appeared in earlier jury instru ctions is unclear—the earlier versions of th is statute did not include a recently-stolen-property element, either. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1713A (1988) (referencing a historical note that quotes a pre-1961 version, which, like the current version, includes no recently-stolen-property element).30 third alterations in original) (quoting Iv an E. Bodensteiner and Rosalie Berger Levinson, 1 State and Local Gov’t Civ. Rights Liab . § 1:11 (Nov. 2019 update))). 14 But for the reasons mentioned, we concl ude that Deputy Estep had probable cause that Hinkle knew that the trailer was stolen (even though it turned out that it was not). In this case, Deputy Estep relied on info rmation he received from unbiased sources. That information led him to believe that Hinkle and his father-in-law had possessed the trailer. If th at were true, Deputy Estep co uld reasonably have believed that Hinkle knew the trailer was stolen . And though the church and insurance

14 The majority position among our sister ci rcuits is that an arrest is supported by probable cause only if the arresting o fficer has probable cause for every element of the offense. Williams v. City of Alexander , 772 F.3d 1307, 1312 (8th Cir. 2014) (“For probable cause to exist, there must be probable cause for all elements of the crime, including mens rea .” (citing Kuehl v. Burtis , 173 F.3d 646, 651 (8th Cir. 1999))); United States v. Joseph , 730 F.3d 336, 342 (3d Cir. 2013) (“To make an arrest based on probable cause , the arresting officer must have probable cause for each element of the offense.” (citing Wright v. City of Philadelphia , 409 F.3d 595, 602–03 (3d Cir. 2005))); Thacker v. City of Columbus , 328 F.3d 244, 256 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Thus, for probable cause to arrest Thacker to exist here, the officers would not have to have proof of each element of a domestic violence offense, but would have to believe that a probability exis ted that he committed the offense.”); see also Hall v. District of Columbia , 867 F.3d 138, 154 (D.C. Ci r. 2017) (“Probable cause to arrest requires at least so me evidence supporting each el ement of the offense.”). But see Spiegel v. Cortese , 196 F.3d 717, 724 n.1 (7th Cir. 1999), as amended (Jan. 7, 2000) (stating that officers need not “establish probable cause as to each and every element of a crime before they ar e authorized to ma ke an arrest”); Gasho v. United States , 39 F.3d 1420, 1428 (9th Cir. 1994) (announcing that officers must have probable cause of specific intent for sp ecific-intent crimes butthat they need not have probable cause for other elements (citing United States v. Thornton , 710 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir. 1983); Kennedy v. L.A. Police Dep’t , 901 F.2d 702, 705 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley , 988 F.2d 868, 872–73 (9th Cir. 1993))).31 company later retracted their informati on as mistaken, Deput y Estep reasonably relied on it before the arrest. Thus, we conclude that Deputy Estep had probable cause to arrest Hinkle.
E. Because the Charges Were for Cont inuing Crimes, the Statute of Limitations Had Not Run. Finally, Hinkle argues that a three-year statute of li mitations applies to the suspected Oklahoma propert y and conspiracy crimes. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 152G (West 2003) (“In all other cases a prosecution for a public offense must be commenced within th ree (3) years after its commissi on.”). Because the Carpenter’s Church reported the tr ailer stolen in 2003, and he was a rrested in 2013, Hinkle claims that the statute of limitations had run on each charge. Thus, Hinkle asserts that Deputy Estep had no probable cause to arrest him. Hinkle’s argument rests on the mistaken pos ition that the statute of limitations began to run when the Carpenter’s Church re ported the trailer as stolen. As a general rule, criminal statutes of limitations begin to run, at the earliest, when a wrongful act is completed, not when the victim late r recounts the wrongful act to others. United
States v. Rivera-Ventura , 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The limitations period will normally begin to run when a crime is ‘complete,’ ther eby ‘encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected cr iminal activity.’” (citation omitted)); 22A C.J.S. Criminal Procedure an d Rights of Accused § 596 (“[N]ormally a statute of limitation begins to run from th e time the crime is co mplete . . . .”).32 Courts, including the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, treat crimes such as receiving or concealing stolen property as continuing crimes, whose statutes of limitations do not commence until wrongful possession or concealment ends. See,

e.g. , United States v. Blizzard , 27 F.3d 100, 102 (4th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he nature of the offense of knowingly con cealing and retaining stolen government property, nevertheless, convinces us th at Congress intended for that offense to be a continuing one.”); People v. Owen , 649 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Mich. Ct . App. 2002) (“‘Conceal,’ in particular, clearly implies continuing condu ct, because in concealing something, one is continually keeping it hidden from others.”); State v. Lawrence , 312 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn. 1981) (“We hold, therefore, that either con cealing or possessing stolen goods is a continuing offens e for the purpose of the st atute of limitations.”); Hainey
v. State , 740 P.2d 146, 149 (Okla. Crim. App. 19 87) (“Concealing stolen property is a continuing offense.”). 15 Because Hinkle was charged with continuing crimes, the statute of limitations did not commence until Deputy Estep seized the trailer on May

15 Hinkle also argues that he was s ubjected to an unreasonable continuing seizure under the Fourth Amendment because his arrest led to his having to post a bond and attend court proceed ings. But because Deputy Es tep had probable cause to arrest Hinkle, we need not decide whethe r these pretrial inc onveniences amount to seizures unsupported by probable cause. Cf. Manuel v. City of Joliet , 137 S. Ct. 911, 919 (2017) (explaining that if the original a rrest was “without probable cause,” a plaintiff’s subseque nt detention is “c onstitutionally unreasonable” because both the detention and the original arrest were “unsupported by probable cause”). Indeed, under our precedent, posting a bond and attending court proceedings may not even constitute seizures. See Becker v. Kroll , 494 F.3d 904, 915 (10th Cir. 2007) (declining to adopt Justice Gins burg’s concurring approach in Albright v. Oliver , 510 U.S. 266 (1994), which s uggested that the term seizure is broad enough to cover posting a bond or attending pret rial court proceedings).33 10, 2013, terminating Hinkle’s alleged possession and conceal ment of the trailer. As a result, the three-year statute of limit ations had not yet r un when Deputy Estep arrested Hinkle on that day. So even if Deputy Estep had needed to consider the statute of limitations—a dubious proposition in and of itself, see Sands v. McCormick , 502 F.3d 263, 269 (3d Cir. 2007); Pickens v. Hollowell , 59 F.3d 1203, 1207–08 (11th Cir. 199 5)—that would not have affected the probable-cause analysis.
F. Because the False-Arrest Claim Against Deputy Estep Fails, Hinkle’s Derivative False-Arrest Cl aims Against Sheriff Jay and the County Fail. Hinkle claims that Sheriff Jay, as th e County’s “final policy maker” and Deputy Estep’s supervisor, can be held liable for ratify ing Hinkle’s false arrest. Appellant’s Opening Br. 19. To establish liability agains t a supervisor under § 1983, Hinkle must show “a deliberate, intenti onal act by the supervisor to violate constitutional rights.” Jenkins v. Wood , 81 F.3d 988, 995 (10t h Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Woodward v. City of Worland , 977 F.2d 1392, 1399 (10th Cir. 1992)). He may do so by showing that Sheriff Jay “personally directed the violation or had actual knowledge of the violation and acquiesced in its continuance.” Id. (citing Woodward , 977 F.2d at 1400). Be cause Deputy Estep committed no constitutional violation, Hinkle cannot show that Sheriff Jay directed Deputy Estep to commit a constitutional viola tion or that Sheriff Jay acquiesced in its continuation. Hinkle’s superv isory claim thus fails. As for the County, Hinkle admits that “municipal liability under Section 1983 requires in the first instance, under Monell v. Dep’t Soc. Servs , 436 U.S. 658, 69234 (1978), that the municipality’s policy cause d a constitutional violation.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 41. Hinkle has failed to show th at the County, through Sheriff Jay, had adopted a policy sanctioning unlawful warrant less arrests. But even if he had done so, Hinkle’s Monell claim would fail because he wa s arrested with probable cause. See Monell , 436 U.S. at 691 (“Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official m unicipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.”).
III. Hinkle’s First Amendment Retaliation Claim We now turn to Hinkle’s argument that De puty Estep and Sheriff Jay retaliated against him for exercising his First Ame ndment rights by supp orting Sheriff Jay’s opponent in the 2012 election. Hinkle must establish three elements to show First Amendment retaliation: (1) that [he] was engaged in constitu tionally protected activity; (2) that the defendant[s’] actions caused [him] to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from c ontinuing to engage in that activity; and (3) that the defendant[s’] advers e action was substantially motivated as a response to [his] exercise of constitutionally protected conduct. Worrell v. Henry , 219 F.3d 1197, 1212 (10th Cir. 200 0) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Deputy Este p and Sheriff Jay conced e that for purposes of summary judgment, “Hinkle’s allegations . . . involving political support/association and suffrage [are] sufficien t for the first element of ‘constitutionally protected activity.’” Appellees Scott Ja y and Strider Estep’s Respons e Br. 19. They also agree that “an arrest or the publication of a pres s release regarding that arrest could satisfy35 the second prong.” Id. Thus, Sheriff Jay and Deputy Estep limit their arguments to the third element. Hinkle’s First Amendment retaliation cl aim has two bases: (1) that Deputy Estep arrested him in reta liation for supporting Sheriff Ja y’s election opponent, and (2) that Sheriff Jay posted a false press release and sanctioned criminal charges against Hinkle for the same reason. 16
A. Arrest In addition to the three Worrell elements, a First Ame ndment retaliation claim based on a false arrest requires a separate “threshold showing”—generally, a plaintiff must show a false arrest. See Nieves v. Bartlett , 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1727 (2019). Hinkle concedes that “[w]hen an unlawful arrest is at the heart of a First Amendment retaliation claim, such as he re, a lack of probable cause must be shown.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 32 (citation omitted). And in Nieves , the Supreme Court recently explained that “[t]he plaintif f pressing a retaliatory arrest claim must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for th e arrest.” 139 S. Ct. at 1724. The Nieves Court adopted this objective test of probable cause to avoid an unwelcome result of using an officer’s subjective state of mind: “[a]ny inartful turn of phrase or perceived slight during a legitimate arrest could land an officer in year s of litigation.” Id. at 1725. A subjective-mindset test could s ubject officers to suit desp ite an arrestee’s legitimate

16 Thus, on appeal Hinkle does not cont end that he was strip searched in retaliation for his Firs t Amendment activity.36 arrest and despite the Fourth Amendment’s “objective standard[] of reasonableness.” Id. (citations omitted). We have already conclude d that Deputy Estep had probable cause to arrest Hinkle. So, under Nieves , Hinkle’s retaliatory-arrest claim must fail. And though
Nieves carves out a narrow exception—that probable cause will not defeat a retaliatory-arrest clai m if the plaintiff could show that officers would usually not arrest under similar circumstances, id. at 1727, Hinkle has not argued that officers would forego arrests under his circumstances. 17
B. Press Release Hinkle also alleges that “Jay amped up the retaliation against Hinkle by overseeing the publication and dissemination of . . . false information through a Press Release detailing Hinkle’s ar rest.” Appellant’s Openi ng Br. 35. As mentioned, Sheriff Jay has conceded that Hinkle established the first two Worrell elements for purposes of summary judgment; thus, the sole question before us is whether Sheriff Jay’s “adverse action was substa ntially motivated as a respons e to [Hinkle’s] exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.” Worrell , 219 F.3d at 1212 (i nternal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court concluded that Hinkle had failed to demons trate this was so. It noted that Hinkle had “not provid ed anything except suspicions and a

17 As an example, if officers have a practice of never ar resting people for jaywalking but then do arrest a plainti ff for jaywalking after he or she has complained about the police, a possible retaliatory-arrest claim could survive, probable cause notwithstanding. Nieves , 139 S. Ct. at 1727.37 chronological connection (as opposed to a causal connection) between [Hinkle’s] support of [the opponent] and issuance of the news release regarding [Hinkle’s] arrest.” Appellant’s App. vol. 6 at 1413. It also credited Sh eriff Jay’s testimony that “the news release [w]as ‘par t and parcel of law enforc ement activity’ and ‘common practice.’” Id. Finally, the court concluded that Hinkle had presented “no specific evidence of [Sheriff Jay]’s culpable state of mind.” Id. at 1415 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And even if he had, the court reasoned that Hinkle had not cited “support for the propos ition that there exists a constitutional or statutory right to prev ent one’s arrest in formation from being disclosed publicly.” Id. On appeal, Hinkle does little to contes t the district court’s analysis. Hinkle claims that Sheriff Jay must have been targeting him because an “alleged theft of a trailer going back 10 years is hardly a ‘high profile’ crim e spree deserving of being blasted out on the internet by the Sheriff via his website or to media at his direction.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 38. He also asserts that “the Pr ess Release and its impact cannot be construed in a vacuum. An infe rence of retaliation via the release is certainly stronger in this case where a false Press Release follows immediately on the heels [of] an arrest w ithout probable cause.” Id. Finally, he argues that this court has “opened the door for consideration” of evidence regarding past instances where Sheriff Jay may have retaliated ag ainst other political opponents. Id. at 39. We agree with Hinkle that we must consider surr ounding circumstances in evaluating his retaliation clai m. But doing so here shows an absence of retaliation:38 the press release follow ed an arrest that was based on probable cause. 18 Therefore, this case is not one in which “a false Press Release follows i mmediately on the heels [of] an arrest without probable cause.” Id. at 38. Second, Hinkle’s argument that this wa s not a high-profile matter fails to acknowledge his status as a former local po lice chief. Though th e alleged crimes are not the most serious ones under Oklahoma law, an arrest of a former police chief is a high-profile arrest. Finally, Hinkle alleges that in Gehl Group v. Koby , 63 F.3d 1528, 1537 (10th Cir. 1995), implicitly overruled on other grounds by Currier v. Doran , 242 F.3d 905, 916 (10th Cir. 2001), this c ourt “opened the door” for Hinkl e to show that Sheriff Jay’s alleged retaliation agai nst others supports his claim that Sheriff Jay retaliated against him as part of a larg er pattern of harassing politic al adversaries. Appellant’s Opening Br. 38–39. Gehl Group does not support that assertion. In Gehl Group , the plaintiffs—two chapters of the Fraternal Order of Police, their solicitation agent, and their regional manager—argued that certain law-enforcemen t officials and other local officials “filed baseless cr iminal charges against th em and selectively and vindictively prosecuted them” because they were “soliciting charitable contributions

18 As mentioned, Hinkle actually allege s that the press release was somehow posted on May 9, 2013—a da y before his arrest. See supra note 8 and accompanying text. Because the press release is written in the pa st tense, we believe that the press release must have been posted sometime afte r his arrest. If it had been written and posted after Sheriff Jay knew that Hinkle had been exonerated—and after probable cause had dissipated—we w ould consider this some evidence that Sheriff Jay intended to retaliate against Hinkle. But Hinkle has not presented such a theory.39 in the Boulder area.” 63 F. 3d at 1530. We rejected that contention because the plaintiffs had not “identif[ied] a pattern of harassment from which we might be able to infer [the] [d]efendants’ retaliatory motivations.” Id. at 1537 (citing W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of Am. v. Clark , 389 U.S. 309, 312–1 3 (1967) (per curiam)). That was because they had been “subject[ed] to only a single prosecution.” Id. And there, we concluded that the prosecution “w as supported by probable cause.” Id. Likewise, here, Hinkle was arrested on ce, his arrest was supported by probable cause, and the press release merely reported the details of that lawful arrest. So Gehl Group does not support Hinkle’s argument— it undermines it. Nor does it support Hinkle’s argument that other instances of Sheriff Jay’s possibl e retaliation against others was evidence that he retaliated against Hinkle. See id. (considering whether the defendants had treated other groups “in a different manner” to determine if they had “singled [the plaintif fs] out for prosecution”). C. MonellLiability The district court dismissed Hinkle’s First Amendment retaliation claim against the County b ecause it had already ruled that Sheriff Jay and Deputy Estep had not violated Hinkle’s Fi rst Amendment rights. See Trigalet v. City of Tulsa , 239 F.3d 1150, 1155–56 (10t h Cir. 2001) (“[T]he City cannot be held liable wher e, as here, the officers did not commit a cons titutional violation.”). Becau se neither Sheriff Jay nor Deputy Estep violated Hinkle’s First Amendm ent rights, the district court properly dismissed Hinkle’s First Amendm ent claim against the County.40 IV. Hinkle’s Fourteenth Amendment Stigma-Plus Claim Hinkle argues that he has also raised a “defamation plus” claim based on the press release and Sheriff Ja y’s “sanction[ing] of crim inal charges.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 35–36 (capitalization and emphasis removed). Hinkle alleges that, even though his “defamation plus claim wa s briefed, it was not analyzed by the district court.” Id. at 36. We do not fault the distri ct court for not considering this claim, because Hinkle’s briefing—both here and in the district court—overlays his First Amendment retaliation analysis with his Fourteenth Amendment stigma-plus analysis. 19 But those analy zes are distinct. See, e.g. , Mattox v. City of Forest Park , 183 F.3d 515, 521 n.3 (6th Cir. 1999) (e xplaining that First Amendment retaliation cases differ from defamation cases under th e Fourteenth Amendm ent). Unlike First Amendment retaliation claims, Fourteenth Amendment stigma-plus claims require a plaintiff to prove “that the government has violated the Due Process Clause by damaging its reputation.” Martin Marietta Materials, In c. v. Kan. Dep’t of Transp. , 810 F.3d 1161, 1184 (10th Cir. 2016). Thus, the stigma-plu s doctrine exists within the procedural-due-process framework. See Al-Turki v. Tomsic , 926 F.3d 610, 614, 617 (10th Cir. 2019). And cour ts “ask two questions” when considering procedural19 Moreover, Hinkle’s Amended Complaint does not clearly raise a proceduraldue-process claim. Nonetheless, “Count III” of Hinkle’s Amended Complaint is titled, “FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOL ATION . . . DUE PROCESS.” In addition, Hinkle alleges that the press release “exposed [him] to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.” Am. Compl. ¶ 106. We will assume that by using this language, Hinkle intended to raise a stigma-plus pro cedural-due-process claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”).41 due-process claims: “(1) Did the plaintiff possess a protected property or liberty interest to which due proce ss protections apply? And if so, (2) was the plaintiff afforded an appropriat e level of process?” Id. at 614 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the stigma-plus context, we have recently provided guidance on what a plaintiff must show to satisfy the first element—i.e., a deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest. In Al-Turki , 926 F.3d at 617, we said that “[w]hat is needed in addition to stigma . . . is some change in lega l status.” That “change in status must be ‘significant[].’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Paul v. Davis , 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976)). We ruled that to satisfy the first procedural-due-process element through stigma, plaintiffs must meet two sub-elem ents: “that (1) the government made a false statement about [the plaintiff] . . . th at was sufficiently derogatory to injure his reputation, and that (2) [the plaintiff] experienced a governmentally imposed burden that significantly altered his status as a matter of state law.” Id. at 618 (alterations and omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gwinn v. Awmiller , 354 F.3d 1211, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004)). As actions sufficient to satisfy the second sub-element, we have included “the state’s taking away the right to operate a vehicle or revoking parole.” Brown v. Montoya , 662 F.3d 1152, 1167 (10t h Cir. 2011) (citing Paul , 424 U.S. at 711). And in Gwinn , we concluded that a plaintiff had satisfie d the “‘stigma-plus’ standard” by alleging that the government had fals ely labeled him as a sex offender a nd further required him “to register as a sex offender.” 354 F.3d at 1224 (citing Paul , 424 U.S. at 710–42 11). Registration as a sex offender is “a governmentally imposed burden that ‘significantly altered [his] . . . st atus as a matter of state law.’” Id. (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Paul , 424 U.S. at 710–11). Even if we were to conclude that Sheriff Jay defamed Hinkle, Hinkle would still need to satisf y the second sub-element: that he suffered a “governmentally imposed burden that significantly altered his status as a matter of state law.” AlTurki , 926 F.3d at 618 (internal quotation marks and citati on omitted). In his opening brief, Hinkle states that “t he press release was false, and it was coupled with the imminent sanction of Hinkle being subjected to criminal charges.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 36 (some capitalization removed). Hinkle argues that the collateral hardships defendants face during criminal trials—“humiliation, damage to reputation and a concomitant harm to future employm ent practices”—are si milar to those he faced from having the press release posted on the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office’s website. Id. (citation and internal quotation mark s omitted). Thus, as we understand him, Hinkle argues that hi s “governmentally imposed burden” was humiliation, an injured reputation, and difficu lty obtaining future employment. 20

20 Hinkle’s assertion that the press release “was c oupled with the imminent sanction of Hinkle being subjected to crimin al charges” is temporally inaccurate. Hinkle was, as we have concluded, lawfully arrested and charged before Sheriff Jay issued the press release. Further, as discu ssed, nothing in the r ecord indicates that Sheriff Jay directed Deputy Es tep to investigate and arrest Hinkle. Thus, as to the “plus” of Hinkle’s stigma-plus claim, we will consider only those alleged deprivations we have id entified above—humiliation, an injured reputation, and difficulty obtaining future employment.43 That is not enough. See, e.g. , Paul , 424 U.S. at 711 (“[T]he interest in reputation alone which respondentseeks to vindicate in this action in federal court is quite different from the ‘lib erty’ or ‘property’ [right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.]”); Martin Marietta Materials , 810 F.3d at 1184 (“Damage to reputation alone, however, is not sufficient.” (citing Gwinn , 354 F.3d at 1216; Paul , 424 U.S. at 711–12)); Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents , 616 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]llegations of ‘psy chological trauma’ are not sufficient to satisfy Paul ’s ‘stigma-plus’ test.” (citing Rolon v. Henneman , 517 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir. 2008))); Jensen v. Redev. Agency of Sandy City , 998 F.2d 1550, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993) (“Damage to prospective employ ment opportunities is too intangible to constitute deprivation of a liberty interest.” (citation omitted)); Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon , 886 F.2d 1262, 1269 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[E]ven if defendants’ actions made plaintiff less attractive to employers or clients, that is in sufficient to state a deprivation of a liberty or property intere st under Section 1983.” (citation omitted)). As discussed, Hinkle must show a significant, material change in a legal status—such as losing the right to drive a car or being wrongfully regist ered as a sex offender. He has failed to do so. V. Hinkle’s Civil-Conspiracy Claim Hinkle argues not only that his constituti onal rights were violated, but that they were violated through a conspiracy. Specifically, Hi nkle asserts that “Jay and Estep, acting in concert, accomplished the impermissible goal of unlawfully arresting44 Hinkle without probable cause.” Appella nt’s Opening Br. 39 (emphasis and capitalization removed). For a valid § 1983 conspiracy claim, pl aintiffs “must plead and prove not only a conspiracy, but also an actual depriva tion of rights; pleading and proof of one without the other will be insufficient.” Snell v. Tunnell , 920 F.2d 673, 701 (10th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Dixon v. City of Lawton , 898 F.2d 1443, 1449 (10th Cir. 1990)). We understand Hinkle to premise this conspiracy claim on his false-arrest allegations. As we have concluded, Hinkle has not shown a false arrest; therefore, the conspiracy claim was properly dismissed. VI. Hinkle’s Fourth Amendment Strip-Search Claim 21 We next address whether Hinkle’s body- cavity strip search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. To answer this question, the parties direct us primarily

to Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders , 566 U.S. 318 (2012). So first, we begin by reviewing the scope of the Court’s ruling in Florence . Second, we analyze whether Florence sanctions Hinkle’s body-cavity stri p search. Third, because we conclude that it does not, we will cons ider whether the body-cavity strip search was

21 As mentioned, Hinkle has not raised on appeal a retaliation claim based on the strip search. See s upra note 16 and accompanying text. Further, the strip-search claim that Hinkle has raised on a ppeal is limited to the County. See Appellant’s Opening Br. 24 (“Accordingly, the trial court’s summary judgment regarding the strip search should be reve rsed and claim be allowe d to proceed against the County.”). The district c ourt explained in its summary -judgment order that Hinkle’s “unconstitutional-strip-search claim agains t [the] individual defendants” was not before the court at that ti me, because “it was previous ly dismissed by Judge MilesLaGrange prior to transfer of the case[.]” Appellant’s App. vol . 6 at 1422. Hinkle has not appealed that earlier order or claimed that it was in error.45 otherwise reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Fourth, after concluding that the strip search was unreasonable, we will analyze whether Hinkle can establish Monell liability against the County. A. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders In 2005, Albert Florence was stop ped by a New Jersey state trooper. Florence , 566 U.S. at 323. During the stop, the troop er learned of an out standing 2003 bench warrant. Unknown to the trooper, the warran t had mistakenly re mained active in a law-enforcement database despite Flor ence’s having paid the underlying fine. Id. The trooper arrested Florence and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center, where “every arrestee” was required “t o shower with a delousing agent.” Id. Per the jail’s policy, as arrestees s howered, officers checked thei r bodies “for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband[.]” Id. After being subjected to this procedure, Florence was “instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals.” Id. At Burlington, Florence “shared a cell with at least one other person and interacted with other inmates following his admission to the jail.” Id. After six days in the Burlington County jail, Florence was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility, where “all arriving detainees passed through a metal detector and waited in a group hold ing cell for a more thorough search.” Id. at 324. During that second search, detention officers examined eac h detainee’s “ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arms, armpit s, and other body openings.” Id. To search “other body openings,” the deten tion officers required Florence “to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough in a squa tting position as part of the process.” Id.46 The detention officers searched Flor ence’s clothes while he showered. Id. After all this was done, the detention officers pl aced Florence in the prison’s general population. See id. A day later, the charges ag ainst him were dismissed. Id. at 324. Florence sued under § 1983, claiming that “persons arrested for a minor offense could not be required to remove their clothing and expos e the most private areas of their bodies to close visual inspection as a routine part of the intake process.” Id. Rather, Florence argued, corrections offi cials needed reasonable suspicion that a detainee was smuggling contraband. Id. The Third Circuit rejected any need for a reasonable-suspicion showing, ruling that the procedure reasonably balanced inmate privacy and the two jails’ security requirements. Id. at 325 (citing Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington , 621 F.3d 296, 311 (3d Cir. 2010)). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to reso lve a circuit split on the question whether officers need at least reasonable susp icion to strip search detainees. Id. at 325–36 (citation omitted) (noting thatseven circuit courts of appeals required reasonable suspicion, while three did not). 22 The Supreme Court began its analysis by reciting the overarching principle that “[c]orrectional offici als have a significant inte rest in conducting a thorough search as a standard part of the intake process.” Id. at 330. The Court derived this interest from at least four concerns: (1) the possibility th at new detainees will bring

22 The Tenth Circuit was one of the se ven circuits that required reasonable suspicion. See, e.g. , Archuleta v. Wagner , 523 F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir. 2008); Warner v. Grand Cty. , 57 F.3d 962, 964 (10th Cir. 1995); Hill v. Bogans , 735 F.2d 391, 394 (10th Cir. 1984).47 lice or diseases into the facility, (2) the possi bility that new detainees will have wounds that need medical attention, (3 ) the growing number of gang members who are entering detention facili ties and the need to identify who they may be, and (4) the need to detect contraband. Id. at 330–33. And the Court not ed that these concerns are not just limited to large prisons: “Jails can be even more dangerous than prisons because officials ther e know so little about the peopl e they admit at the outset.” Id. at 336 (citation omitted). In view of these concerns, the Court d eclared that “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless th e record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.” Id. at 332–33. In other words, becau se prison official s have certain expertise that judges lack, the Court stress ed that the judiciar y must give prison officials considerable discretion before disturbing their policies. Id. at 326. This means that “a regulation impi nging on an inmate’s cons titutional rights must be upheld if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Only when plaintiffs show “substantial evidence in the record to indicat e that the officials have exaggerated their response to [legit imate security interests]” should courts refuse to defer to prisons. Id. at 328 (internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting Block v. Rutherford , 468 U.S. 576, 584–85 (1984); then quoting Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 548 (1979)).48 Citing a need for “read ily administrable rules,” the Court concluded that regardless of a detainee’s “s uspected offense, criminal history, [or] other factors,” policies requiring strip search es of all incoming detainees who will be admitted into the general population pass constitutional scrutiny. Id. at 338–39 (citation omitted). Requiring that prison officials consider the individual char acteristics of each detainee would be too onerous, the Cour t reasoned, because “[official s] would be required, in a few minutes, to determine whether any of [their] underlying offe nses were serious enough to authorize the more invasive search protocol.” Id. at 337. 23 This would negatively affect “[t]he labori ous administration of prisons.” Id. Thus, the Court ruled against Florence and concluded that he had suffered no constitutional deprivation. Id. at 339–40. By sanctioning the policies at the Burlington County Detention Center and th e Essex County Correc tional Facility, the Court followed the course it set in Bell , 441 U.S. 520. In Bell , the Court upheld indiscriminate strip-search practices re quiring all Metropolitan Correctional Center inmates to undergo body-cavity searches after their contact visits with outsiders,

23 The Court rejected Florence’s reas onable-suspicion argument on this ground, concluding that “[t]he laborious administration of prisons would become less effective, and likely less fa ir and evenhanded, were the practical problems inevitable from the rules suggested by petitioner to be imposed as a constitutional mandate.” Florence , 566 U.S. at 337. If Florence does apply, Hinkle accepts that the reasonable-suspicion standa rd plays no role here.49 despite the record reflecting only “one instance where an MCC inmate was discovered attempting to smuggle c ontraband into the institution.” Id. at 558–60. 24 In applying Florence , we must remember (1) that Florence was arrested on a bench warrant, and (2) that the Court rec ognized that judicial deference to strip searches might well lessen in other circumstances. 25 In light of these factors, the Court recognized that Florence extends only so far. For in stance, in Part IV of the opinion (joined by three other Justices), Justice Kennedy identified possible future exceptions from the Court’s ruling. 566 U.S. at 338–39. 26 First, he acknowledged that “[t]his case does not require the Court to ru le on the types of sear ches that would be

24 The Supreme Court reaffi rmed its commitment to Florence ’s underlying principles in Maryland v. King , 569 U.S. 435 (2013). Ther e, the Court ruled “that DNA identification [through cheek swabs] of a rrestees is a reasonab le search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure.” Id. at 465. Relying on Florence , the King Court noted that routine prison procedur es are needed to identify a detainee “when processing him for detention” and for protecting staff, othe r detainees, and the “new detainee.” Id. at 450, 452 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Florence , 566 U.S. at 330).

25 We review the Court’s discussion of these exceptions and the concurring opinions’ elaborations on the exceptions only to provide a complete overview of Florence ; we do not contend that these exceptions to Florence ’s general rule apply here. Rather, because jail of ficials never decided that Hi nkle would be housed in the BCDC’s general population, Florence ’s general rule itself does not apply here— meaning Hinkle has no need of an exception to it. See discussion infra Section VI.B.

26 Justice Thomas did not join Part IV of Justice Kennedy’s opinion. Florence , 566 U.S. at 321 n.1. Because Justice Thomas did not write separa tely, it is unclear whether he objected to Justice Kennedy’ s discussion of a possible exception from Florence under facts that were not before the C ourt, or whether he objected to the notion that Florence should have any exception whatsoever.50 reasonable in instances where, for exampl e, a detainee will be held without assignment to the general jail population and without substantial contact with other detainees.” 27 Id. at 338–39. After doing so, he identified a possible two-part exception from Florence ’s general rule concerning “whether an arrestee whose detention has not yet been reviewed by a magi strate or other judici al officer, and who can be held in available facilities re moved from the general population, may be subjected to the types of searches at issue here.” See id at 339. Second, he noted that “there also may be legitimate concerns a bout the invasiveness of searches that involve the touching of detainees,” but he e xplained that Florence had raised no such issues. Id. at 325, 339. 28

27 Justice Kennedy described this situation as the one arising in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista , 532 U.S. 318, 338–39 (2001), which wa s not itself a strip-search case. See Florence , 566 U.S. at 338–39. In Atwater , a Texas police officer arrested a mother for operating a vehicle without havi ng fastened her children’s seatbelts. 532 U.S. at 323–24. Taken from her children, Ms. Atwater was booked and housed alone at the jail “for about one hour, after whic h she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond.” Id. at 324. The Court deemed her warrantless arrest reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 354. But in Florence , Justice Kennedy raised Atwater three separate times, noting that Ms. Atwater had been segregated and taken to a magistrate. See 566 U.S. at 329– 30, 337–39 (citing Atwater , 532 U.S. at 324). He noted that “[ t]he accommodations provided in these situations [referencing Atwater ] may diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches at issue.” Id. at 339.

28 Hinkle bases his beard-touching claim on this exception, and the district court dismissed the claim after concluding that Hinkle had not met this exception. But we liken Officer Atwood’s touching of Hinkle’s b eard to check for contraband to a continuation of the initial pat-down frisk. Importantly, this frisk differs from the far-more-invasive touching of a detainee’s unclothed body as part of a strip search, especially as part of an inspection of body-cavities. Because Hinkle bases his beardtouching claim on an unconstitutional stri p search—not an unconstitutional pat-51 Two of the majority’s five Justices filed concurring opin ions addressing the reach of the Court’s holding. First, Chief Justice Roberts noted that “it is important for me that the Court does not foreclose the possibility of an exception to the rule it
announces.” Id. at 340 (Roberts, C.J., concurring). He limited Florence to its circumstances—“the fact s that Florence was detained not for a minor traffic offense but instead pursuant to a wa rrant for his arrest, and th at there was apparently no alternative, if Florence were to be detained, to holding him in the general jail population.” Id. To avoid “embarrass[ing] the futu re,” Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Court was “wise to leave open the possibility of exceptions.” Id. Second, Justice Alito cons idered it important “that th e Court does not hold that it is always reasonable to conduct a full strip se arch of an arrestee whose detention has not been reviewed by a judicial offi cer and who could be held in available facilities apart from th e general population.” Id. at 341 (Alito, J., concurring). He then emphasized that “[t]he Court does not address whether it is always reasonable, without regard to the offense or the reason fo r detention, to strip search an arrestee before the arrestee’s de tention has been reviewed by a judicial officer.” Id. at 342. 29

down—we conclude that the district court properly dismissed this claim. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc. , 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Ci r. 2011) (“We have long said that we may affirm on any basis s upported by the record, even if it requires ruling on arguments not reached by the distri ct court or even presented to us on appeal.” (citations omitted)).

29 Joined by three other Justices, Justic e Breyer dissented, reasoning that a body-cavity strip search “of an individual arrested for a minor offense that does not involve drugs or violence . . . is an ‘unr easonable searc[h]’ forbidden by the Fourth52 He singled out arrestees who are likely to be released by a magi strate on their own recognizance or on minimal bail, and declar ed that it might not be reasonable to admit them “to the general jail population, with the concomitant humiliation of a strip search,” “particularly if an alte rnative procedure is feasible.” Id. at 341–42.
B. Florence Does Not Sanction the Count y’s Policy of Body-Cavity Strip Searching All Detainees Befo re Deciding Whether Particular Detainees “Will Be” Housed in the Jail’s General Population. Sheriff Jay testified that he was “the final policy maker for the sheriff’s department” and that the County’s polic y was to body-cavity strip search every detainee arriving at its jail. Appe llant’s App. vol. 2 at 218–19; id. at 284 (“By policy, everyone that’s booked into the Beckha m County Jail is strip searched.”). 30 Sheriff Jay had authority to implement this policy because, as he explained, “everybody in Beckham County Sheriff’s Department answ ers to [him]” and “the buck stops with [him].” Id. at 218. And the record demonstrates th at the jailers enfo rced the County’s policy.

Amendment, unless prison authorities have re asonable suspicion to believe that the individual possesses drugs or other contraband.” Florence , 566 U.S. at 343–44 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (altera tion in original). Because f our Justices criticized the absence of reasonable suspicion from Florence ’s general rule, it seems a fair surmise that these Justices would, at the very least, support robus t exceptions in future cases.

30 Even though Sheriff Jay explained that the jailers strip searched pre-trial detainees under the County’s “ policy,” we conclude that hi s and the other witnesses’ testimony (as we discuss next) also suffice to establish th at the County had a custom of performing indiscrimi nate strip searches. See Murphy , 950 F.3d at 644 (explaining that a custom is “a ‘widespread practice that, although not authorized by a written law or express municipal policy, is so pe rmanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with th e force of law’” (quoting Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City , 627 F.3d 784, 788 (10th Cir. 2010))).53 For instance, Detention Officer Atwood testified that the “standard [intake] process” at the BCDC involved strip searching a detainee before booking. Id. at 339. He explained that “every inma te [who] comes into the jail gets [strip] searched” and that, after the strip search, detainees would be brought into the booking room to acquire “their basic information.” Id. at 332–34, 336. From his year’s employment as a jailer at the BCDC, Offi cer Atwood could never re call “a time where the strip search happened after the booking process had begun.” Id. at 320, 340. In fact, Officer Atwood stated that jailers strip searched detain ees before receiving from the arresting officer a custody-authorizati on form, which describes the detainee’s “personal information and his charges.” Appellant’s App. vol . 4 at 908–09. And because jailers strip searched detainees before knowing their personal information or charges, Officer Atwood confirmed that jailers postponed maki ng housing decisions until the booking process after the strip se arch: when asked what he would know about “an inmate’s eventual cell placement at the time that [he was] strip searching an inmate,” Officer Atwood testified that he “wouldn’t know where that inmate’s going to be housed.” Appellant’s App. vol . 2 at 341. In other words, until he had received “a chance to look at [the deta inee’s] charges” and personal information during the booking process, Officer Atw ood testified he “wouldn’t know exactly54 where [the detainee is] going.” Id. 31 Officer Atwood explained that this “standardized intake process” did not “var y according to inmates[.]” Id. at 340. 32 Further, Captain Diana Bilbo, “the captain in charge of the jail,” testified that she never had occasion to “d iscipline Jason Atwood for th e way that he conducted a strip search[.]” Id. at 361, 370. When asked wh ether “the standard operating procedure was to strip search everybody [w ho] came in,” Captain Bilbo said, “Yes.” Id. at 365. 33 Corroborating Officer Atwood’s tes timony that jailers would not know a detainee’s charges or personal information before the stri p search (and by extension, would be unable to determine a detainee ’s housing designation), Captain Bilbo noted that it was “consistent with [her] experience” that ar resting officers would not provide to jailers a completed custody-author ization form until afte r the strip search. Appellant’s App. vol. 4 at 912.

31 In addition, Officer Atwood testifie d that he would “w ould not have begun to type in the information into the booking information category until after Hinkle had been strip searched.” Appellant’s A pp. vol. 2 at 341. The “booking information category” is a heading on Hinkle’s booking- sheet form. Under that heading, the jailers typed in the word “SEGREGATION” after the strip search. Id. at 316.

32 Officer Atwood did say that “if there’ s another detention deputy in there,” one deputy “start[s] th[e] book-in process while the other one’s conducting the strip search.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 340.

33 Deputy Brett Moore, who stopped Hinkl e’s automobile be fore the arrest, testified that he was “aware that all the prisoners [h e] brought in were strip searched,” agreeing that “[e] ven the ones that were going to be put in segregation” were strip searched. Appella nt’s App. vol. 1 at 172–73.55 In its briefing, the County acknowledges that by its policy “[j]ailers strip searched incoming inmates at the very beginning of the booking process, before sitting down at the desk to begin the booking paperwork and before knowing where the inmate would be h oused in the facility.” 34 Appellee Beckham Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs Resp. Br. 4–5. And it acknowledges that its policy was “t o strip search all detainees.” Id. at 10 (emphasis and capitalization removed). In strip searching Hinkle, the BCDC’s jailers enforced this policy. Hinkle testified that on self-reporting to the jail , he was immediately strip searched, was booked, and was handcuffed to a bench in the booking area for about an hour until being transported to the Elk City jail . When questioned about why Hinkle was handcuffed to the bench and “what may have been taking place,” Captain Bilbo explained that as arising from their not yet having “made a decision on where he was going to be housed.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 367. 35 The County confirms that “at the time [Hinkle] was strip searched, there had been no determination made regarding how [Hinkle] was going to be classified or where he would be housed.” Appellee Beckham Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs Resp. Br. 4.

34 The record contains a four-page 2006 strip-search policy, but the County neither discusses this policy, nor recites its requirements, nor mentions its relevancy. And the policy had succumbed to later le gal developments and was not the same policy in force when Deputy Atwood body-cavity strip s earched Hinkle.

35 As discussed, Officer Atwood testifie d that Captain Bilbo made the decision to transfer Hinkle and that she may have known “ahead of time that he was coming in.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 327. But Ca ptain Bilbo was then “on medical leave.” Id. at 366.56 Under Florence , the jail could (1) decide that Hinkle “will be” housed in the jail’s general population, and (2) then stri p search him before placing him in the general population. See 566 U.S. at 322. Here, the Count y did not decide that Hinkle “will be” placed in the ja il’s general population, in fact just the opposite. By acting as it did, the County set the cart before the horse—it strip searched Hinkle before committing itself to admit him into its jail’s general population. In Florence , the Court repeatedly stressed that the strip search comes after the facil ity determines that the detainee “will be” pl aced in general population. Id. (explaining that “the controversy [in Florence ] concern[ed] whether every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed”); id. at 325–26 (explaining again that “[ the] Court granted certiorari to address” “whether the Fourth Amendment requires correctional o fficials to exempt some detainees who will be admitted to a jail’s general population from the searches here at issue”); id. at 335 (“Reasonable correctional officials could conclude these uncertainties [about whether a particular detainee is dangerous] mean they must conduct the same thorough search of everyone who will be admitted to their facilities.”); id. at 338 (accepting the jail official s’ argument that “the Constitution must not prevent [detention officials] from conducting [strip searches] on any suspected offender who will be admitte d to the general population in their facilities”); id. at 338–39 (explaining the limits of Florence ’s ruling and commenting that “[t]his case does not require the Court to rule on the types of searches that would be reasonable in instances where, for ex ample, a detainee will be held without57 assignment to the general jail population and without substantial contact with other detainees”). 36 In other words, the “will be” condition precedes the strip search, which itself precedes placing the detain ee in the jail’s general population. 37 And the Court’s “will be” condition to strip searches ma kes perfect sense—absent admitting the detainee to the jail’s general population, th e jail would have no need to protect the new detainee, the existing deta inee population, and the deten tion staff from infectious diseases, rival gang members, weapons, or contraband. Id. at 330–33. These stripsearch justifications were absent here: when the jailer s referenced a housing decision on the form, they notated segregation. We would reject any argument that the County—for administrative convenience—could treat all it s incoming detainees as boun d for its jail’s general population, thus allowing universal strip searches. 38 Body-cavity strip searches are not so trivial. And had the County tried to claim that before th e strip search it had

36 One of the five majority Justices, Justice Alito, st ates the “will be” condition in slightly different language: “The Court holds that jail administrators may require all arrestees who are committed to the general population of a jail to undergo visual strip searches not involving physical contact by corrections officers.” Florence , 566 U.S. at 340 (Alito, J., concurring).

37 During the strip search, detention o fficers may learn things requiring the detainee be segregated and not placed in the facility’s general population—for instance, the presence of an infectious disease or tattoos with gang insignia. See Florence , 566 U.S. at 330–33.

38 In Hill , we “agree[d]” that “[a] n indiscriminate strip search policy routinely applied to detainees . . . ca nnot be constitutionally justif ied simply on the basis of administrative ease.” 73 5 F.2d at 394 (internal quota tion marks omitted) (quoting Logan v. Shealy , 660 F.2d 1007, 1013 (4th Cir. 1981)).58 strayed from its policy and determined th at Hinkle “will be” housed with its jail’s general population—which to its credit it do es not claim—that would have won it nothing. After all, jail officials segregat ed Hinkle from the jail’ s general population after the strip search , because it declined to house a former local law-enforcement officer in its jail. That led the County to tran sport Hinkle to Elk City. 39 If we were to accept the County’s argument and conclude that Florence permits jail policies by which detainees are first strip search ed and later sorted out for jail-housing placement, we would render Florence ’s general-population condition meaningless. Florence does not sanction such a policy— strip searching detainees not destined for the jail’s gene ral population, or even as here, for the jail itself. See Fonder v. Sheriff of Kankakee Cty. , 823 F.3d 1144, 1146 (7th Cir. 2016) (concluding that under Florence , two class-action plaintiffs “ha[ d] good claims that their rights have been violated” if they had been “arre sted, strip searched, and then immediately released”). We therefore conclude that Florence does not protect the County’s policy. 40

39 Assuming that segregation truly wa s unavailable at the BCDC, we presume that this must mean that detainees were al ways transported to Elk City whenever they required segregation.

40 Under Florence , the County could properly ma intain a strip-search policy allowing strip searches after jailers have decided that a detain ee “will be” admitted to general population. A facility’s safe course is to strip sear ch the detainee as the last step before admitting him or her into the facility’s general population.59 C. Hinkle’s Body-Cavity Strip Sea rch Was Unreasonable Under the Fourth Amendment, and the County, by Its Policy, Is Responsible. 1. Hinkle’s strip search was unreasonable. Having concluded that Florence does not authorize the County’s strip-search policy, we must still decide whether Hi nkle suffered an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The district court did not reach that issue, concluding that this case “fits within Florence .” Appellant’s App. vol. 6 at 1425. The County follows suit, largely rest ing its case on Florence . With Florence not sanctioning his bodycavity strip search, we must determine wh at legal standard governs Hinkle’s strip search. Hinkle argues that we should use our circuit’s pre- Florence strip-search cases to determine the Fourth Amendment reasonabl eness of his strip se arch. He contends that those cases bar “indiscrimi nate strip searches of pre- trial detainees.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 22. Indeed, those cases requi red reasonable suspicion of contraband, including weapons, before permitting a strip search. See, e.g. , Archuleta v. Wagner , 523 F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hether a strip se arch is permissible is a separate inquiry based on wh ether a detainee will be pl aced in the general prison population and whether the officer has re asonable suspicion that a detainee has hidden drugs, contraband, or w eapons.” (citations omitted)); Warner v. Grand County , 57 F.3d 962, 964 (10th Ci r. 1995) (“On [January 24, 1991], it was clearly established in this circuit th at a brief intermingling with the general jail population does not justify a strip search absent reas onable suspicion of drugs or contraband.” (citation omitted)); Cottrell v. Kaysville City , 994 F.2d 730, 732, 734–36 (10th Cir.60 1993) (per curiam) (concluding that a body-cavity search of a detainee who was not “held with any other prisone rs” was unreasonable when the arresting officer testified that “he did not suspect Ms . Cottrell of having drugs on her person” and “saw no indication she was ca rrying any weapons”); Hill v. Bogans , 735 F.2d 391, 392, 394 (10th Cir. 1984) (concl uding that a strip search of a tr affic offender who “was briefly intermingled with the prison population” was unconstitutional because “[t]here were no circumstances . . . indicating that [he] might possess either a weapon or drugs”). 41 But because the jail offici als never decided that Hinkl e “will be” housed at the county jail, no one had any reason to fear th at Hinkle might have secreted contraband that he could take into the jail’s general population. In this circumstance, even our
pre- Florence cases do not apply—they too concerne d the problem of detainees taking contraband into the general population. But for detainees like Hinkle who will not be housed in the jail’s general population, th e County needs far mo re to justify a bodycavity strip search—probable cause that deta inee is secreting ev idence of a crime. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry , 950 F.2d 1437, 1447–49 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that outside of the “jail context,” detainees “may only be subjected to [body-cavity searches] if

41 Archuleta , Warner , and Hill were not body-cavity strip search cases. Archuleta , 523 F.3d at 1282; Warner , 57 F.3d at 963; Hill , 735 F.2d at 393–94. Thus, Hinkle’s search was more invasive. We view Hinkle’s search as comparable to the body-cavity search in Cottrell , during which the plaintiff wa s “required to take off all her clothes and bend over while the deputie s inspected her.” 994 F.2d at 732. We have characterized such body-cavity se arches as “demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasan t, embarrassing, [a nd] repulsive[.]” Levoy v. Mills , 788 F.2d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Blackburn v. Snow , 771 F.2d 556, 564 (1st Cir. 1985)).61 there is probable cause to be lieve that [they] ha[ve] s ecreted the item sought in a body cavity”). The County has not argued th at it ever had such probable cause. 42 Thus, we conclude that Hinkle was s ubjected to an unlawful strip search. 2. Monell Liability Before the County can be held liable for Hinkle’s unl awful strip search, Hinkle must show that by enforcing the County ’s policy an employee caused the Fourth Amendment violation. Monell , 436 U.S. at 694; see also City of Canton v. Harris , 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989) ( noting that the policy or custom must be the “moving force [behind] the constitutiona l violation” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Specifically, Hinkle “must prove ‘(1) official policy or custom[,] (2) causation, and (3) state of mind.’” Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960, 998 (10th Cir. 2019) (altera tion in original) (quoting Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t , 717 F.3d 760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013)). We have recognized as policies meeti ng this standard those arising from “a formal regulation or policy statement, an informal custom that amounts to a widespread practice, decisions of muni cipal employees with final policymaking authority, ratification by final policymakers of the decisions of subordinates to whom authority was delegated, and the deliberately indifferent failure to adequately train or supervise employees.” Pyle v. Woods , 874 F.3d 1257, 1266 (10t h Cir. 2017) (citing

42 Nor has the County argued that Offi cer Atwood had reasonable suspicion that Hinkle—whose alleged wrong was possessing a stol en trailer—was secreting contraband. So even if our pre- Florence cases applied, the County could not prevail under them.62 Brammer-Hoelter v. Tw in Peaks Charter Acad. , 602 F.3d 1175, 1189 (10th Cir. 2010)). Here, the testimony from Sheriff Ja y, Captain Bilbo, a nd Detention Officer Atwood, together with the County’s own de scription of its policy, demonstrate that the County had a policy of strip search ing all detainees before making housing decisions. With this, Hinkle has sufficiently shown the C ounty’s policy and, thus, has satisfied the first element. 43
For the causation and state-of-mind elem ents, Hinkle can sa tisfy his burden by demonstrating that the County’s policy is facially unlawful. See Barney v. Pulsipher , 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[W]hen an offici al municipal policy itself violates federal law, issues of culpability and causation ar e straightforward; simply proving the existence of the unlawful polic y puts an end to the question.” (citation omitted)). The Court has explained that “[w]he re a plaintiff claims that a particular municipal action itself violates federal law, or directs an employee to do so, resolving these issues of fault and cau sation is straightforward.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). A county’s sanctioning of a facially unlawful policy establishes that it “was the moving force behind the injury of which the plaintiff complains.” Id. at 405; see also Burge v. St. Tammany Par. , 336 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Where an official policy or practice is unconstitutional on its face, it necessarily follows that a policymaker was not only aware of the specific policy, but was also aware that a constitutional violat ion will most likely occur.”). Further,

43 The County does not protest that Sheriff Jay had final policymaking authority to formulate the BCD C’s strip-search procedures.63 “proof that a municipality’s legislativ e body or authorized decisionmaker has intentionally deprived a plaintiff of a fede rally protected right n ecessarily establishes that the municipality acted culpably.” Brown , 520 U.S. at 405. Thus, the next issue is whether the C ounty’s policy is faci ally unconstitutional. “A facial challenge is rea lly just a claim that the law or policy at issue is unconstitutional in all its applications.” Bucklew v. Precythe , 139 S. Ct. 1112, 1127 (2019). 44 Apart from its failed Florence argument, the County advances no argument denying that the policy is unconstituti onal in all its applications. Under Florence , jail officials must decide that a detainee “will be” housed in the general population before strip searching him or her. And here , the County’s strip- search policy permits strip searches before the key moment in which the jail offi cial with authority decides that the detainee “will be” housed in the general population. So in enforcing the County’s strip-search policy, jail officials strip search all detainees before reaching the operative decision of whether the de tainee will be housed in the general population. For these reasons, we conclude that the County ’s strip-search policy is

44 The “official policy” at issue in Monell is an example of a facially unlawful policy. The complaint there a lleged that the policy “compelled pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absen ce before such leaves were required for medical reasons.” 436 U.S. at 660–61; see also Carter v. District of Columbia , 795 F.2d 116, 122 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“ Monell involved an express municipal policy alleged to violate due process and equal protection limitations—a requirement that pregnant employees take unpaid leave from their city jobs while still willing and able to work.”). An “official policy of sexually harassing, assa ulting, or discrimi nating against women prisoners” would be a second exampl e of a facially unlawful policy. See Barney , 143 F.3d at 1307.64 unconstitutional on its face. And with this , Hinkle has satisfied the causation and state-of-mind elements. Moreover, even if the Co unty’s policy were facia lly constitutional, Hinkle would still satisfy the causation and state- of-mind elements. For causation, we have explained that “the challenge d policy or practice must be ‘closely related to the violation of the plaintiff’s federally protected right.’” Schneider , 717 F.3d at 770 (quoting Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigati on Claims & Defenses , § 7.12[B] (2013)). This requires “a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.” Brown , 520 U.S. at 404. When a policy is facially constitutional, the burden of establishi ng causation (and culpability) is heavy. Id. at 405 (“Where a plaintiff claims that the m unicipality has not directly inflicted an injury, but nonetheless ha s caused an employee to do so, rigorous standards of culpability and causation must be applied to en sure that the municipality is not held liable solely for the actions of its employee.” (citations omitted)). Hinkle meets that heavy burden. By the te rms of the County’s policy, “[j]ailers strip searched incoming inmate s at the very beginning of the booking process, before sitting down at the desk to begin the booking paperwork and before knowing where the inmate would be housed .” Appellee Beckham Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs Resp. Br. 4–5. Thus, the County’s policy directs jailers to immediatel y strip search the detainees. By enforcing th e policy, Officer Atwood caused Hinkle’s unlawful strip search. Because the jail tran sported Hinkle to Elk City for detention, Hinkle obviously could not have smuggled contraband into th e BCDC’s general population.65 Thus, but for the County’s policy—specifically, the se quence of performing strip searches before making final housing d ecisions—Hinkle would never have been unlawfully strip searched. Finally, “a plaintiff seeki ng to establish municipal liability on the theory that a facially lawful municipal act ion has led an employee to violate a plaintiff’s rights must demonstrate that the municipal action was taken with ‘delib erate indifference’ as to its known or ob vious consequences.” Brown , 520 U.S. at 407 (quoting City of
Canton , 489 U.S. at 388). We have explaine d that “[t]he deliberate indifference standard may be satisfied when the municipa lity has actual or c onstructive notice that its action or failure to act is substantially certain to resu lt in a constitutional violation, and it consciously or deliberately chooses to disregard the risk of harm.” Waller v. City & Cty. of Denver , 932 F.3d 1277, 1284 (10th Ci r. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Barney , 143 F.3d at 1307). While typically notice is “established by proving the existe nce of a pattern of tortious conduct,” it can also be established “in a narrow range of circumstances where a vi olation of federal rights is a highly predictable or plainly obvious co nsequence of a municipality’s action or inaction.” Id. (internal quotation mark s omitted) (quoting Barney , 143 F.3d at 1307– 08). For instance, in Allen v. Muskogee , 119 F.3d 837, 845 (10t h Cir. 1997), this court concluded that a plaintiff’s cl aim came “within the ‘narrow range of circumstances’ recognized by Canton and left intact by Brown , under which a single violation of federal rights may be a highly predictable consequence [of a66 municipality’s action or inaction].” There, the summary-judgment record “support[ed] an inference that the City trained its officers to leave cover and approach armed suicidal, emotionally disturbe d persons and to try to disarm them[.]” Id. at 843. After participati ng in this training, police officers approached Terry Allen’s vehicle—where a suicidal and arme d Allen sat with a leg out the window— and attempted to wrestle his gun from him. Id. at 839. In the end, “shots were exchanged,” and Allen was h it four times and killed. Id. Because “officers will frequently have to deal with armed emotionally upset pers ons” and the City’s training amplified the possibility “of a violent response,” we c oncluded that “the City’s failure to properly train its officers refl ected deliberate indifference to the obvious consequence of the City’s choice.” Id. at 845. Likewise, the County’s policy here re flects a deliberate i ndifference to the obvious consequences of its decision to strip search all detainees before making final housing assignments. Proceeding as if all inmates will be housed in the general population of the jail overloo ks the reality that some de tainees will not be placed in the jail’s general population—for example, fo rmer local police ch iefs. Yet the County strip searches all detainees, ignoring that any number of reasons might necessitate that a particular detainee be segregated. Accordingly, even though Hinkle has not pointed out a pattern of torti ous conduct, we conclude that this case falls within the “narrow range of circumstances” in which it was “plainly obvious” that the County’s policy of strip searching all detainees woul d result in a detain ee being needlessly body-cavity strip searched.67 In sum, we conclude that Hinkle wa s unlawfully strip searched because Florence does not authorize the County’s po licy and the search was otherwise unsupported by probable cause. Moreover, we conclude that the County’s stripsearch policy is facially uncon stitutional because it directs ja il officials to strip search all detainees immediately upon arrival at the jail, before determining they “will be” housed in its jail, and in th e absence of probable cause that the detainees are secreting evidence of a crime. And ev en if the County’s policy we re facially constitutional, Hinkle could satisfy the causation and state- of-mind elements be cause the County’s policy directly caused Hinkle’s unlawful st rip search and the County was deliberately indifferent as to the obvious effects of the policy. Before subjecting a detainee to the abject abasement of a body-cav ity strip search, jail official s should first conclusively decide whether that detainee will be housed in their jail’s general population. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Hinkle’s § 1983 claims in all respects except its dism issal of Hinkle’s stri p-search claim. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on that claim and remand for further proceedings consiste nt with this opinion.18-6202, H inkle v. Beckham County Board of Commissioners TYMKOVICH , Chief

Judge, dissenting in part. I disagree with the m ajority opinion’s conclusion that a reasonably objective police
of f icer would believe that probable cause existed to m ake a warrantless arrest of Mr. Hinkle. Even if

probable cause arguably

existed at som e point during the investigation, I would conclude it dissipated upon Deputy Estep’s pre-arrest exchanges with Mr. Hinkle and Mr. Keown, which established the latter owned the suspect trailer.
The m a jority opinion sets f

orth the series of c o m

pounding errors that gave rise to the arrest. Had Deputy

Estep arrested Mr. Hinkle imm e d iately upon their f

irst face-tof ace contact, it would have been a closer call. But Deputy Estep continued his investigation af

ter having Mr. Hinkle detained at a traf f ic stop. At that point, he began an interview with Mr. Hinkle and, eventually , Mr. Keown. During these conversations, new
inf orm ation cam e to light—inf orm ation that, in my

view, dissipated the f

a ctual basis f

or Mr. Hinkle’s warrantless arrest and dem anded additional investigation.
W e have observed that “probable cause becom es stale when new inf orm ation received by

the police nullif

ies inf orm ation critical to the earlier probable cause
determ ination.” United States v. Dalton , 918 F.3d 1117, 1128 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing
W ay ne Laf ave, Search and Seizure § 4.7(a) at 822 (5th ed. 2012)); see also Bigford v. Taylor , 834 F.2d 1213, 1218 (5th Cir. 1988) (police “m ay not disregard f

acts tending to dissipate probable cause” in m aking arrests). I conclude the discussions between Deputy Estep, Mr. Hinkle, and Mr. Keown dissipated probable cause f or Mr. Hinkle’s arrest and

com pelled Deputy

Estep to undertake f

urther investigation.During the course of their conversation, Mr. Hinkle inf o rm ed Deputy

Estep that—when they

had earlier spoken via phone—he m i sunderstood which trailer Deputy Estep was ref

erencing, and that he did not own the suspect trailer. 1 As he explained, Mr.
Hinkle owned a different

trailer that was parked elsewhere, and Mr. Keown owned the suspect trailer. Indeed, Mr. Hinkle repeatedly denied ownership of

that trailer and
af f irm ed that Mr. Keown had purchased it f rom the Carpenters Church in South Carolina. Deputy Estep, m oreover, called Mr. Keown, who corroborated Mr. Hinkle’s account and insisted the latter “had nothing to do with [ the trailer].” Appellant’s Appx. vol. 4 at 932. 2 At that point , even Deputy Estep acknowledged that an in-person interview with Mr. Keown was appropriate and the m atter was “still under investigation.” Id

. at 934. Yet an arrest ensued, leading to incarceration and a strip search in the local jail. At the very

least, I would conclude these developm ents underm i ned a reasonable
belief that probable cause existed, and created an obligation to investigate Mr. Hinkle’s
involvem e nt m ore thoroughly bef ore placing him

under arrest. An objectively reasonable
of f icer would have interviewed Mr. Keown or sought inf orm ation regarding title and

1 It is worth noting that Mr. Hinkle never af f irm atively

stated that he owned the suspect trailer. His vague response—“right”—to Deputy Estep’s suggestion he did in their earlier phone call is a questionable basis f or such a conclusion.

2 Mr. Keown’s statem e nt that the trailer was “f am i ly property ” i s hopelessly

vague in this context, given that Mr. Keown told Deputy Estep that Mr. Hinkle did not own the trailer. W ithout m o re, the m ere f act that Mr. Keown and Mr. Hinkle were related by m arriage does not support a reasonable belief that a conspiracy

existed to conceal stolen property

. -2-registration. 3 That Mr. Keown f ailed to m eet Mr. Hinkle and Deputy Estep that night to
resolve this m isunderstanding does not underm ine my conclusion. Wh en coupled with his repeated assurances to the contrary , this f ailure to appear m ay

well have given rise to renewed suspicions regarding Mr. Keown . But this behavior sheds no new light on the
involvem e nt—or lack thereof

— of Mr. Hinkle, whose f

a cially plausible explanation of

the

m isunderstanding was corroborated by som eone who stood to gain nothing by volunteering his ownership of the trailer. I accordingly

part way s with the m ajority o pinion and conclude that Deputy Estep violated Mr. Hinkle’s Fourth Am endm ent rights in deciding to arrest him subsequent to this exchange. I also disagree with the m ajority ’s reversal of the strip search claim

. For the
reasons set f

orth by the district court I would af f irm . The record shows that Mr. Hinkle would be placed in close proxim ity with other detainees and jail em ploy ees during the intake process, justif

ying a search f

or weapons or contraband. For these reasons, I respectf ully dissent.

3 Deputy Estep told Mr. Hinkle af ter these exchanges, “If [ M r. Keown] say s, com es up here and say s it’s his trailer, okay , and he paid f or it, or whatever, all right, he wants to take the blam e f or it, that’s all on him , okay

. ” Appellant’s Appx. vol. 4 at 937.

-3-