Opinion ID: 4503539
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bodily Privacy

Text: In this circuit, “[i]t is clearly established that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a sphere of privacy, and the most ‘basic subject of privacy . . . the naked body.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1256 (2009) (quoting Grummet, 779 F.2d at 494); see also Sepulveda, 967 F.2d at 1416 (“The right to bodily privacy is fundamental. . . . and was clearly established at the time . . . .”). Anderson also likely attended a PREA training. 9 Under the PREA, sexual abuse includes “[v]oyeurism, which is defined as the inappropriate visual surveillance of a detainee for reasons unrelated to official duties.” 6 C.F.R. § 115.6. Moreover, Kern County Juvenile Hall’s policies require 9 Catherine Gonzalez, a Deputy Probation Officer, testified that she taught Kern County’s PREA course and that she believed that Anderson and Appleton completed the PREA training. Gonzalez testified that the PREA course “goes over the policy,” but did not explicitly explain what was covered in the training. 20 VAZQUEZ V. COUNTY OF KERN supervision of showers to be provided by staff of the same gender, and, absent exigent circumstances or incidental to a routine safety check, require that a ward be allowed to shower and perform bodily functions without nonmedical staff of the opposite gender from viewing them. Therefore, given that we have clearly recognized a Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily privacy, the Juvenile Hall administrative policies, and the training Anderson likely attended, he is not entitled to qualified immunity for Vazquez’s Fourteenth Amendment bodily privacy claim.