Opinion ID: 2971441
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Search at City Hall

Text: Although Tucker’s appellate brief describes Officer Manley’s conduct in as egregious a manner as possible, his deposition paints a far more benign picture of the incident: [Officer Manley] said he needed to talk to me over there pointing at the hallway away from the receptionist desk. I asked him in reference to what. He said, I need to search you. I asked him why he needed to search me and he said he just had to. I asked him search me for what and he said for weapons I believe it was . . . . I asked him what his probable cause was and he didn’t say anything from that point on. I asked him if I refuse the search what will he do, you know, what if I refuse I believe is what I said and he didn’t say anything. So I just stood there for a few moments and he stood there. I asked him, you know, I don’t want No. 03-6336 Tucker v. City of Richmond, Kentucky, et al. Page 5 to be searched I believe it was and that’s when he said we’re going to have to go over here and I said what if I refuse and he said, I’ll throw your ass in jail. When asked what happened after this “conversation” took place, Tucker stated: He searched me . . . . He requested me to place my hands against the wall, spread my legs and he took the wand and went over me and then patted me down and that was about the extent. I guess maybe it lasted a minute or two minutes. Tucker’s own version of events fails to establish a constitutional violation. Tucker has failed to satisfy the second element of a First Amendment retaliation claim because Officer Manley’s conduct does not rise to the level of adverse action that is capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected conduct. Individuals entering a government building such as City Hall necessarily encounter a variety of security measures, including the possibility that they might be searched, and the particular screening that Tucker underwent was not particularly intrusive. The fact that Tucker was searched for weapons, even if he observed no other individuals being searched at that time, simply would not deter a person of ordinary firmness in his position from continuing to distribute the protected flyers. Nor would Officer Manley’s comment about throwing Tucker’s “ass in jail” have such an effect; Tucker’s deposition testimony reveals that this comment was offered only as a response to Tucker’s inquiry about what would happen if he disobeyed Officer Manley’s instruction to move out of the immediate security entrance area for further screening – and only after Tucker initially resisted being searched. Tucker has also failed to satisfy the third element because there is simply no evidence that Officer Manley’s conduct was motivated in any way by Tucker’s distribution of the protected flyers. Moreover, Officer Manley has satisfactorily “demonstrate[d] that [he] would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity. . . .” Arnett, 281 F.3d at 561. The undisputed evidence indicates that security at City Hall was at a heightened level on the day of Tucker’s visit because of an incident that occurred a few days earlier in which a projectile – thought to be a bullet – punctured a window in the Mayor’s office. Under these circumstances, Officer Manley’s conduct in searching Tucker as he entered City Hall did not violate Tucker’s constitutional rights and his actions were “objectively reasonable in light of the law existing at that time.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815. Therefore, Officer Manley is entitled to qualified immunity in connection with his search of Tucker at City Hall.