Opinion ID: 3049421
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Immunity for the Search

Text: Because the facts alleged by Edgerly show that the Officers’ conduct violated his constitutional rights, see Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, the qualified immunity analysis again turns on a single particularized inquiry: whether a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that the search was constitutional. See id. at 201-02; see also Way, 445 F.3d at 1159-60. [15] We conclude that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged conduct of strip searching Edgerly either by requiring him to reveal his undergarments or by visually inspecting his genitalia or buttocks. As we explained above, it is clearly established in the Ninth Circuit that post-booking strip searches without reasonable suspicion are unconstitutional. See Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1446. Moreover, California law expressly defines a strip search to include the 20 In determining the reasonableness of the search under the Fourth Amendment, a jury could also consider the fact that, if the Officers strip searched Edgerly, they violated California law regardless of whether they had reasonable suspicion for the search, because it was not authorized by Sergeant Schiff. See Cal. Penal Code § 4030(f) (“No strip search . . . may be conducted without the prior written authorization of the supervising officer on duty.”). EDGERLY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 8635 exposure of undergarments or visual inspection of buttocks or genitalia, see Cal. Penal Code § 4030(c), and provides that it is a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully perform such searches on misdemeanor arrestees such as Edgerly without reasonable suspicion. See id. § 4030(f), (n). In light of this clearly established law, no reasonable officer could have believed the police station search, as described by Edgerly at trial, to be lawful. See Way, 445 F.3d at 1159-60; see also Katz, 533 U.S. at 201-02.