A.M. Ex Rel. F.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123

Background

May 19, 2011: 13-year-old F.M. was removed from a PE class after repeatedly making fake burps that disrupted teaching; SRO Officer Acosta arrested him under N.M. Stat. § 30-20-13(D) (interfering with the educational process), transported him in handcuffs to juvenile detention, and released him to his mother later that day.
November 8, 2011: School officials (Assistant Principal Holmes and Principal LaBarge) and Officer Acosta investigated a reported in-hallway drug transaction, identified F.M. on camera, and conducted searches of five students; video shows F.M. removed outer clothing layers and was left wearing shorts, long-sleeved shirt, and underwear; no drugs were found, but a marijuana-leaf belt buckle and a bandana were discovered.
Procedural history: A.M. (F.M.’s mother) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest and excessive force (Acosta), Fourth Amendment unlawful search (Holmes and LaBarge), First Amendment retaliation (Holmes), and Equal Protection (Holmes). District court granted qualified immunity to LaBarge and Holmes and dismissed Acosta on qualified-immunity grounds; A.M. appealed and the Tenth Circuit consolidated the appeals.
Core factual legal disputes: (1) whether Acosta had (arguable) probable cause to arrest F.M. under § 30-20-13(D) for classroom disruption; (2) whether handcuffing F.M. constituted excessive force given his age and the circumstances; (3) whether Holmes and LaBarge conducted an unreasonable/strip search, motivated by retaliation, or violated equal protection.
Ruling below / on appeal: The Tenth Circuit affirmed all three qualified-immunity grants — Acosta’s arrest and handcuffing; Holmes’s search, retaliation, and equal-protection claims; and LaBarge’s role in the search — holding officers/administrators had (at least) arguable probable cause or reasonable suspicion and that law was not clearly established to the contrary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was Acosta’s warrantless arrest of F.M. for interfering with the educational process supported by probable cause / was the right clearly established?	A.M.: burping/class‑clown conduct did not meet § 30-20-13(D) and a reasonable officer should have known arrest lacked probable cause.	Acosta: teacher’s report and observed cessation of teaching supplied probable cause; at minimum arguable probable cause entitles him to qualified immunity.	Held: Affirmed — officer had arguable probable cause; law was not clearly established that such classroom disruption could not support arrest.
2. Did handcuffing F.M. constitute excessive force (clearly established)?	A.M.: handcuffing a compliant minor was unnecessary and clearly unlawful; statutes on juvenile detention should have warned officers.	Acosta: handcuffing incident to arrest is generally permissible; no clearly established rule forbidding handcuffing minors in these circumstances.	Held: Affirmed — clearly established law did not prohibit handcuffing a minor incident to a lawful arrest; qualified immunity applies.
3. Was the November search of F.M. by Holmes and LaBarge unreasonable (Fourth Amendment)?	A.M.: search rose to a strip search and exceeded permissible scope; principals failed to respect student privacy.	Holmes/LaBarge: search was supported by reasonable suspicion (student tip + video + peer statements), limited to outer clothing/backpack, and thus lawful under T.L.O. and Safford.	Held: Affirmed — search justified at inception and reasonable in scope; no Fourth Amendment violation.
4. Was the search motivated by retaliation (First Amendment) or discriminatory (Equal Protection)?	A.M.: Holmes searched F.M. to retaliate because A.M. spoke to media about the May arrest; F.M. was treated more intrusively than other students.	Holmes: no individualized evidence Holmes was motivated by retaliation; searches of other students were not shown to be similar; actions had legitimate basis.	Held: Affirmed — no evidence Holmes was substantially motivated to retaliate; class‑of‑one equal‑protection claim fails because F.M. was not similarly situated and legitimate reasons explained differential treatment.

Key Cases Cited

Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (school-search framework; searches must be justified at inception and reasonable in scope; heightened scrutiny for strip/searches)
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (school searches require reasonable grounds; lowered suspicion standard in school context)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims judged by Fourth Amendment reasonableness test)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (custodial arrests for minor offenses and attendant restraints do not per se violate Fourth Amendment)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑prong test; courts may address either prong first)
State v. Silva, 525 P.2d 903 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974) (interpreting similar statutory language; held statute proscribed more than mere classroom disturbances and required substantial interference with institutional functioning)
Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (discusses arguable probable cause standard and qualified-immunity summary-judgment review)