Brandy Kane v. Shawn Barger, 902 F.3d 185

On June 27–28, 2013, Brandy Kane (age 20) sought a hospital rape-kit and reported a possible sexual assault; Officer Shawn Barger later requested/received the clothes she wore to the alleged incident.
Contrary to department policy, Barger met alone with Kane in a back room at the police station and used his personal cell phone to photograph her intimate areas (breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, upper chest).
During the session Barger twice pulled down Kane’s clothing himself to expose injured areas; Kane felt something touch her buttocks and, after repeated questions about her vagina, exposed that area despite denying injury.
Barger failed to properly document the clothing evidence, initially lied to investigators denying he took photos, then admitted taking (and claiming to have deleted) multiple photos; he later accepted departmental discipline and a two-week suspension.
Kane sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation (right to bodily integrity). The district court granted summary judgment to Barger on qualified immunity grounds; the Third Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Barger’s conduct violate Kane’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity?	Kane: Barger’s touching and photographing intimate areas for personal gratification (and against policy) shocked the conscience and violated bodily integrity.	Barger: Conduct didn’t amount to a conscience-shocking constitutional violation; comparable cases found misconduct non-constitutional.	Yes — viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor, the court held the conduct (deliberate indifference, personal gratification, improper touching/photographing) shocks the conscience and violated bodily integrity.
If so, was the right clearly established at the time (qualified immunity)?	Kane: Existing Supreme Court and circuit precedent gave fair warning that sexual fondling/illicit photographing by an officer is unlawful.	Barger: No controlling precedent put a reasonable officer on notice that his particular acts violated the Constitution.	Yes — the court held the right was clearly established (including analogous Third Circuit and other circuits’ decisions), so qualified immunity did not apply.

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (officials can be on notice absent identical precedent; obvious cases)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established standard)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (no immunity for knowing violations)
Doe v. Luzerne Cty., 660 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.) (officers videotaping an unclothed colleague violated privacy/bodily security)
Haberthur v. City of Raymore, 119 F.3d 720 (8th Cir.) (officer fondling characterized as violative of personal integrity)
Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.) (officer sexual predation found egregious and conscience-shocking)