Braun v. Maynard
652 F.3d 557
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- August 12, 2008, Maryland Correctional Training Center conducted a drug interdiction operation using an IonScan device to test employees and independent contractors of the Maryland DPSCS; several employees were scanned and allegedly subjected to strip and visual body cavity searches following positive alerts, though no full cavity searches occurred; the district court granted qualified immunity and dismissed the Fourth Amendment claims; plaintiffs alleged improper, intrusive searches and alleged the device functioned malfunctioning and that there was no official policy governing strip searches of employees; the court of appeals reviews de novo and proceeds under the qualified-immunity framework; the court considers whether the law was clearly established that such Ionscan-based searches after a positive alert could not meet Fourth Amendment standards; the court affirms the district court, holding no clearly established law foreclosed the defendants’ actions and that qualified immunity applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ionscan-based searches followed by strip or visual searches violated the Fourth Amendment. | Braun et al. argue the Ionscan alarms plus intrusive searches violated privacy rights. | Maynard et al. contend reasonable suspicion and prison context permit such searches; law not clearly established. | No clearly established Fourth Amendment violation; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether the Ionscan procedures were clearly established as unlawful at the time. | Plaintiffs rely on Leverette to argue lack of reasonable suspicion. | Defendants argue no clearly established rule forbade the Ionscan process in this context. | Not clearly established that Ionscan could not meet reasonable suspicion standard; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether Leverette forecloses the use of Ionscan in prison employee searches. | Leverette prohibits similar searches based on tips by informants; not directly on Ionscan. | Leverette does not control Ionscan technology; needed to be evaluated on its own terms. | Leverette did not clearly establish law against Ionscan-based searches; not binding for this technology. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clearly established standard for qualified immunity)
- Harlow v. FitzGerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity framework)
- Safford Unified Sch. Dist. v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (reasonable suspicion standard—moderate chance of wrongdoing)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (reasonable suspicion can be based on less reliable information)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion standard requires less than probable cause)