Doe v. Luzerne County
660 F.3d 169
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Doe, a deputy sheriff, participated in a warrant service that led to her exposure to fleas and a decontamination process.
- During decontamination, a female officer (Joyce) supervised while Doe showered; two male supervisors (Bobbouine and Foy) observed and filmed from outside the room.
- Foy filmed and later displayed footage to colleagues; Doe alleges the filming was for training but argues it invaded privacy and captured intimate areas.
- Video and photos of Doe were later stored in a public folder; in April 2008 the folder was rediscovered and discussed among other deputies.
- Doe filed suit under §1983 alleging Fourth Amendment search/seizure and Fourteenth Amendment privacy violations, plus failure to train.
- District Court granted summary judgment for County; the Third Circuit reversed on privacy claim and remanded, while affirming other rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Decontamination Area claim raise a Fourteenth Amendment privacy violation? | Doe had a reasonable privacy expectation in decontamination. | Exposure was not highly personal; filming for training was permissible. | Doe's privacy claim survives at summary judgment; material facts remain. |
| Was Foy's filming a Fourth Amendment search or seizure? | Filming invaded privacy and constitutes a government intrusion. | Foy filmed for personal reasons outside governmental investigation; not a search/seizure. | No Fourth Amendment search or seizure; claim affirmed dismissal. |
| Can County be liable for failure to train under §1983? | Deliberate indifference shown by training gaps in privacy scenarios. | No evidence of deliberate indifference or causation; single incident insufficient. | Dismissal affirmed; no deliberate indifference established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunez v. Pachman, 578 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2009) (privacy rights categories and reasonable expectations of confidentiality)
- C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2005) (zones of privacy and two privacy interests)
- Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Phila., 812 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1987) (balancing test for privacy disclosures)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court 1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal §1983 liability)
- Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002) (surreptitious filming not a Fourth Amendment search when personal interest motive)
- Davis v. Bucher, 853 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1988) (distinguishes privacy claims in prison context; relevance to exposure context)
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980) (factors governing public access vs. privacy of records)