Farkarlun v. Hanning, 855 F. Supp. 2d 906

Background

Farkarlun alleges constitutional violations arising from a September 30, 2009 arrest and subsequent searches and strip searches by MPD and Hennepin County deputies; incident allegedly connected to a prior rape allegation she alleges motivated police retaliation.
Lanasa and Lee, observing what they believed to be a drug deal on surveillance video, stopped the vehicle carrying Farkarlun and a male passenger who admitted marijuana possession, leading to Farkarlun’s detention and eventual arrest.
Co-passenger’s marijuana and the dropped object/hand-to-hand exchange were used to justify probable cause for the stop and arrest under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis; Farkarlun argues this was pretextual and retaliatory based on rape allegations.
Farkarlun was subjected to multiple searches: on the street (Lanasa), in a street-side search (Khazraeinazmpour), at the First Precinct (repeated searches), and a strip search authorized by Swalve, followed by ADC processing; injuries included bruising, ankle injury aggravation, and headaches.
The county moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment for both Hennepin County Defendants and Minneapolis Defendants, dismissing federal §1983 and state law claims against them, and dismissing certain individual defendants (Klimmek and Landmesser) after voluntary dismissal by Farkarlun.
The court also discussed Monell liability, holding no underlying constitutional violation by the county policies was proven, and thus noMonell claim could proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for arrest existed?	Farkarlun contends officers lacked probable cause.	Lanasa/Lee had probable cause based on video and marijuana in co-passenger’s possession.	Probable cause existed; arrest reasonable.
Lanasa's street search of Farkarlun violated Fourth Amendment?	Cross-gender, intrusive search violated rights.	Lanasa could have believed search reasonable; entitles him to qualified immunity.	Lanasa entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established violation.
Khazraeinazmpour’s street search qualified immunity?	Second street search violated privacy without proper grounds.	Reasonable reliance on officers’ observations; no clearly established violation.	Khazraeinazmpour entitled to qualified immunity.
Strip search at the First Precinct reasonable?	Strip search and removal of clothing violated privacy.	Search justified by need to locate contraband; Swalve's authorization reasonable.	Swalve and others entitled to qualified immunity; search reasonable under circumstances.
Monell claim against Hennepin County?	County policy of partial disrobing and force caused violation.	No underlying constitutional violation shown; no policy liability.	Monell claim fails; summary judgment for Hennepin County granted.

Key Cases Cited

Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable cause and reasonable-suspicion standards; totality of circumstances)
United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (probable cause; reasonable suspicion in vehicle stops)
Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 260 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2001) (clearly established law; objective reasonableness standard)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing violation)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (balancing test for conditions of confinement and searches; intrusiveness vs. purpose)