Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1036

Goodman, a Las Vegas dancer, was detained during a LVMPD vice sweep at the Cosmopolitan hotel in 2011.
Detention occurred after undercover officers approached Goodman and her friend, who had prior prostitution-related involvement.
Goodman was escorted to a secured security office and held for up to about two hours without charges.
Her purse was searched and her identification retrieved during detention; she was repeatedly questioned about her presence and employment.
A number of other women were detained in the same security room during the sweep, with some later arrested for prostitution.
Goodman sued LVMPD, the Cosmopolitan entities, and related defendants for false imprisonment, battery, Fourth Amendment violations, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; defendants moved for summary judgment and related relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Goodman’s initial detention was supported by reasonable suspicion	Goodman argues there was no reasonable suspicion.	Defendants contend the detention was a Terry stop based on observed circumstantial factors.	No reasonable suspicion supported the Terry stop.
Whether the initial detention was transformed into an unlawful de facto arrest	Detention extended beyond reasonable limits and became an unlawful arrest.	Detention was within permissible investigative conduct under Terry.	Detention constituted an unlawful de facto arrest.
Whether seizure/search of Goodman’s cell phone and purse violated the Fourth Amendment	Detention tainted subsequent searches; searches were unlawful.	Searches were permissible as part of the detention/arrest process or as Terry searches.	Searches were unconstitutional as part of an unlawful detention/arrest.
Whether LVMPD is liable under Monell for a policy or practice causing the violation	Prostitution-sweep policy/ practice caused constitutional violations.	Policy/procedure disputed; need for evidence of fault and moving force behind violation.	Genuine disputes on policy and Monell liability; summary judgment denied.
Whether individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity	Officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.	Officers acted within their discretionary function; qualified immunity may apply.	Officials denied qualified immunity; not clearly established that their conduct was lawful.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (defining 'seizure' for Fourth Amendment purposes)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009 (2001) (distinguishes between Terry stops and arrest in duration/context)
Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (1996) (considerations for determining arrest versus stop)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (mere association with others does not justify stop)
K-Mart Corp. v. Washington, 866 P.2d 274 (Nev. 1993) (defamation by pantomime; reputational damages in slander per se)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (damages in defamation contexts; general damages for reputation)
Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (2011) (Monell liability and policy/ moving force through municipal policy)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes municipal liability for unconstitutional policies)
Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996 (2000) (constitutional limits on discretionary function immunity)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step analysis for qualified immunity)