Harris v. Miller
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4701
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Audra Harris, incarcerated at Bedford Hills (2008–2012), alleges that on April 8, 2010 a male officer (Miller) and three female officers (Anderson, Bryant, Trotter) removed cotton from her cell windows, then female officers forced her to the ground, pulled her legs apart, lifted her smock and allowed the male officer to visually inspect her genitalia for additional cotton. Harris reported bruising and a cut.
- Harris consistently described the incident in a grievance, her complaint, deposition testimony, and a declaration; defendants submitted no sworn affidavit contradicting her account and offered only briefing denials and vague justifications.
- Documentary records (misbehavior report; medical notes) corroborate parts of Harris’s account (her mattress was torn, she plastered windows), but are silent about the officers’ conduct during the search.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants, treating the claim largely under Eighth Amendment/discipline rationales and accepting a hypothetical penological justification; Harris appealed. A motions panel narrowed the appeal to the April 8, 2010 search claim and appointed counsel.
- The Second Circuit vacated dismissal and remanded, holding that inmates retain a limited Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy, that Bell v. Wolfish’s four-factor test governs isolated searches, and that genuine factual disputes (occurrence, manner, and justification of the search) precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 8, 2010 search violated the Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy | Harris: forced visual inspection of genitals by male officer (cross-gender visual body-cavity search) was an unreasonable intrusion | Defs: search justified by penological needs (remove cotton/obstruction or suicide risk); generally deny the search occurred | Reverse district court. Inmates retain a limited Fourth Amendment bodily-privacy right; apply Bell factors (scope, manner, justification, place). Genuine disputes of material fact require remand. |
| Whether cross-gender visual body-cavity searches are permissible absent exigency | Harris: cross-gender search was unnecessary and especially intrusive | Defs: male officer’s inspection was needed and no policy bar; generally claim privilege to search for contraband | Court: cross-gender body-cavity searches without emergency are disfavored; justification requires record evidence; remand for fact-finding. |
| Whether qualified immunity bars relief | Harris: N/A (claims of constitutional violation) | Defs: argue entitlement to qualified immunity | Court: declined to resolve on appeal due to factual disputes; left for district court to evaluate in first instance. |
| Whether the search also states an Eighth Amendment excessive-force/cruelty claim | Harris: force used (being grabbed, thrown down, legs spread) was wanton, malicious and caused injury | Defs: force was de minimis and justified to restore order | Court: factual disputes about need, amount of force, injuries and intent preclude summary judgment; remand to consider Eighth Amendment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (Fourth Amendment limits in prison context and boundaries of cell-search doctrine)
- Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1992) (inmates retain limited Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy; two-part inquiry)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (reasonableness test for detainee/inmate searches — balance scope, manner, justification, place)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2012) (deference to jail officials unless record shows response exaggerated; need record evidence for reasonableness)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive force test — malicious and sadistic vs. good-faith discipline)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (U.S. 2010) (extent of injury is one factor; force applied maliciously/sadistically can violate Eighth Amendment even if injury is slight)
- Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-gender strip/visual searches and need for justification supported by record)