241 F. Supp. 3d 726
E.D. La.2017Background
- On Oct. 23, 2014, Jennifer Marks was stopped after leaving a gas station; deputies searched her vehicle and found drug paraphernalia.
- Corporal Amore Neck conducted a search of Marks’s person on the roadside; Marks alleges a forcible full body-cavity search (vagina and rectum), removal/checking of shoes/socks and mouth, and claims sexual-assault level intrusion.
- Defendants (Neck, Deputies Steinert and Hyneman) testify the search was a routine pat-down; Hyneman observed no cavity search and Neck denies any vaginal/rectal or oral internal search.
- Marks sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force / Fourth Amendment) and state tort claims; Neck filed a defamation counterclaim.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds (official-capacity claims, state-law claims, Heck bar, lost wages, and qualified immunity). Marks did not oppose dismissal of several claims; remaining dispute centers on qualified immunity for the individual officers.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing claims against Sheriff Smith (official capacity), Heck-barred claims, and lost-wage damages, but denied summary judgment as to qualified immunity for Neck, Steinert, and Hyneman due to material fact disputes about the nature of the search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for an alleged roadside body-cavity/strip search | Marks contends the officers performed an invasive body-cavity search on the public roadside (vagina, rectum, mouth) constituting excessive force and a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation | Officers claim they performed only a routine pat-down; no cavity searches occurred and they acted reasonably | Denied as to qualified immunity — genuine factual disputes about the nature/scope/place of the search preclude resolving qualified immunity at summary judgment |
| Whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time (Oct. 23, 2014) | Marks argues precedent established that invasive/public body-cavity/strip searches are unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances | Defendants argue no directly controlling authority made a roadside body-cavity search per se unreasonable | Held clearly established: Supreme Court and persuasive circuit authority put officers on notice that public roadside body-cavity/strip searches are highly intrusive and unreasonable absent exigent circumstances |
| Whether plaintiff’s excessive-force claim survives summary judgment on the merits evidence | Marks points to her deposition describing invasive internal searches and checks performed on the roadside | Defendants point to their depositions describing a non-intrusive pat-down and no internal searches | Held: Genuine dispute of material fact exists about whether force was excessive; credibility is for the jury, so summary judgment on excessive-force / §1983 claims against individual officers denied |
| Whether certain claims should be dismissed (official-capacity, state-law, lost wages, Heck-barred) | Marks did not oppose dismissal of those items | Defendants moved to dismiss those claims | Held: Summary judgment granted as to official-capacity §1983 claims against Sheriff Smith, state-law claims against Sheriff Smith, lost-wage/economic damages, and any claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey (dismissed with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (balancing test for reasonableness of body-cavity/strip searches)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified-immunity standard)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established rights and official notice)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (qualified immunity and need for particularized precedent)
- Roe v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 299 F.3d 395 (Fifth Circuit: strip/body-cavity searches raise serious Fourth Amendment concerns)
- Hamilton v. Kindred, 845 F.3d 659 (Fifth Circuit: body-cavity search on a public roadway can support excessive-force claim)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (summary-judgment review requires viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor when facts are disputed)