Munywe v. Peters, 3:21-cv-05431

Background

Plaintiff Michael M. Munywe (pro se, incarcerated) was arrested Nov. 21–22, 2018 on suspicion of raping a 15-year-old; he was later convicted of second-degree rape and unlawful imprisonment.
Detectives Muse (male) and Dier (female) obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of Munywe’s person and clothing and collection of DNA; the warrant was issued in the early morning hours.
Crime scene technician Malerie Ramos (female) — the only technician on duty — photographed and briefly had Munywe lower his underwear twice (one photo with face excluded) and performed a quick penile swab; Muse and Dier were present but did not touch him.
Munywe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: an unreasonable cross-gender search (Fourth Amendment); coerced/confiscated statements (Fifth Amendment); disparate/punitive treatment (Fourteenth Amendment); and a Monell claim against the City of Tacoma for policy/custom failures.
Magistrate Judge Creatura recommended granting defendants’ summary judgment; Judge Rothstein adopted the R&R, granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissed all claims with prejudice, and denied IFP status for appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment: cross-gender search/strip-search reasonableness	Munywe says being exposed to female technicians/detectives humiliated him and was unnecessary and punitive despite the warrant.	Search was authorized by a warrant; exigent evidence-preservation concerns and only a female tech was available; search was brief and respectful.	Court: Search reasonable; exigent circumstances and limited intrusion justified cross-gender evidence collection; no Fourth Amendment violation.
Fifth Amendment: compelled self-incrimination	Munywe contends the cross-gender search/interrogation coerced statements later used at trial.	No coerced or compelled confession occurred; Munywe did not admit sexual contact and interview was not coercive.	Court: No Fifth Amendment violation — Munywe made no compelled confession and interview was not coercive.
Fourteenth Amendment: disparate treatment / discrimination	Munywe alleges treatment based on accent, race, or national origin (comments about accent/Africa).	Investigators questioned accent to ensure comprehension; record lacks evidence of intentional discrimination.	Court: No evidence of purposeful discrimination; Fourteenth Amendment claim fails.
Monell: municipal liability for customs/policies	Munywe faults Tacoma’s policies or training for enabling the violations.	Municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation or proof of a municipal policy/custom that caused injury.	Court: Monell fails because no individual constitutional violation shown and no evidence of an unconstitutional policy or custom.

Key Cases Cited

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (reasonableness of searches in detention balances intrusion against governmental need)
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom causing a constitutional violation)
Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-gender strip searches may violate the Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances)
York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963) (recognizing bodily privacy interest from observation by opposite sex)
Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1991) (emergency/exigent circumstances can justify cross-gender viewing/searches)
Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999) (female officers’ presence during urgent searches did not violate Fourth Amendment)
Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978 (9th Cir. 2021) (Fifth Amendment self-incrimination applies only where compelled statements are used against a defendant)
Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (Monell requires identification of municipal policy or custom causing injury)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: nonmoving party must present probative evidence)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party cannot rely on metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party need only show absence of evidence for nonmoving party’s case)