Ragland v. City of Milwaukee
104 F. Supp. 3d 958
E.D. Wis.2015Background
- On June 23, 2011, Officers Bartol and Seitz encountered a vehicle in a Milwaukee alley/driveway with Devin Ragland as a rear passenger; they called for backup and conducted an investigatory stop.
- Officers searched the driver and front passenger and recovered marijuana and a single bullet. Bartol then patted down Ragland and felt cigarettes (he was a minor) and something hard in his crotch area.
- Officers arrested Ragland for minor-in-possession of cigarettes. During searches incident to that arrest, Bartol and Seitz ordered Ragland to pull his jeans down to his ankles (he remained in shorts/boxers) and squeezed his testicles over clothing; Anderer later pulled back Ragland’s waistband to view his crotch and buttocks.
- Ragland sued the three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches and sued the City of Milwaukee for municipal liability. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court evaluated: legality of the initial stop, the patdown frisk, the subsequent genital-area searches incident to arrest, and qualified immunity and Monell claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants and entered final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of initial stop | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; vehicle not reckless; occupants did not try to elude | Officers had articulable facts (tenant said vehicle shouldn’t be there) supporting an investigatory stop | Stop was lawful on those facts; alternatively officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Frisk for weapons (patdown) | Finding a bullet on another occupant cannot justify frisking Ragland (guilt by association) | Bullet in vehicle/with occupants gave reasonable suspicion someone nearby might be armed | Patdown was reasonable; discovery of cigarettes lawful; qualified immunity in any event |
| Bartol & Seitz searching genital area (ordering pants down; squeezing testicles) | Such squeezing exceeded permissible scope of search incident to arrest and was abusive | Search was incident to lawful arrest to locate weapons/evidence, private parts were not exposed, conduct not for humiliation | Even if intrusive, not patently abusive under precedent; officers entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity |
| Anderer pulling back waistbands and viewing crotch/buttocks | That visual inspection was an unreasonable, intrusive search | He acted incident to arrest with reasonable basis (bullet, prior feeling); underwear not exposed to onlookers | Search was not extreme or patently abusive; summary judgment for Anderer; qualified immunity alternatively applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop standard)
- United States v. Riley, 493 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (frisk standard for armed and dangerous)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful arrest)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal § 1983 liability)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity / clearly established law)