173 F. Supp. 3d 608
S.D. Ohio2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael J. Sollenberger, a former Montgomery County Sheriff's Office detective, sued his estranged wife Jennifer Sollenberger, Dannelle Estridge, Sheriff Phil Plummer, and three deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio tort law after he was placed on administrative leave and later terminated following circulation of text messages allegedly authored by him.
- Jennifer had possession of several of Michael’s old, unlocked cell phones after he moved out; she gave one such phone to Estridge, who extracted and stored messages and images; some messages were forwarded to the NAACP and later provided to the Sheriff’s Office.
- The Sheriff’s Office imaged the phones during an internal investigation; the copied messages contained racially derogatory and violent statements attributed to Plaintiff, which prompted the employment action.
- Plaintiff sued in state court for invasion of privacy, a civil claim for an uncharged criminal act (R.C. 2307.60), tortious interference with employment, and civil conspiracy, and alleged § 1983 claims for unlawful search and seizure (against sheriff defendants) and municipal failure to train (against Sheriff Plummer). Defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court accepted the pleaded facts as true for Rule 12 review, considered documents central to the complaint (including the NAACP-provided messages and a public interview), and dismissed all claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forensic imaging of plaintiff’s old phone amounted to an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search | Sollenberger: phone was his property and imaged without warrant or his consent | Sheriffs: search was reasonable as part of an employer misconduct investigation; consent or abandonment by wife; third‑party disclosure justified review | Dismissed: court found the workplace‑search reasonableness standard applied, plaintiffs failed to plead a Fourth Amendment violation and qualified immunity protected officers; claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether Riley or other precedent clearly established that the search of these phones was unconstitutional for qualified immunity purposes | Sollenberger: Riley requires warrants for cell‑phone searches and supports clearly established right | Sheriffs: Riley addresses search‑incident‑to‑arrest context; electronic privacy law is unsettled; officers entitled to qualified immunity | Dismissed: court found Riley inapposite and law not clearly established in this factual context; qualified immunity bars relief |
| Municipal liability for failure to train (Monell) against Sheriff Plummer | Sollenberger: Plummer failed to train/supervise deputies regarding unlawful access to phones | Plummer: no factual allegations of a pattern or deliberate indifference; Monell requires more than formulaic assertions | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege facts showing deliberate indifference or causal link from training deficiency to alleged violation |
| State tort claims (invasion of privacy, R.C. 2307.60 civil claim, tortious interference, conspiracy) | Sollenberger: defendants invaded privacy, committed a criminal hacking‑type act, interfered with employment, and conspired | Defendants: statutory immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744 and R.C. 311.05; insufficient pleaded facts to show abandonment of immunity or the high standards for wanton/malicious conduct | Dismissed: invasion of privacy and other torts dismissed for failure to plausibly plead reasonable expectation of privacy or requisite malice/wantonness; statutory immunity further bars claims against sheriff and deputies where applicable; all state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted on a motion to dismiss)
- O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (public‑employer searches assessed under a reasonableness/workplace standard)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal liability for failure to train requires deliberate indifference)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (cell‑phone searches and privacy; addressed search‑incident‑to‑arrest exception)
- Quon v. City of Ontario, 560 U.S. 746 (electronic communications privacy in employment context)
- Jacobsen, United States v., 466 U.S. 109 (when a search occurs and expectation of privacy analysis)
- Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718 (12(c) standard same as 12(b)(6) in Sixth Circuit)
- Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F.3d 737 (application of O'Connor in law enforcement workplace searches)