Sonjia Mack v. Brian Williams, Sr., 20-16590

Sonjia Mack, a visitor at High Desert State Prison, was strip-searched without her consent while attempting to visit an inmate.
Mack sued, alleging the strip search violated her constitutional rights; defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the district court denied.
Defendants appealed and, after appeal was filed, this Court decided Cates v. Stroud, which held a prison visitor has a right to leave rather than undergo a strip search based on reasonable suspicion.
Defendants raised a new Cates-based qualified-immunity argument on appeal, claiming it was not clearly established that a visitor must be allowed to leave instead of submit to a search.
The Ninth Circuit exercised discretion to consider the new, purely legal Cates argument but found it inapplicable because a genuine factual dispute exists about whether officers had reasonable suspicion to search Mack.
The court also noted defendants’ inconsistent positions: they had told the district court they informed Mack she could refuse the search and leave, undermining their appellate claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for strip-searching a prison visitor without consent	Mack: search violated constitutional rights; no reasonable suspicion	Defs: entitled to immunity because law not clearly established (post-Cates) or they allowed her to leave	Denied. Genuine dispute whether officers had reasonable suspicion; Cates does not entitle defendants to immunity here
Whether the court should consider a new Cates-based argument raised on appeal after it was decided	Mack: oppose consideration of belated argument	Defs: ask the court to consider the new, purely legal Cates argument	Court exercised discretion to consider the new argument
Whether Cates' rule (visitor may leave rather than submit to search) shields defendants here	Mack: Cates only helps if officers had reasonable suspicion; factual dispute exists	Defs: Cates means law was not clearly established before Cates, so no liability	Cates applies only where reasonable suspicion exists; because factual dispute remains, Cates does not provide immunity; defendants’ inconsistent prior statements further undermine their claim

Cates v. Stroud, 976 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2020) (visitor has a right to leave rather than undergo a strip search based on reasonable suspicion)
Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, 872 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2017) (jurisdictional/qualified-immunity precedents)
Roybal v. Toppenish Sch. Dist., 871 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017) (denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviewed de novo)
Club One Casino, Inc. v. Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) (general rule against raising new arguments on appeal)
United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1990) (court may exercise discretion to consider purely legal arguments first raised on appeal)