25 F.4th 877
11th Cir.2022Background
- At Sulligent High School, a teacher smelled marijuana; administrators searched students’ belongings and found marijuana stems/rolling paper/lighters and prescription pills in T.R.’s backpack but no marijuana.
- Two classmates reported seeing T.R. light a marijuana cigarette; T.R. admitted a drug problem generally but denied smoking in class or possessing additional drugs that day.
- Principal Stamps and Counselor Dean strip-searched T.R. twice in the counselor’s office; the first search found nothing; T.R. alleges the office door window was uncovered during a search and that she was on her menstrual cycle and humiliated.
- Superintendent Harron was not consulted before the more thorough strip searches; T.R.’s mother and sister arrived between searches.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the §1983 Fourth Amendment claim (qualified immunity) and on state-law invasion of privacy and outrage claims (state-agent immunity); T.R. appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that qualified immunity and state-agent immunity were inappropriate at summary judgment and that triable issues exist on the Fourth Amendment, invasion of privacy, and outrage claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for §1983 unreasonable-search claim | Safford and D.H. clearly establish strip searches like these are unconstitutional; officials on notice | No materially similar precedent; search reasonable under T.L.O.; officials acted within discretionary authority | Reversed: qualified immunity denied; Safford and D.H. put officials on notice; remanded |
| Whether the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment (T.L.O. inception and scope) | No reasonable suspicion to search underclothing; search excessive in scope (two searches; open window) | Search justified by classroom evidence and backpack search; reasonable measures taken | Triable issue: a factfinder could find a constitutional violation; remanded |
| State-agent immunity for invasion-of-privacy claim (Alabama law) | Officials acted beyond authority by conducting a “more thorough” search without superintendent approval, violating board policy | Board policy is discretionary guidance; failure to follow it does not strip immunity | Reversed: policy contains sufficiently detailed rules; triable issue whether officials acted beyond authority; no immunity at SJ |
| Outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) | Twice-strip-searching a minor (on her period) in a way that exposed her and humiliated her meets extreme-outrageous conduct | Conduct not extreme or outrageous; mother’s reaction undermines severity | Reversed: genuine issue for jury whether conduct was extreme and caused severe emotional distress; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (strip search of student unreasonable where no facts suggested drugs concealed in underwear or danger justified intrusion)
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (school-search reasonableness test: justified at inception and reasonable in scope)
- D.H. by Dawson v. Clayton Cty. Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2016) (strip search unreasonable in scope where procedures were more intrusive than necessary; precedent applied to put officials on notice)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (clearly-established-right standard: precedent need not be identical but must place the constitutional question beyond debate)
- Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, 561 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2009) (qualified-immunity two-step framework and discretionary-authority threshold)
- Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 So. 2d 1046 (Ala. 2003) (failure to follow school/coach rules can place an actor beyond state-agent immunity if rules are detailed)
- Ex parte Brown, 182 So. 3d 495 (Ala. 2015) (defendant bears initial burden to show state-agent immunity; plaintiff must show exceptions apply)
- Ex parte Hayles, 852 So. 2d 117 (Ala. 2002) (state-agent immunity protects employees acting within their judgment unless actions are willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith, or beyond authority)
- Wilson v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs. Found., P.C., 266 So. 3d 674 (Ala. 2017) (elements and high threshold for tort of outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress)