T.S. Ex Rel. J.S. v. Doe
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2149
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Two juveniles (J.S. and K.S.) arrested for underage drinking were detained overnight and taken to Breathitt Regional Juvenile Detention Center (BRJDC) for intake.
- BRJDC policy required a same-sex, fully nude visual body inspection ("Body ID/Showering Process") at intake to check for injuries, markings, parasites, and contraband; findings were recorded and reviewed by a nurse.
- Parents sued the staff and administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, arguing the suspicionless strip searches of juveniles charged with nonviolent misdemeanors violated the Fourth Amendment and seeking denial of qualified immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity, relying on Masters v. Crouch (6th Cir. 1989), which had held suspicionless strip searches of adults arrested for minor offenses unconstitutional.
- While the case was pending, the Supreme Court decided Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012), holding suspicionless strip searches at intake into the general jail population constitutional for pretrial detainees regardless of offense severity.
- On interlocutory appeal the Sixth Circuit reversed as to the federal claims, holding Masters was abrogated by later authority (culminating in Florence) and granting qualified immunity; it affirmed denial of Kentucky qualified official immunity for the staff because their acts were ministerial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suspicionless strip searches of juveniles at intake for minor, nonviolent offenses violate the Fourth Amendment | Such searches are unconstitutional under Masters and juveniles deserve at least equal (if not greater) protection than adults | Florence and intervening precedent permit suspicionless intake strip searches; Masters is distinguishable/obsolete | Masters was abrogated; defendants entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 claims |
| Whether Florence applies retroactively to conduct in 2009 for qualified-immunity analysis | Florence (decided later) shouldn't govern whether law was "clearly established" in 2009 | Subsequent Supreme Court precedent can inform whether reasonable officials had fair notice; intervening circuit and Supreme Court authority made Masters untenable by 2009 | Court used later controlling decisions (Florence and intervening precedent) to conclude reasonable officials could have believed policy lawful, so immunity applies |
| Whether a juvenile’s status requires a different rule than adults for intake strip searches | Juveniles’ vulnerability and in loco parentis status require greater protection; adult case law should not control | No clearly established precedent holding juvenile facilities cannot adopt suspicionless intake searches; sister circuits upheld juvenile searches | Plaintiffs failed to show clearly established law specifically applying to juveniles; immunity applies |
| Whether BRJDC staff (Gabbard and Harvey) are entitled to Kentucky qualified official immunity for performing searches | Actions were discretionary or done in good faith within scope of duties, so immunity should apply | District court found searches were ministerial (mandatory policy) and denied immunity | Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of Kentucky qualified official immunity because acts were ministerial and thus not protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir. 1989) (held suspicionless strip searches of adults arrested for minor offenses unconstitutional)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012) (upheld suspicionless strip searches at jail intake regardless of offense severity)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (establishes balance-of-interests approach and deference to prison administrators)
- N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004) (upheld suspicionless juvenile intake searches; emphasized in loco parentis rationale)
- Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2006) (adopted N.G. reasoning and granted qualified immunity for juvenile search)
- Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejected distinction between misdemeanors and felonies for detention facility strip searches)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (articulates objective-good-faith standard for qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (endorses flexible qualified-immunity framework for assessing clearly established law)