Taylor v. Zens, 2:18-cv-02033

On Sept. 11, 2018, officers pursued and arrested Steven Taylor after a suspected drug transaction; during the takedown Taylor’s pants fell and a clear plastic baggie was visible secured to his penis.
Officers Nikolas Zens and Elizabeth Sauer observed the baggie, took Taylor to a squad car, and Zens—wearing gloves—pulled Taylor’s pants/underwear away briefly to retrieve the baggie.
Taylor twice made statements consenting to retrieval (told Sauer to “go in my drawers” and told Zens “you can grab it”); Zens later said he retrieved the baggie before transport to prevent destruction.
Body‑worn videos show a brief (under two minutes) groin search at the squad car; videos do not clearly show exposure or onlookers.
Taylor sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming an unreasonable Fourth Amendment strip search and that Sauer failed to intervene; Taylor moved for partial summary judgment and defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court denied Taylor’s motion, granted defendants’ motion, held the search was not constitutionally unreasonable, and dismissed the case (did not reach qualified immunity).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zens’s groin/strip search was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search	The search was conducted publicly, exposed genitals, and was akin to the impermissible, highly intrusive search in Campbell	The search was brief, limited, performed at the squad car (shielded/dark), supported by observed contraband, and Taylor consented	The search was not extreme or patently abusive; reasonable as a search incident to arrest; summary judgment for defendants
Whether Sauer failed to intervene	Sauer’s presence and failure to stop the search made her liable	No underlying constitutional violation; Sauer did not view Taylor’s penis and had no duty once no violation	Failure‑to‑intervene claim fails because there was no underlying constitutional violation
Whether summary judgment / partial summary judgment was appropriate	Taylor sought partial summary judgment against Zens	Defendants sought full summary judgment on all claims	Taylor’s partial summary judgment denied; defendants’ summary judgment granted; case dismissed

Stanley v. Henson, 337 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2003) (Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches of the unclothed body)
U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1979) (search incident to lawful arrest doctrine)
Campbell v. Miller, 499 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2007) (strip search in plain view held unreasonable as a matter of law)
Bell v. Wolfish, 411 U.S. 520 (1979) (reasonableness balancing test for searches)
Ragland v. City of Milwaukee, 104 F. Supp. 3d 958 (E.D. Wis. 2015) (distinguishing less intrusive, permissible post‑arrest searches from Campbell)
U.S. v. Torres, 32 F.3d 225 (7th Cir. 1994) (consensual search principle)
Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2005) (failure‑to‑intervene requires an underlying constitutional violation)
Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004) (discussing scope of failure‑to‑intervene claims)