Tina Cates v. Bruce Stroud, 976 F.3d 972

Background

On Feb. 19, 2017, Tina Cates arrived to visit an incarcerated boyfriend at High Desert State Prison; she signed the prison’s routine consent-to-search form used on prior visits.
Investigators (Emling and Laurian) had an unexecuted warrant for a search of Cates’s “person” based on a tip; Laurian escorted Cates to a bathroom, ordered her to disrobe, remove her tampon, and performed a visual body‑cavity strip search; no contraband was found.
Cates says she did not consent to the strip search, was not told she could leave instead, was not provided a replacement tampon, and was detained while her car was searched and asked to unlock her phone (which she refused); her visit and future visiting privileges were terminated.
Cates sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (multiple constitutional claims); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Ninth Circuit held the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment because Cates was not given the option to leave rather than submit to the invasive search, but the officer who conducted it (Laurian) is entitled to qualified immunity; all other claims were rejected.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the visual body‑cavity strip search violated the Fourth Amendment	Cates: search was nonconsensual, intrusive, and she was not given the option to leave instead	Defendants: security interests and reasonable suspicion (and an issued warrant) justified the search	Court: Strip search unreasonable because visitor was not given opportunity to depart; Fourth Amendment violated
Whether Laurian is liable for damages (qualified immunity)	Cates: constitutional right was violated and officer should be liable	Laurian: law was not clearly established that a visitor must be allowed to leave before a strip search; reasonable officer could believe search lawful	Court: Qualified immunity applies—right not clearly established in Ninth Circuit at time
Legality of brief detention and searches of car/phone	Cates: detention and taking/attempt to search phone were unconstitutional seizures/searches	Defendants: brief detention incident to search was permissible; temporary control of phone did not meaningfully interfere with possessory interest	Court: No Fourth Amendment violation for the car detention/search or the brief phone encounter
Remaining constitutional claims (due process, First, Eighth, equal protection)	Cates: asserted denial of warrant copy, arbitrary denial/suspension of visiting privileges, retaliation, cruel and unusual punishment, unequal treatment	Defendants: no supporting law or facts; warrant never executed; no cognizable legal basis	Court: Claims fail for lack of legal support or factual basis

Key Cases Cited

Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (summary‑judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (balancing prisoner privacy against institutional security; prison search framework)
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (upholding invasive searches of detainees entering general population)
Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (limitations on strip searches tied to housing/general population context)
Spear v. Sowders, 71 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 1995) (visitor must be allowed to leave rather than submit to body‑cavity search)
Burgess v. Lowery, 201 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2000) (endorsing Spear reasoning on visitors and option to avoid strip searches)
Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 901 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1990) (describing dehumanizing nature of body‑cavity searches)
Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437 (9th Cir. 1991) (strip searches of inmates require institutional justification)
Jessop v. City of Fresno, 936 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (qualified immunity standard in Ninth Circuit)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established rights standard for qualified immunity)