Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz, 885 F.3d 254

Background

In 2014 Manassas detective David Abbott (deceased) investigated allegations that 17‑year‑old Trey Sims filmed and sent sexually explicit material of himself to a 15‑year‑old; juvenile charges were later dismissed.
Abbott obtained a search warrant authorizing photographs of Sims’ genitals, expressly including "a photograph of the suspect's erect penis."
At a juvenile detention center, Abbott (with two armed officers) allegedly ordered Sims to pull down his pants and to manipulate his penis to produce an erection; Abbott photographed Sims’ flaccid penis when he could not.
A second warrant authorizing additional photos (including erect‑penis photos) was later obtained but not executed; prosecutors ultimately declined to use the photos taken.
Sims sued Abbott’s estate administrator under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment and substantive due process theories) and also brought a victim‑compensation claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255; the district court dismissed, granting qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims and dismissing the rest.
The Fourth Circuit (majority) vacated dismissal as to Sims’ § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim and vacated the § 2255 dismissal, remanding both; it affirmed dismissal of Sims’ other claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Abbott's search (ordering minor to masturbate and photographing his penis) violated the Fourth Amendment	Sims: the conduct was a sexually invasive search that invaded bodily integrity and privacy and was unreasonable	Administrator: search was non‑physically invasive, conducted under warrant, so not unlawful; qualified immunity applies	Yes — on the facts alleged, the search was an unreasonable, sexually invasive search violating the Fourth Amendment; dismissal on qualified immunity was error
Whether Fourth Amendment right was clearly established for qualified immunity	Sims: longstanding precedent on limits to sexually intrusive searches would put a reasonable officer on notice	Administrator: reliance on a magistrate‑issued warrant and prosecutor advice made Abbott's actions objectively reasonable	Yes — prior Fourth and Supreme Court decisions made unlawfulness apparent; warrant did not shield Abbott from liability here
Whether Sims could proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 as a victim of sexual exploitation/child pornography	Sims: photographs and compelled sexual act support § 2255 damage claim	Administrator: (district court dismissed without addressing merits)	Vacated and remanded — district court should consider § 2255 claim in the first instance
Whether other § 1983 claims (detention order, conspiracy, substantive due process threat of injection) survive	Sims advanced various additional claims	District court dismissed; Sims did not appeal some dismissals; substantive due process claim argued to be conscience‑shocking	Majority: affirmed dismissal of the remaining claims; rejected substantive due process theory based on verbal threats

Key Cases Cited

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (Fourth Amendment protects personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted state intrusion)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (framework for assessing reasonableness of intrusive searches by balancing scope, manner, justification, and place)
Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (heightened privacy for bodily‑integrity intrusions; greater justification required for invasive procedures)
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (analysis of invasive searches in detention settings balancing institutional needs and privacy)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (limits on disrobing arrestees without justification)
King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2016) (surgery to remove penile implants implicated bodily‑integrity privacy interest)
United States v. Edwards, 666 F.3d 877 (4th Cir. 2012) (sexually invasive search unlawfulness where manner and risk outweighed interests)
Amaechi v. West, 237 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2001) (Fourth Amendment limits on invasive searches including touching/penetration of genital area)
Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir. 1981) (strip searches bore no relation to security, unconstitutional)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (officers are not immunized when reliance on warrant was objectively unreasonable)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑step framework; courts may address prongs in either order)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established right requires that reasonable official would understand conduct violated law)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith reliance on a warrant generally protects officers but has limits)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity prongs: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (qualified immunity requires officials be on notice that conduct is unlawful)