Amanda Sumpter v. Wayne Cty.

473 permits the Government take reason- SUMPTER, Amanda Plaintiff- litigating positions. Pierce

able v. Un See Appellant, derwood, 552, 566, 2541, 487 U.S. 108 S.Ct. (1988); v. v. L.Ed.2d Glenn Commis Sec., 494, (6th sioner Soc. 763 F.3d COUNTY, al., WAYNE et Defendants- 2014). It of judgment, Cir. is a matter Appellees. however, liti whether Government’s No. 16-2102 gating position this case reasonable. United States Court Appeals , already pre Here the Government had Sixth Circuit. theory on its “taint” of damages vailed 9, Argued: March before the district two courts consid 18, suit, Decided August and Filed: point this able to and was also ered something of cases line where like that Rehearing En Banc Denied theory prevailed this had before and other 25, September 2017* see, courts, e.g., Compton U.S. ex rel. v. Inc., 296, Specialties,

Midwest 142 F.3d (6th 1998); Cir. United States v. Mack (9th 2003); by, 339 F.3d 1018-19 Cir. Rogan, United States (7th 2008). While it true Cir. that we ultimately rejected analogy to those case,

cases in rejec the context this tion mean analogies does not those “supported by were not law and fact” or “justified to a degree satisfy that could person,” required a reasonable under EAJA, Glenn, (in 763 F.3d at 498-99 omitted) quotation (quoting ternal marks Pierce, 2541). 487 U.S. 108 S.Ct. review,

Under abuse discretion where “substantial accorded to the deference”-is court, judgment of the trial Imwalle v. Prods., Reliance Med. 515 F.3d 2008), denial of district court’s fees should affirmed.

* Judge Clay rehearing participation ruling. grant cused would the rea herself from Judge sons in his stated White re- dissent. SUTTON, CLAY,

Before: GRIFFIN, Judges. Circuit J., GRIFFIN, opinion delivered SUTTON, J., joined. the court which 492-503); CLAY, (pp. J. delivered separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

GRIFFIN, Judge. Circuit some Pretrial must tolerate detainees to accom privacy of them order invasion government inter important modate operation of the necessary ests for the instance, For facility. detainees detention suspicionless strip may subjected jail’s pro intake part Freeholders Florence v. Bd. Chosen cess. See Cty. Burlington, 566 U.S. 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012). peri face is The issue whether group strip searches odically conducting waiting to when the inmates number processed searches makes individual imprudent a violation constitutes Amendment law. Un established Fourth case, of this we der the facts answer question “no” therefore hold that the and group jail official conducted the who Graham, searches, Terri enti defendant addition, qualified immunity. to In tled grant affirm the court’s of sum district Dezsi, R. OF- Michael ARGUED: LAW mary judgment in favor of defendants DEZSI, PLLC, R. FICE OF MICHAEL Wayne County Wayne County and the Detroit, Appellant. for Davidde Michigan, claims and plaintiffs Monell Sheriff Stella, COUNTY A. WAYNE CORPORA- declaratory re requests injunctive for and COUNSEL, Detroit, for Michigan, TION lief. Dezsi, Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael R. DEZSI, OF R. LAW OFFICE .MICHAEL I. PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, Appellant, for Stella, Sumpter plaintiff A. WAYNE COUNTY late Amanda Davidde COUNSEL, Detroit, County Wayne Jail in spent a month in the CORPORATION Detroit, Appellees. her Michigan, Michigan.1 During incarcera- Following multiple County felonies from her arrest Jail October 10 November accident, arising of a motor vehicle at which time she was transferred out Wayne Michigan Sumpter Department Corrections to was incarcerated tion, tinted, Sumpter underwent four she saw their silhouettes and be- alleges searches that she violated her they facing lieved were the common area. rights. Fourth Amendment later, years Two in December Three of the searches occurred plaintiff against Graham, filed suit Wayne Registry, jail’s where inmates are routine- County, Wayne and the County Sheriff, ly strip arriving jail searched when first alleging that the searches her con- violated returning from trip outside. Defen- rights. stitutional complaint Plaintiffs al- Corporal dant Terri Graham conducted the leged two first, Fourth Amendment claims: Registry three of plaintiff. No complained she that Graham’s Regis- three deputies present male were for these try searches were unreasonable because time, searches. Each Graham escorted they were conducted in an unprofessional into plaintiff Registry many with as inmates; manner and in front of other five other Although women. the door to the second, alleged she group window, room had it was covered with n her cellblock was unreasonable paper, preventing anyone the Reg- outside guards because male were able watch istry Inside, from observing the searches. from the sought Bubble. Plaintiff mone- undress, Graham instructed the inmates tary, injunctive, declaratory and relief on time, if arriving and for the first behalf of herself and all similarly other she collected their per- street clothes and situated female inmates at Wayne sonal effects. then in- She directed the County Jail. tasks, perform mates a series of includ- ing shaking hair, opening their their certify also filed motions mouths, breasts, lifting squatting their and preliminarily and to enjoin class coughing, visually in- while Graham searches. Before the court district ruled spected for experi- hidden contraband —an motions, these defendants a motion filed ence described as “embarrassing” partial summary First, judgment. Gra- “humiliating.” Afterwards, Graham argued ham quali- entitled to provided attire, the inmates with immunity fied on the Registry-searches the arriving escorted to see inmates medi- claim. Relying on Graham’s affidavit personnel returning cal while the inmatеs deposition testimony that she conducted waited to be taken their cellblock. only the volume when waiting processed of inmates to be re- plaintiff’s

The fourth search occurred it, quired argued defendant Graham cellblock, where inmates are housed. After no case her con- contraband, searching the cells for an un- a duct constituted Fourth Amendment vio- guard gathered identified female in- Second, Wayne County lation. defendants area, mates in the common up, lined them Wayne and the County Sheriff moved and conducted a Ac- search. cording summary judgment plaintiff’s on plaintiff, took cellblock- place grounds plaintiff of search claim the guards’ view the central com- cellblock, post merely alleged isolated incident without commonly mand inside the search, submitting any During showing called the “Bubble.” evidence it was plaintiff policy of an official guards product saw and three male custom. heard Finally, argued inside the Although plaintiffs Bubble. she could not defendants identify glass their faces requests injunctive declaratory because re- prison years. a

serve term of one-to-five On contendere was sentenced on November 29, 2012, plea October of entered nolo 12, 480 of a reasonable rights which constitutional Sumpter did moot

lief because Chappell v. person would have known.” at the time she reside at sued. (6th Cleveland, 901, City 907 585 of defen- agreed with The district court 2009). To a defen Cir. determine whether same fronts. all three dants immunity, qualified is dant entitled to order, prejudice also without denied v. two-part, Pearson perform inquiry, certification, as for class pending motion Callahan, 223, 808, 232, 555 129 S.Ct. U.S. an erra- motion strike plaintiffs well as (2009), we may 565 which 172 L.Ed.2d of part, as ta that defendants filed sheet 236, order, 129 id. conduct either Follow- summary motion.2 judgment their facts al S.Ct. 808. ask whether We judgment, plaintiff entry of final ing leged or “make out a of violation shown appeals. right” constitutional, and “whether ” right ‘clearly established’ issue was IL 232, 129 of Id. at time the incident. ,a court’s district review We Katz, v. (quoting Saucier S.Ct. novo, judgment de grant summary of 2151, 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 150 L.Ed.2d U.S. 918, Oakland, 703 F.3d Cty. v. Keith of (2001)). satisfy A both must (6th 2013). Summary judgment Cir. of inquiries,in defeat assertion order “if movant shows that proper there Wesley Campbell, qualified immunity. any fact genuine dispute no as material ). (6th 421, 428-29 Cir. 779 F.3d 2015 judgment entitled and the movant is 66(a). P. “To Fed. R. Civ. a matter law.” B. prevail, the must show suffi nonmovant genuine to create a issue cient evidence governs Amendment Fourth fact,” say, is to “[t]here which material As in plaintiffs against claim Graham. jury on which the could must be evidence contexts, the le Fourth most Amendment Napier for the reasonably find [nonmovant].” requires gal in this us case standard 739, Cty., Ky., 238 F.3d . Madison v against balance the the intrusion nature 2001) (citation (6th internal Cir. search, though particular the need omitted)". all consider quotation marks “We in, defer setting we afford corrections facts inferences drawn therefrom arid peno- of correctional favor officials’ ence light'most favorable to the nonmov- Florence v. logical expertise and interests. City Wyandotte v. Rail ant.” Consol. Cty. Bur Freeholders Bd. Chosen 2001). Corp., 262 F.3d lington, 566 U.S. (2012) (“[C]ourts should L.Ed.2d III. judgment ordinarily to their expert defer omitted)). (citation matters.” such A. balancing origi- test granted This deferential The district court sum 520, Wolfish, 441 of on the nates U.S. mary judgment in favor Graham from Bell 1861, (1979), 60 immunity. 99 L.Ed.2d qualified of doctrine S.Ct. basis That first confronted governmental from mone where Court officials shields in the of long time the issue tary damages as as “their actions did Bell, In the Court hеld statutory or corrections context. not violate light decision rulings of to challenges ap- claims. our these two substantive 2. Plaintiff judgment arguments contingent summary in defendant’s peal, her are but affirm favor, these respect of her we need not claims. to at least one address success with that a federal center’s arrested for minor detention blanket offenses being and com (cid:127) of conducting body cavity ‍​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍general in- mitted to policy jail’s visual population. Florence, returning 330, of all from spections 338-39, a at detainees U.S. 1510; 340, 132 (Alito, “contact visit” not violate the Fourth S.Ct. id. at S.Ct. did 560, J., ("The 558, concurring) Amendment. Id. at S.Ct. 1861. Court jail holds that with, Along may require administrators holding, its the Court set forth all arrestees who are general committed to the principles” to.guide popula “general analysis jail undergo tion of searches visual conducted corrections of searches!)]”). 545, setting. Id. at 1861. S.Ct. “In addressing type of constitutional by began recognizing Court claim,” said, harkening Court back to pretrial “do forfeit all detainees Bell, “courts judgment must > defer of protections” constitutional result of correctional officials con unless record confinement, id., rights their but their are tains showing substantial evidence their necessarily legitimate goals “the limited policies unnecessary are an unjustified institution,” policies of penal and id. at response problems jail security.” Id. 546, 99 Among legitimate S.Ct. 1861. 322-23, at In response 132 S.Ct. 1510. penal goals “maintaining institution is plaintiffs proposal require reasonable security preserving institutional and inter suspicion searching detainees, before new order discipline,” nal and matters that the the Florence Court held that “[i]t [wás] emphasized exрer Court were within the reasonable ... for correctional officials to prob Id. “[T]he tise corrections officials. conclude this would be standard unwork operation day-to-day lems arise 334, able.” Id. at 132 S.Ct. 1510. Echoing are facility susceptible corrections contentions, administrator’s solutions,” easy id. S.Ct. at Court that the observed offense of arrest said, acknowledging the Court given that a is not a of dangerous reliable indicator naturally corrections official “have a will ness; was, if it even there is often grasp better of his than the domain re insufficient information about each new de viewing judge,” at 99 S.Ct. id. 1861. history in tainee’s criminal order to make Consequently, officials corrections “should assessment; was, thát if there officers wide-ranging accorded deference in the implementation would “encounter serious adoption policies execution trying difficult, difficulties” to make those practices judgment that in their are need fact-intensive assessments under “the preserve ed internal order and disci pressures process.” of the intake Id. at and to pline maintain institutional securi 334-37, light 1510. In 132 S.Ct. of these is, ty.” Id. 1861. That S.Ct. considerations, Court held that'the there is evidence in unless “substantial jail’s policy blanket search “struck a rea haye record indicate that the officials sonable balance between inmate privacy exaggerated response their con these and the needs of the Id. institutions.” siderations!;.]” 548, 99 Id. at 339, 132 S.Ct. 1510. Supreme Court returned to these Florence, our Since court has decided years principles thirty later when revis involving strip several cases searches. Two jail strip the issue of ited Flor argued length these decisions are There, ence. the Court confronted whether this appeal. required jail the Fourth Amendment offi Michigan suspicion The first is Stoudemire v. De-

cials have reasonable before Corrections, (6th searching partment who 705 F.3d new detainees of case, that 2013). guard premise visual conduct prison In that a Cir. “an offense impromptu private in are themselves to an ed subjected plaintiff the individual,” in a standing we concluded dignity she was the strip search while Id. at 566. prison. intentionally touching a naked detain area of the common why she was plaintiff (as the asked did with the debus- When ee the defendants searched, responded, defendant being presence the agent) doing so the ing “[bjecause I The defen- can.” Id. at 566-67. only the hu exacerbates other detainees cell, plaintiff to her then escorted the dant privacy injury personal miliation and busy hallway. Id. adjacent to a which strip searches. Id. naturally attends Inside, to the with the window at 567. Stoudemire, at 572- (quoting 705 F.3d a conducted open, hallway the defendant 73). weighing “significant incursion the her face. Id. with a smirk on search rights” against the plaintiffs’ privacy into search, could During hear searches, we to conduct the facility’s need realized hallway people analy cautioned,. juncture this “[a]t This court found they could see her. Id. sis, case is posture procedural alleged “[A] to be unreasonable. search Id. at 954. Because the case important.” inva- particularly is a extreme strip search came to this court at the motion-to-dismiss sion,” said, location of the we and “[t]he only required stage, “plaintiffs were invasive,” did -it strip search made more than plausibly allege rather, demon — con- which the defendant manner unreasonably.” jail acted strate —that any legitimate it. Id. at As 573. ducted plaintiffs’ proposed Id. that the We held conducting the justification for penological alleged that adminis complaint—which search, cir- that “no special concluded we allowed detainees could trators or “emergency” as an such cumstances” debusing agent privately— self-apply the justified constraints” “time resource plain accomplished Id. Because the that. where others “strip searching Stoudemire availability im alleged “easily tiffs “[Tjaking at 574. could see her naked.” Id. significantly less-invasive plemented and them,” and alleged facts as Stoudemire significantly intrusive to the alternative^]” against balancing significant intrusion conducted, actually we searches that were justifications, penological non-existent alleged a plaintiffs plausibly held plaintiff] has established that “[the we held claim. Id. 955-56. Amendment Fourth Id. a constitutional violation.” City second case Williams C. 2014). Cleveland, F.3d 945 constitutionality was “whether The issue Williams in this case involves issue claim complaint states a constitutional First, three-step analysis. we determine jail, in alleges defendant’s when intrusion, “examining] the nature using procedures, less invasive stead manner, location of the search.” scope,' be pretrial who were compelled detainees Second, Stoudemire, at 572. 705 F.3d facility into the undress ing processed search-, giving for' the “evaluate need presence of other detainees officer’s to the correctional due deference sprayed with genitals have their naked discretionary functions.” of her exercise met delousing pressurized solution from third, whether the Id. “we dеtermine And Bell’s Applying Id. at al canister.” legiti reasonably related test, allegations balancing we held such weighing the interests penological mate Amendment plausible Fourth stated Id. against the invasion.” Starting from the need claim. Id. at 952-55.

483 comments, Nature Intrusion. clean herself “[A] better. These of search, nature, by very reasonableness, its constitutes not of dispositive while personal upon priva an extreme intrusion “implicate dignitary interest ‘inherent Clemons, cy.” (quoting Id. Wood v. 89 F.3d privacy component of the Fourth (1st 1996)); Williams, 928 also Cir. see against proscription Amendment’s unrea ” of stranger F.3d at 952. act Id. (quoting sonable searches.’ Brannum examining private the most areas one’s Bd., v. Cty. Overton Sch. 516 F.3d “is ‘an body dignity offense to the (6th 2008)). together, Cir. scope, Taken ‘undoubtedly humiliating individual’ that is manner, and location the searches over ” deeply many[.]’ to and offensive whelmingly support the conclusion that the Williams, (quoting 771 F.3d at 952 Stoude plaintiff searches especially endured were 572-73). mire, 705 F.3d under Intrusive intrusive.3 circumstances, strip ideal searches are es Nevertheless, the nature of pecially humiliating when are con intrusion only is one of the part inquiry. in front of inmates: ducted other “The An is necessarily intrusive an search search, an wider audience for a one, especially in unreasonable the correc becomes, humiliating especially more setting, tions inmate’s where interest is stripped exposed when the individual being privacy free from invasions must bystanders who the searching do not share yield to of operating the realities a safe officers’ institutional need view her un Florence, system. and effective corrections applies clothed.” Id. аt 953. The same 326-28, 566 U.S. at 132 S.Ct. strip searches conducted discourteous case, every officials re corrections Stoudemire, See manner. F.3d at 573. viewing balance the courts must intrusion These basic teach us principles against particular “the for the need Registry plaintiff en at issue” to determine the search whether intrusion significant dured constituted a Stoudemire, constitutionally tolerable. bodily privacy. into her Graham’s visual (internal quotation F.3d marks inspections plaintiffs body, naked omitted). then, emphasis proceed, We though only skin-deep, pro constituted analysis the second step of deter personal privacy, found intrusion into her mine á whether defendants have asserted only magnified an intrusion the fact legitimate justification penological for con plaintiff exposed several other ducting group searches. Moreover, during inmates each search. that, plaintiff Penological testified she did not while Justification. sort of group plaintiff to humiliate or

believe Graham endured intended her, norm in Ac Registry. harass Graham made several rude were body hy cording applicable during about odor comments her policy detention, plaintiffs guards giene, saying funky she like to con “[s]mells monkey” telling duct searches “out view of her needed solely ing questions of Fourth 3. Our conclusion is based on the evi Amendment "case-by-case pertaining three dence to the searches of “reasonableness” involve deter minations”); Although presents Courtright plaintiff. plaintiff City Bat evidence see also Creek, (6th 2016) other inmates tle Cir. that searches, endured F.3d similar (stating qualified immunity that evidence is irrelevant to wheth that the test specific plain er werе un whether the acts violated searches of "official’s States, right” See United constitutional reasonable. Warshak v. tiff's 2008) (en (stat added) omitted)). banc) (citation (emphasis Heard, the Chief of Jails and Jeriel the possib public and other inmates” “[w]hen changed the later Graham, corrections official who to fol according And le.”4 n.4, recog- supra see policy, “Group searches were policy. that lowed justifica- legitimacy the of Graham’s nized deposition, at her exception,” the she said tion; Thus, question the relevant “not rule.” the understood, also, such I there-is legitimate peno- had a is whether Graham deputies get on the these— pressure deviating for from the logical justification pro- women particularly the (“We- id. mhst further general rule. See inmates — many so of them are cessed because particular for the ‘the need determine seeing medical'professional flagged Bell, (quoting U.S. search’ issue.” ... professional or health mental 1861)). 559, 99 She did. S.Ct. may ... to accel- tried the officers she conducted testified Graham way they get could these'in- the erate upof to five inmates group strip searches floor up ... to the where mates second of inmates high demand- the volume when nurses are. and the doctors explained that when there is a it. She ed continued, emphasizing health- Heard waiting to twenty or more women liné of and-safety implications delay of a in the conducting one-on-one processed, challenge to Registry: a real make “[I]t’s long every inmate “takes a get these inmates .sure that we processed time,” ripple in causes effect which turn wh[om], possible ... some of quickly as as registration process. For on the rest lockup in ... by way, may have been peaks bottleneck dur- example, when the days psychotropic two or three without shift, [in- “sometimes ing the afternoon medication, really acting up.” are shift,” midnight get over left mates] gives us nb reason doubt the delays for inmates wait- causing additional justifi- legitimacy defendants’ asserted only who works ing psychologist to see the court, in In she claims conclu- cation. Conducting day shift. individual legitimate no that there was sory fashion only in those circumstances searches, penological need expedi- impeded facility’s interest justification but she fails address inmates, incoming processing tiously in re- put forward" And defendants. safety of health and compromised the summary motion for sponse to defendants’ delay. up caught those inmates below, plaintiff presented no evi- judgment “I Again, explained: conducted the Graham penological their asserted dispute dence to efficiently as quickly searches as justification, much less “substantial evi- contraband, but only find possible,” Wayne County “exaggerated dence” care, medical needing “to route inmates response to these considerations.” their as care, housing or psychiatric special Bell, 1861. 441 U.S. at large num- quickly possible, because a addition, appears of time passage ' coming moving into the the female inmates Since ber have validated Graham. searches, away periodic group from Jail have mental health issues need in- delays ah increase has seen medical care.” policy or believed Approximately year plaintiff left Office after Sheriffs one the- Jail, Wayne changed County facility searching its con- improper.” We method searches; policy only analysis allow individual immunity qualified fine our change searches, defendants as a insist taken time of the contested measure,” "precautionary “not because Graham, According to process. right take tional sufficiently “[T]he she violated “were booking ‘spilling any inmate incidence over’ definite that reasonable official increased,” into the next shift has which in defendant’s shoes would have understood uptick violating turn has caused an “incidents of that he was it.” v. Rick Plumhoff —ard, U.S. -, 2012, inmates passing attempt- 2023, unsearched 134 S.Ct. (2014). ing pass to 188 dispositive contraband searched in- L.Ed.2d 1056 processed waiting inquiry, light who are “undertaken in specific mates[] case, jail.” into the .Graham has also noticed context of the not as a [and] that broad get takes to general proposition,” “the time it female inmates to is “whether the viola- [personnel] to particular medical treat conditions like tive nature of is clearly conduct — addiction; seizures; care; Luna, colostomy heroin established.” Mullenix v. U.S. (canes, crutches, etc.); -, 305, 308, assistive devices 136 S.Ct. 193 255 L.Ed.2d treatment; (2015) curiam) (first housing mental health has (per quoting Brosseau increased, 194, substantially Haugen, 198, sometimes v. 543 U.S. 125 S.Ct. 596, (2004) hours.” curiam) 160 583 (per L.Ed.2d al-Kidd, 731, and then 563 U.S. reasons, Ashcroft following For these 742, 2074, 131 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions (2011)). Florence, Bell and accord considerable deference assertion that defendants’ is that specificity Nowhere as

they conducted when searches important as in the Fourth Amendment high volume inmates and concomi- context, where, governing under the ad- delays on tant effect inmate health and test, interest-balancing hoc is some “[i]t Florence, safety it. demanded See U.S. for times difficult an officer to determine (“[Correctional 326, at S.Ct. 1510 offi- legal ... how the relevant doctrine will ... cials must have substantial discretion apply the factual the officer situation prob- devise reasonable solutions Saucier, (quoting Id. at 308 confronts.” face.”); Bell, 548, lems at 441 U.S. 205, 2151). at 121 S.Ct. Because U.S. (“[C]ourts ordinarily S.Ct. 1861 should de- “case-by-case, decisionmaking incremental expert fer to judgment their such mat- balancing infrequently tests ... will ters.”). provide qualified-im notice’ that the ‘fair summarize, hand, To on one munity requires,” Evans-Mar precedent plaintiff endured City Exempt Tipp shall v. Bd. Educ. of intrusive; Registry were on the especially Dist., ed 234-35 Sch. Vill. hand, other defendants asserted a le- have (6th 2005), generally “[c]o'urts Cir. accord gitimate penological justification peri- for (for qualified- public officials wide latitude conducting odically Typically, the searches. immunity when purposes) the constitution proceed we would balance the nature of ality of to the their acts down sub comes against penological justi- the intrusion tleties of Citizens in balancing[.]” interest fication to determine the searches whether Husted, Charge, Inc. v. 810 F.3d were unreasonable Fourth under 2016). Thus, it imperative that However, go Amendment. we need “squarely on a rely decision that far in order to determine Gra- governs” the outcome of the case. See qualified immunity. ham is entitled Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. U.S. That she cannot do. Qualified immunity protects a personal constitutional tortfeasor from lia Plaintiff claims that Stoudemire and bility clearly right at is- unless the contours constitu Williams establish course, “[0]f like the one us:

sue, up come short cases before these decisions but First, may good reasons jail Stoudemire have had reasons. several partic- the events in the conducting procedures decided these Williams after Thus, did[,] themselves this case. decisions manner in [b]ut ular which put Graham on notice could not summary a matter ... resolution Id. (citation was unconstitutional. her conduct omitted); judgment!.]” at 955 Id. n.4, responds 125 S.Ct. 596. (“Whether particular see also id. man- right that Stoudemire held ner which the conducted the in that case issue ‘justified’ depends ... early years several as facts[.]”). before Stoudemire, 705 of this case.5 See events Williams, present Unlike case (holding “the F.3d at 575 that state judgment summary at comes us at of the in existence the time law stage, Wayne County Graham established”). At clearly search ... was jus provided legitimate penological have a best, then, by one plaintiffs argument group strip the periodic tification argument But fails be- analogy. even this searches; justification Sumpter that has are cause both Stoudemire and Williams result, obligated disputed. not As a arewe respect: distinguishable important one id. Compare to consider their at evidence. cases, penological there no was both (“[T]he 956 district court cannot have at justification particular for the jail’s ‘justified’ opined that the was conduct issue. This critical makes Stoud- difference which, examining without evidence— poor templates emire and Williams course, it cannot determining do when right at issue declaring particularized merely complaint proposed whether in this from case—freedom claim.”), to state a with Celotex failed by supported legitimаte penologi- Catrett, 317, 323, Corp. v. U.S. 106 justification clearly cal established. See — (1986) (“[A] S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Brosseau, 543 U.S. seeking judgment always party summary cir- (holding factually distinguishable of ... responsibility bears the initial iden precedent “by ‘clearly no cuit means estab- portions pleadings, tifying those of the de lish’ that violated [the conduct defendant’s interrogatories, answers to positions, Amendment”). Fourth file, together with affi ‍​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍ admissions procedural First consider Williams. The davits, any, if which it believes demon posture required of the case this court to genuine the absence of a issue of strate plaintiffs plausible alle- accept as true (internal quotations fact.” omit material gation legiti- that the no defendants had ted)). justification conducting group mate plaintiff Williams, Next consider Stoudemire. searches. 771 F.3d that case Thus, presented evidence there no we had occasion to evaluate exigency no “time or resource con let was any proposed penological justification, conducting the search weigh against justify straints” to alone the nature Indeed, naked, recog- itself others intrusion. Williams where could see nized that its not extend to court to that the search holding did which led this hold Williams, response generally, this 5. We note that does save 2012. See 771 F.3d case, Williams, plaintiff’s argument pertains as it 945. But even if there plain qualified problem did im a more with since Williams not involve fundamental Williams, explained in munity had tiff's reliance on and thus no occasion to declare right clearly issue was established text. any legitimate penological was high “devoid lished law at a level of generality.”). Stoudemire, justification.” 705 F.3d at clearly “[T]he established law- must be governmental 574-75. the absence of ‘particularized’ to the facts the case.” — interest, balancing the outcome of the Pauly, U.S. -, test White 137 S.Ct. obvious, 548, 552, so any obvious that (2017) reason 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (per cu riam) able officer in position (quoting defendant’s Creighton, Anderson v. 635, 640, would known that search was U.S. 107 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed.2d 575; unreasonable. Id. at also Lyons (1987)). see v. 523 We do not read Stoudemire as Xenia, F.3d 565, City ignoring Rather, Stoude- command. “ 2005) (holding ‘clearly that violation of a mire particularized held that the right at right” established’ constitutional occurs issue from espe case—freedom sufficiently “where the violation cially ‘obvi intrusive public search “devoid” general ous’ under justification standards consti .the —was care”). tutional because the outcome of the Fourth Amendment balancing test between Stoudemire, In stark contrast howev- weighty privacy on one hand and interests er, Graham testified without contradiction no governmental interest on the other was that she conducted group searches when (“[A] obvious. See 705 F.3d at 575 reason required time and resource constraints it.’ able officer would have been on notice Stoudemire, Thus, 705 at F.3d 574. the Cf. search unreasonable under clearly right recognized established circumstances and any legiti devoid of public Stoudemire —a strip search “de- penological justification mate to se related justification of void” not put have a —could added)). curity (emphasis and order.” As reasonable officer on notice that what Gra- above, holding discussed its light sheds no ham did—a group supported search actions, on whether Graham’s undertaken legitimate penological justification— circumstances, wholly different un was unconstitutional. constitutionаl. differently. reads Stoudemire According to Sumpter, Stoudemire “identi These differences matter because the fied a right, right countervailing government well[-]established not existence of a subjected humiliating strip be to a necessarily interest affects step the third (or perhaps full of in the analysis, balancing view several constitutional many) others purposes unless is rea calculus. And this critical for of procedure is sonably penological qualified to a legitimate immunity analysis. Regardless related of right out, long balancing actually interest” —a how the plays before one thing the events (empha this Id. at 575 is clear: Stoudemire and case. Williams omitted) Perrill, (quoting sis predicted Farmer v. not have could result since 1254, (10th 2002)). 288 F.3d penological justifica- 1260 neither Cir. But case involved saying “strip supported weigh against tions to nature must by legitimate justification” just put is anoth intrusion.. To it in more descriptive way of saying er easy enough predict “searches must be rea terms: it is how Supreme sonable.” As the apples Court has em scales with one on hundred one end occasions, phasized out, on multiple “that is not will balance but it is far more difficult Saucier, enough.” 202, predict many Oranges at 533 U.S. 121 how must be add- 2151; al-Kidd, see bring equi- S.Ct. also 563 U.S. at ed to the other it to side 742, (“We repeatedly poise. making S.Ct. 2074 have Tasked with that second told courts clearly prediction, ... not to no define estab Graham would found And at 563 U.S. S.Ct. like Stoude- cases “apples-only”

clues especially appropriate is breathing room mire and Williams. is legal standard flexible when the wrong starts with The dissent on-the-ground judg heavily dependent our law It whether case question. asks calls, in this context. See it is ment justifi Offiсer Graham’s clearly establishes Florence, 326, 132 S.Ct. U.S. legiti as a group cation (“[Cjorrectional ... must have officials 494-96. that’s But not mate one. Infra reasonable to devise substantial discretion immunity works. To over qualified how face.”); Bell, problems to the solutions immunity, request come an officer’s (“The test 441 U.S. “right” show plaintiff must capable pre is not ... reasonableness established, clearly seeks to vindicate application.”); or mechanical cise definition justification is not the officer’s O’Malley, 98 F.3d v. see also Hernandez Wegener City clearly established. 1996) (“Contextual bal (6th Cir. Covington, 933 pro out ancing be worked tests should 1991). right issue is the be free expense than at the spectively, rather the offi from search where wrong fu guess about public officials who process need cer has an administrative searches, legal developments.”). Strip ture at one time. The large quantity inmates private in the most even when conducted situation, and so address this cases fail circumstances, But in ab are intrusive. not) (and clearly estab right bright prohibi per sence lines and se focusing only half of In' one lished. tions, in subject and when whether the bur right-at-issue, dissent inverts increasingly mates to. intrusive searches officer, den, than the leaving the rather confronting the cor depends on the facts in need of established law plaintiff, particular in each case. rections official also focuses much to succeed.-The dissent question a not of on we do energy its reasons, need not For these whether searches violate address: analysis Fourth Amendment conduct key Amendment. Its points Fourth —that in to that completion to its order conclude (or clarified) its chаnged poli later qualified immunity. to Graham entitled other alterna cy, that had Officer Graham Williams, Stoudemire, nor nor Neither her, she to and that could tives available case, any put Graham other would have anticipated planned situation have group conducting that notice accordingly fail to whether address —all of the volume inmates made when law at the time imprudent was unrea individual searches Fourth violations. as Amendment Thus, of Gra regardless sonable. whether of .that a The decision absence ham, fact, in Fourth -the Amend violated partic governs” “squarely this situation is ment, no officer would reasonable be plaintiffs to claim ularly detrimental hold, time. therefore known that at the We cause, is one test when the. constitutional (cid:127) did, that defendant district court which .interest-balancing,, point immunity. qualified to is entitled Graham into, the shades unconsti constitutional Brosseau, necessarily gray. tutional will IV. Qualified 125 S.Ct. 596. 543 U.S. summary granted The district court give public officials

immunity exists to also County Wayne in judgment when favor room make close calls breathing al-Kidd, in his official Wayne County Sheriff not issue is black-and-white. ensuring capacity supe- Fourth that he see his plaintiffs Amendment failed action”). Ac- regarding signal rior’s to discontinue the claim the cellblock search.6 testimony not in cepting happen that three this case. plaintiffs That did cell- guards may male have observed the The shows plaintiff record that search, that the district court ruled block failed to marshal the collection affidavits liability imposed “municipal cannot be in an effort establish that the cellblock upon county upon the defendant a based search was not an isolated incident. Plain single alleged of an incident tortfeasor’s by dropping tiff she insists did so a foot conduct.” response note motion defendant’s argues that the district court on, stating she that “relies and incorpo ' mistakenly that her held cellblock search herein, the rates affidavits opposi “single that was a incident.” She contends summary judgment.” tion to But this is the the record contains hundreds of affidavits summary judgment equivalent “hid[ing] recounting similar from former inmates elephants See mouseholes.” Whitman v. incidents, evidence contends demon- Trucking Ass’ns, Am. 531 U.S. Wayne County policy that strates had (2001). 121 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d permitting this unconstitutional conduct. of this during context offhand reference — Only by turning eye a “blind toward argument separate Registry Graham’s evidence,” plaintiff argues, record could searches were unreasonable —shows that the district court hold hers was not employ she did the affidavits in sup isolated incident. of her port fact, cellblock search claim. In plaintiffs problem argument Sumpter with did mention this Monell claim “turn in her response reflected her choice idiom. To at all to summary judg eye” presupposes only someone has been Her brief blind ment. refers claims, prefers ig- information he given Monell cell- blind, Dictionary officers, nore. See En- block searches male front of Oxford (3d 2009) (explaining single Idioms then glish only ed. and even offhand short, phrase is a to Admiral Hora- remark.7 reference because failed Nelson, who, receiving bring tio after word the district affidavits him superior signaling his officer to court’s attention in connection with the claim, Copenhagen, of it occasion stand down at the Battle cellblock no to con had in Chicago his to his “there- that telescope eye, lifted blind sider them context. Title ed, seeking Sumpter's summary The also allow "in- dissent would "Defendants are not judgment regarding dividual” search as to claim Plaintiff's claims that her cellblock search, presence proceed. presence of male officers to in the of members of the sex, problem The main opposite at 488-89. is that of was a her violation Fourth Infra Sumpter Sumpter no' claim. sued rights.” has such Amendment was mistaken. She The only individually: one officer Officer Graham. final motion section-of for sum- defendants’ Sumpter alleges par- And while mary judgment, Graham "Plaintiff entitled Cannot Es- searches, ticipated in the Liability intake does Municipal Claim tablish Under allege participated 1983,” cell- that Graham argued, "[Ejven. assuming § .in search, Sumpter block search. As to that sued alleged was searched in the manner Plaintiff (in only County County’s and sheriff deposition testimony, single in her in- capacity). his official being duty deputies of male stance during is to station insufficient Wayne had thought County unconsti- apparently establish an 7. Plaintiff defendants policy exposing summary judgment forcibly female in- seeking were not on this tutional guards.” to male response, At of her in a claim. the outset she stat- mates state undress 490 985, 995 Magnuson, standing

Ins. and Corp. v. 487 F.3d doctrines similar, (“[T]he they are (6th 2007) mootness are but not the party ‘has opposing Cir. City Angeles same. See v. Lyons, Los duty court’s an to direct the affirmative 109, 95, 1660, 461 U.S. 103 75 S.Ct. specific portions of the attention to those (1983). Standing seeks L.Ed.2d to en 675 it to cre upon rely seeks record which plaintiff “personal sure has a stake fact.’” ate issue of genuine material controversy” the outcome at the Morris, 654, re 260 665 (quoting In F.3d Carr, of litigation. outset Baker v. 369 U.S. (6th 2001))). Nor fаult the will we Cir. 186, 204, 691, 663 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d failing district for to do so. court We (1962). Mootness, hand, on the other “is again, said time district courts cannot and , that, although an saying akin case actual dig through expected the record to existed, changed once cir controversy party’s find of a action. the seeds cause destroy intervened to cumstances have See, Co., e.g., v. J.C. & Street Bradford Election, standing.” Primary In re: 2016 (6th 1989). 1472, 1479-80 F.2d Cir. (6th 2016). Cir. site, genu identifying must mark each mootness just common refrain that summary preclude ine of fact that disputes “standing frame” cap set in time best judgment particular ex Stiles claim. distinction; temporal standing tures the Tenn., Grainger Cty., rel. 819 F.3d D.S. at applies starting gun, sound 2016). The court district up the picks baton from mootness plaintiffs obligation had no do work See there. U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Ger her, affirm the nor do we. We therefore 388, 397, 100 aghty, U.S. granting summary judgment decision (1980) (quoting Monaghan, L.Ed.2d 479 favor of on the cellblock search defendants Adjudication: The Constitutional Who claim.8 (1973)). When, 82 Yale L.J. relevant, temporal That distinction V. to the least relation district court’s deci sion, plaintiffs injunc- because claims plaintiffs injunc- This leaves claims declaratory present tive relief did declaratory relief. tive The district controversy an actual case or the time court claims were moot held these Hence, complaint. she filed is more her longer plaintiff no because housed accurate say standing she lacked Wayne County Jail and Wayne claims, bring rather than say they these changed formally County policy Jail its moot. are prohibit group strip searches. affirm We judgment to grant summary III satisfy standing, To Article decision claims, though show, among other things, these conclude must standing, fact,’” oрposed ‘injury that she doctrine “suffered 555, mootness, Lujan v. Wildlife, the correct 504 is rationale. U.S. Defs. of 1197, (1989). that, Sumpter has L.Ed.2d 412 But a 8. We also note because S.Ct. 103 municipality deliberately group Registry violat shown that the cannot indiffer law, Wayne County failing officers to clearly ed ent to train avoid consti can failing that have not not be liable for train officers to tutional violations been its Hagans Municipalities Cty. for a such. v. avoid them. are liable established as Franklin (6th 505, Office, F.3d 511 failure to train when the failure 695 Cir. amounts Sheriff's 2012); City rights persons Arrington-Bey indifference to the v. deliberate of Bedford Ohio, 988, City Heights, come 995 with whom its officers into contact. 858 2017). Harris, 378, 388, Canton v. 489 U.S. 109

491 560, 112 2130, 119 (1992) (“[P]ast S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 351 injury no continuing, pres- [with] (citations omitted), and must do so ent adverse effects ... cannot establish relief, form of Casey, each Lewis v. 518 standing for declaratory injunctive and re- 343, n.6, 2174, U.S. 358 116 S.Ct. 135 lief”). (1996) (“[Standing

L.Ed.2d 606 is not dis pensed in In gross.”). context claims The foregoing plain renders relief, injunctive declaratory or “a tiffs challenges to the district court’s deci plaintiff must show he is threat under sion argues moot. She the district suffering ‘injury fact’ that is concrete reasoning court’s overlooks cases like Ger particularized,” and and that must “threat 103, Pugh, 854, stein v. 420 95 S.Ct. U.S. imminent, be actual conjectural or (1975), Iowa, 43 54 L.Ed.2d Sosna v. hypothetical[J” Summers v. Earth Island 393, 553, 419 95 42 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 532 Inst., 488, 493, 129 1142, 173 555 U.S. S.Ct. (1975), recognize which she spe claims (2009). L.Ed.2d 1 exposure to ille “[P]ast cial in putative rule action class cases gal ... unaccompanied by any conduct where the plaintiffs named claim moot effects,” continuing, present adverse will ed before the class can be certified. But not suffice to present establish “a case those cases help plaintiff are no because controversy.” Lyоns, 102, 461 U.S. at 103 parties live, the complaining had a action Littleton, (quoting S.Ct. 1660 v. O’Shea 414 injunctive claim for able relief the time 488, 495-96, 669, U.S. 94 S.Ct. 38 L.Ed.2d say, filed suit—which is to they had (1974)). Yet, “past exposure 674 illegal Gerstein, standing. See 420 at 110 U.S. precisely plaintiff conduct” is what alleges n.11, 854; Sosna, 402, 95 S.Ct. U.S. at here. 95 S.Ct. 553. Plaintiff also insists that her Sumpter subjected claims she was fits exception suit for cases that are separate strip four searches as an in “capable yet evading of repetition, review.” Wayne County mate Jail between But that exception cannot cure lack of However, October November Earth, standing, see Friends Inc. v. 2012, she left the November and we (TOC), Inc., Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. only speculate can as to whether she will 167, 190-91, 693, U.S. S.Ct. ever this juncture, return. At we must (2000), L.Ed.2d moot even plaintiff assume that “will conduct [her] context, only applies ness when “there is activities within the and so ... law avoid expectation reasonable the same exposure challenged to the course of con complaining party subject will be to the O’Shea, 497, duct.” 414 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. Kemna, again,” Spencer same action v. 669. The of ‍​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍future injury likelihood is fur 1, 17, U.S. 118 S.Ct. 140 L.Ed.2d 43 ther diminished the fact that defen added) (1998) omitted) (bracketing (emphasis changed dants have their official policy to (quoting Corp., Cont’l Bank Lew prohibit group strip searches. the ab 472, 481, U.S. 110 S.Ct. demonstrating sence evidence a “suffi Again, L.Ed.2d 400 there is no ciently real being and immediate” threat of (1990)). plaintiff indication that intends to return to subjected searches at the Wayne County anytime Jail soon. We Wayne County again, Jail id. at therefore affirm the deci district court’s failed establish has grant summary judgment sion standing plain injunctive to seek declaratory relief, injunctive see tiffs claims' for Supremе declaratory Grendell v. Ohio and Court, 828, 2001) 252 relief. in municipal liability claims presented her

VI. strip four searches. the with connection severity of- do not the We underestimate below, respect- stated For the reasons I during the her intrusions endured majority opinion disagree fully with Wayne County incarceration in the Jail. proceedings for further and remand would practice strip searches “instinctive with this dissent-and consistent direct Bell, gives pause.” 441 U.S. ly us the most viability court to consider district 558, However, is our task 1861. designa- request for class action Plaintiffs particularized whether determine tion. actions right implicated by defendant’s was plaintiff clearly at the time BACKGROUND above, explained For the reasons searched. fails .to mention majority Because the con that it was not. further' hold We by many of facts reflected record properly court district- clude Plaintiff; by as testified to the record and judgment in favor of granted summary provide needs be reviewed order claim plaintiffs cellblock defendants giving events the factual context declaratory injunctive and claims to Plaintiffs claims. rise relief. 2012, August Plaintiff was involved On n judgment of affirm the We therefore three of 'a -car accident and close her district court. (R. 44, seriously injured. friends were Summary Judgrhent, Page Defs.’ Mot. for 1455.) graduated high ID # Plaintiff had DISSENT year prior to accident school a CLAY, Circuit-Judge, dissenting. college graphic to be a planned attend (R. 44-2, Tr., Page ID designer. Dep. PL’s officer turns on This' case whether 1490-91.) 9, 2012, # Plaintiff On October county penological justifica- had charged with reckless was arrested .and searching group Plaintiff in a tion for strip driving August connection with the majority The entire with inmates. other' (Id.) Immediately follоwing 2012 accident. on the officer’s am- opinion predicated arrest, as an in- her Plaintiff was housed testimony generalized biguous and Wayne County in the Jail from Octo- mate urgent which neces- there was situation 9, 2012, through November ber strip There is searches. sitated the 2.) (R. 1, Page ID # Prior to Compl., her indicating every no in the record basis accident, never in- car Plaintiff had been strip time searched Plaintiff (R. 1511.) jail: 44-2 at carcerated special circumstance at group, there was majority incorrectly During 34-day stay county at the thus her time. strip jail, enti- searched at least that Defendant Terri Graham is Plaintiff was holds (R. times. 44-2 at immunity separate that Plain- four qualified tled 15,01.) three successfully her munic- Plaintiff was searched tiff defend failed Registry, an intake liability claim in connection with the times which ipal change out of their area the inmates cellblock search. The law estab- where provided into the that the three clothes clothes lishes street (Id. 1499.) Registry Wayne jail. in the Plaintiff testified conducted Regis- in the County searched Jail and search conducted when she was officer, Graham, try, a female conducted in the cellblock Plaintiffs constitu- violated and there were at five rights. persuasively tional most also units, female inmates in the room -withher housing cellhlocks, the other (Id.) Registry room time. The each had a are conducted contraband. (Id. glass. (Id. separated by 1502.) that was First, wall at at the individual cells are 1500.) (Id.) Graham was inside the room with Then, searched. once the cells have inmates, the another female and officer searched, been the inmates are ordered (Id.) glass. on the was other side the out of their cells form a line along the (Id.) floor in the common area. The com- Although the officers did not male enter mon tables, chairs, area the with is area room during three these searches in and television in middle the floor Registry, Plaintiff able to hear housing (Id.) where the units are located. coming glass male voices from behind the Also on this floor area called .the on the other of the wall Regis- side station, duty “bubble” or where the offi- (Id.) try. conveyed The to Plaintiff voices cers stand in order view the cells and impression being she viewed (Id. 1502-03.) common area on floor. at by glass. the males on side of the the other glass There a tinted screen around the questioning Plaintiff the male about bubble through which officers can see. heard, sought voices she Defendants (Id. 1504.) at have Plaintiff admit that those voices could coming have been from a room from which search, During this fourth Plaintiff was Plaintiff been would not have viewed while in line front of stand the cells ordered (Id.) being strip she was At the searched. with the other female inmates her floor. least, very dispute exists factual as to (Id. 1503.) at The women were then told to jail permitted whether the Plaintiff to be take each their piece clothing, off shake by during male officers viewed three out, breasts, clothing their lift hold out strip searches. (Id. arms, 1502.) cough. squat, their and at A supervis- female officer was involved in During Registry, ing this strip Plaintiff search. testified that body Graham criticized Plaintiffs odor and officers, male there three one cleanliness. were and deliberately Graham humiliat- that, officer, standing female in the bubble dur- by telling ed Plaintiff she her smells (Id. 1503.) ing at Al- search. “funky monkey” like a and that Plaintiff though could not (Id.) Plaintiff see male needed better. clean herself Gra- officers’ thе tint on the also faces because those ham female handled inmates screen, glass were men way knew menstruating potential- who were male she heard voices because and saw ly hazardous for their health. Plaintiff wit- buff of “three male officers” silhouettes being nessed inmates female (Id. 1504.) standing the bubble. at monthly inside cycle, while on searched their facing Plaintiff saw the male silhouettes fluid described how menstrual was discard- presumably viewing her direction her Registry, the floor in the ed which (Id. (Id. in front of them. at nobody attempted scene up. to clean 1505.) 1512.) Plaintiff testified that further Gra- light

ham would also candles and incense majority that the believes evidence alleged due to the smell caused presented genu- in this case fails raise a female inmates who searched. ine dispute of fact as to material Plaintiffs (Id. 1500.) disagree. any claims. I lacks record In October the fourth search oc- lawfully indication that acted Defendants curred the unit where the inmates towards Plaintiff the other female in- (Id.) county jail county jail. are These mates housed. housed at the 494 legal ‘objective rea- generally turns on the and embar- humiliated repeatedly

was action,” “assessed of the sonableness’ of Defendants’ a result direct rassed ‘clearly that were light legal of the rules Although having never in this case. actions it was taken.” at the time crime, established’ no point of a convicted been 635, 639, Creighton, U.S. v. 483 Anderson in- was Plaintiff during her incarceration (cita- (1987) 3034, 523 97 L.Ed.2d 107 S.Ct. protocols or jail’s policies formed omitted). a gov- To determine whether tion rights and her regarding strip qualified im- official is entitled (Id. ernment such searches. connection with (1) munity, two-prong a tеst: apply 1504-05.) argue that the rec- Defendants facts, light in the when taken whether the to hold them accounta- sufficient ord asserting party to the most favorable actions, majority obvi- and the for their ble conduct violated injury, show the official’s agrees. ously (2) right; whether the constitutional follow, respectful- I For the reasons clearly such right violated was ly dissent. under- official would “that a reasonable doing violates that what he is stand that DISCUSSION 640, Anderson, 107 483 U.S. right.” Qualified Immunity S.Ct. A. a constitutional determining § 1983 establishes “a whether 42

Title U.S.C. “[tjhe established, key deprivation right color of under cause action law, a defendant mov- any rights, privileges or is whether of state of determination qualified judgment or on by ing the Constitution for summary secured immunities that his immunity grounds v. notice Horn Madi of United States.” laws 653, Court, alleged 22 actions were Cty. Fiscal F.3d 656 unconstitutional.” son (6th claim, 302, 1994). (6th Drury, 313 Grawey To succeed F.3d Cir. v. 567 “(1) 2009). ordinarily immunity deprivation “Qualified must show Cir. no reason- by applies laws unless it is obvious right secured Constitution (2) con- by per ably competent caused official would of the United States unlaw- taken were the color state cluded that the actions acting son under law.” Cleveland, Servs., City 585 Chappell 555 v. Dominguez Med. F.3d ful.” v. Corr. 2009) 2009) (citation (6th 901, (6th omit- Sigley (quoting Cir. v. 907 Cir. 549 ted). 533 Heights, 437 F.3d City Parma 2006)). However, doctrine “[t]he Court has admonished Supreme government qualified immunity protects situations, officials prison in most liability damages for civil officials ‘from wide-ranging defer be accorded “should not violate their conduct does insofar as poli adoption ence and execution statutory or constitu clearly established judgment their practices cies and person reasonable rights tional which a order and are internal preserve needed to ” Callahan, v. known.’ Pearson would have se institutional discipline and maintain 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. U.S. 520, 547, Bell curity.” Wolfish, v. 441 U.S. (2009) (quoting Harlow v. L.Ed.2d (1979). “To S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 800, 818, 102 Fitzgerald, U.S. def appropriate that courts afford ensure (1982)). 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d officials, Supreme prison [the erence regu prison “[Wjhether protected ha[s] official determined by qual- Court] constitutional alleged infringe personally lia- lations immunity may be held ified a ‘reasonableness’ rights judged are under allegedly for an unlawful official action ble ordinarily test less restrictive than that Lastly, functions.” Id. we “determine applied alleged infringements of funda whether the search was reasonably related mental rights.” constitutional O’Lone legitimate penological interests Shabazz, 342, 349, Estate 482 U.S. 107 weighing against the need the invasion.” of 2400, (1987). 96 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 282 Id. Supreme The Court has articulated the foremost, First and the record in this “[Wjhen

following prison regu standard: case our jurisprudence and clearly demon- impinges lation on inmates’ constitutional strate that strip three searches con- rights, regulation is valid if it is rea in Registry ducted violated Plaintiffs sonably legitimate penological to related constitutional rights. penological justi- The 78, Turner Safley, interests.” 482 U.S. given fication by Graham to outweigh fails 89, 2264, (1987). S.Ct. 96 107 64 A L.Ed.2d of privacy invasion Plaintiffs rights. discretionary correctional actions officer’s personnel Jail must be to held a certain are reviewed under the same deferential of decency standard civility. human standard. Florence v. Bd. Chosen Free of Although detainees, otherwise known as 318, Cty. Burlington, holders 566 U.S. of of inmates, enjoy privacy rights less than 326, 1510, 132 S.Ct. 182 L.Ed.2d 566 non-detainees, privacy still have (2012).Despite given pris the deference rights. v. Dahlberg, 912, Cornwell 963 F.2d actions, on official’s Supreme Court (6th 1992) (“[A] 916 Cir. prisoner convicted has instructed courts must “federal maintains some expectations reasonable of cognizance take of the constitutional valid privacy prison in ... though while even Turner, prison of claims inmates.” 482 privacy rights may those be than less 84, 107 U.S. at S.Ct. 2254. enjoyed by those non-prisoners.”). Supreme Court advises the federal it clearly held that was We established that, courts prisoner alleges where a an at least since strip 2007 “that search, unconstitutional performed view of other inmates with- [tjhe test of reasonableness under the legitimate penological out a justification Fourth requires Amendment.... a bal- inmates’ violates ancing of the for particular need Fourth rights.” Amendment Salem v. against personal search of the invasion Corr., 526, Dep’t Fed.Appx. Mich. of rights that the search entails. Courts (6th 2016); Cir. see also Amaechi v. scope particular must consider the West, (4th 356, 2001), 237 F.3d Cir. intrusion, it con- the manner in which Park, v. Village and Iskander Forest ducted, it, justification initiating for (7th 1982). 690 F.2d Cir. We held place which it is conducted. Stoudemire, although an officer Bell, 441 U.S. at may searching valid reason for words, inmate, special provided In other first “no we “the circumstances examine manner, scope, justifications strip location of for searching additional justification search —as well as for ini- Stoudemire where others could see her tiating it—in degree order In assess naked.” 705 F.3d 573-74. Williams v. Cleveland, prisoner’s right City

which invaded the ruling we reiterated the privacy.” Dep’t Stoudemire v. Mich. Stoudemire that there “exi- needs Corr., 2013). (6th gent compelling F.3d Cir. circumstances” the officer Next, search an inmate in “evaluate the need view other search, giving due to the correc- 955-56 deference inmates. 771 2014). tional officer’s discretionary exercise her case, planned proper allo- advance have been this Graham would By cation of

justified searching county county’s one-on- resources. reckoning, one her for contraband own occurred in order circumstance initially every days. when entered once ten she back from court and came when left miti- frequency of this ’occurrence However, appearances. justifica Graham’s gates against characterizing the influx searching part Plaintiff as tion emergen- to an “special,” inmates as “akin emergency akin to an must be cy,” “exigent,” extremely unlikely or It is satisfy the Fourth Amend in order exigent, that there emer- special,. prohibition ment’s warrantless gency-like every circumstances time the Stoudemire, at 574 searches. openly strip officer publicly and searched emergency (finding “no such that made group Registry. Plaintiff in a in the necessary.... search there [because] given reason: not so by the officer- was sup no or constraints time resource that circumstance, special much about a but [public] for ported need such the a[] jail. regular, concerned a occurrence the search”). justification strip for Graham’s going to Arguably, jail always the is have searching group setting Plaintiff in a on a needing pro- an- influx of to be inmates of was not akin to an number occasions the cessed. The officer testified that reason justified emergency. her actions Graham strip- she would the women search by claiming an of there was influx that to groups “if have was because search to processed to 25 inmates thаt needed be time, long one them at a it takes a time.” day, of the before the end otherwise— (R. 44-4, Page ID # Dep., Graham according to with Graham —those inmates (testifying average number of the fe- overnight have to cards would wait medical each processed day inmates to be male professional. aby to be medical At seen might sug- be 20 therefore or which early litigation, of stage this the Plaintiff gests that of “influx” inmates did not this to verify has little opportunity had Gra n occur all infrequently but rather the re self-interested assertions with ham’s time).) possible explanation A for justification proce to gard jail’s procedure that Gra- search case involve dures—which this would jail personnel ham and to other resorted availability of reviewing jail’s per necessity, procedure out not of- but funding con sonnel resources strip to they because conduct desired strip duct searches. searches accommodate their quickly to justify strip cannot group Graham personal own convenience. such as those searches which n The proper course of action Graham subjected merely because there were during alleged should have taken these may may some female inmates who or to process have been “influxes”.would have found need medi- immediate been strip search those with inmates medical why cal One treatment. of the reasons this first, time, pro- cards and one at before processing inmates was not akin , cessing the medical inmates without cards. emergency is because influx of 20 to Graham testified medical even something hap- inmates was cards, usually given medical are pens flags, subjeсt once a while. Plaintiff was Thus, before strip occur. strip searches Gra- group Regis- three in the try prior conducting ham 34-day the course her brief would know stay over to. strip searches county jail. minimum, at the At a this non- which needed inmates professional exigent immediately be anticipated situation -and see medical could proposed sys- part inmates testimony, which did not. This time. This of Graham’s prioritizing medical majority conveniently tem those with which the fails first way mention, one have cards would enough should be reason for us violating problem solved Graham’s without find that searches endured any rights. inmate’s constitutional The ma- by Plaintiff were unconstitutional.

jority undiscerningly accepts Graham’s Graham also that in testified late justification less considering without intru- a directive received which clarified the by and offensive means which the sive policy jail personnel. processed. inmates female been could November 2013 directive circulated shocking opprobrious Such county jail management jail instructed all person’s parts body most intimate personnel search female inmates explana- front ‍​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍of on-lookers with a blanket “one inmate a time room” dress has to county tion whenever the by an gender officer same and out inmates, a lot of process female can persons view of opposite gender. publicly strip searched in can- groups, (See 44-6, Wayne County R. Di- Divisional justified. not be Stoudemire and Williams rective,' 1557.) Page ID # The directive emphasize both that these circumstances jail personnel also instructed the to “be “special,” to be “exigent,” need or and professional (Id.) at all times.” di- The to an emergency.” “akin As discussed specify rective fails to appropriate circum- above, all three of these circumstances are jail stances which personnel under per- are lacking in this case. depart mitted to from policies. the This majority also all The fails construe especially is directive to our relevant anal- in reasonable inferences from the evidence ysis says what it because and when light the most favorable to Plaintiff as the August 2012, was circulated. a few non-moving party. Ciminillo See prior months the circulation of di- the Streicher, 434 F.3d rective, a female inmate an action filed 2006). by The the evidence ma- recited against Jail, Wayne County alleging paints picture a jority at with the odds group strip claims of being con- searches transpired actual events that in this case. ducted, Plaintiffs, similar in a humiliat- majority that The fails to mention ing derogatory manner, in and sometimes group strip not authorized searches were presence of male fact officers. The that policy by any county jail affirmatively the directive was all jail per- circulated to nor approved, were the searches carried sonnel, it specifically and that emphasized objective way. in admits in Graham out jail personnel how are not- strip testimony her that she reason groups, female inmates in supports Plain- groups in searched inmates rather tiffs contention that group strip such due, groups part, than in of 6 or in 7 was searches contrary are unconstitutional and 5:1 ratio “transporting” prison- jail’s 1538.) policy. timing The (R. when 44-4 ers. at also that She admits circulated also supports directive was group was no рolicy approving there group contention that searches, strip strip 5 is searches and that the number only inappropriate against not something were and up came arbitrarily jail (Id.) policy, by but would not be tolerated takeaway herself. from the with jail or not testimony simple: administration. Whether officer’s is strip actually against car- were searches searches Plaintiff endured jail’s according policy strip at the time she subjective ried out the. arbitrary searched, duty whims of the via- officer Plaintiff nevertheless has provides little evidence demon- majori- that the Graham This is evidence

ble claim. every strip time she strating that searched analysis. from its ty omits exigent group, in there was an in the Additionally, is evidence there at that time. The evidence circumstance charge person that even the record ambiguous is presented Graham county process the intake managing specific as to what generalized, and not discover, unaware, shocked to jail specific happened those dates. Heard conducting group strip officers were only to the intake and Graham testified Heard, Jeriel of female inmates. general and the esti- process Management at the Population Director mated number of inmates would Jail, that he was Wayne County testified do purported influx. still caused the We openly that female inmates were not aware know, Plaintiff was days on those 44-8, (R. Jeriel groups. searched searched, the number inmates whether 97-98.) stated ID # He Dep., Page Heard to20 processed reached that needed to that: or justification, lack there- officer’s of, special, is sufficient indicate exigency of get caught up in the Officers exigent, emergency circumstance neces- Some- dealing [inmates]. with ... 25 sitating group strip searches. to 50 fe- booked

times we have day, have two female and we males “ripple that the further testified Graham officers there. conducting effect” of individual female [the that “sometimes reason, So, know, you you shift,” get midnight over to left inmates] know, you have to reiterate di- get processed inmates who cannot officers will policies because rectives and processed during afternoon shift are the or stress and do under duress feel (R. shift, 44-4 at midnight or shift. the next they they that know things they are — 76.) Thus, that an the amount of time all, And, it’s doing. first of shouldn’t be get processed waiting be inmate would mean, I it. I not safe for them to do no a of hours. There is could be difference object I want because wouldn’t would indication, any pro- evidence been nor has strip searching five one officer to be Graham, would by delay that such vided same time. inmates at the being subjected any of the inmates (Id. 98.) processed to a health risk. testimony clearly demonstrates Heard’s majority The issue as the frames it strip group the that conducted Graham our establish that whether cases jail’s poli- searches in contravention group expedite search conducted put in a the officer’s cy and manner the access to treatment violates medical The officer safety inmates’ at risk. However, Fourth that is de- Amendment. inmates responsible processing for female Rather, finitively in this not the issue case. compelling jail required into the a more justification the the true issue is whether in- strip searching for femаle justification by sufficiently demon- provided Graham in groups mates than that would other special, exigent, emergency or strates other, in- take were less less time. There that such circumstance which necessitated concern humiliating jail pro- officer’s intake solutions an invasive and trusive presence in of oth- efficiency consis- for that would have been cess conducted no reason to such on this issue. ers who had view jurisprudence tent with our testimony Heard’s things.1 ' searches-in the Registry not were conduct- Furthermore,’ the majority’s interpreta- jail’s ed with accordance policy, and tion of the relevant case law on this issue likely in accor- -conducted Stoudemire, is completely In flawed. dance with personal Graham’s preferences considered, along with numerous other fac- or to -personal suit her convenience. Addi- tors, the lack any of evidence of con- time tionally, Graham is not clear as to the justifying straints public the need for the (cid:127)specifics surrounding the Registry three strip search. F.3d at This finding, 574. Stoudemire, group strip searches. In however, render Stoudemire in- does search specifics surrounding applicable for purposes of our determina- particular search were clearly documented case. Stoudemire tion in this emphasizes by sufficient evidence in the record. It was key point, which is that analyz- the test for Stoudemire clear jail personnel ing prison inmate is a balancing searches no special had time constraints other test, capable and “not of ... mechanical - justifications conducting application” suggested by majority as .the view of the othеr inmates. Con- opinion. Bell, 441 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. versely, the record this case is bereft of lack of time constraints surrounding the details Registry three Stoudemire does not make it irrelevant Bell, Supreme searches. In purposes. point our is that it does explicitly Court stated that the courts are appear that the officer in this ease with responsibility tasked to determine any emergency-like under time constraints particular “the need search” at during any of particular -in (em- issue. U.S. 99 S.Ct. 1861 certainly, the Registry; the record below added). phasis We are unable do that fails to any indicate such time constraints. present- the deficient Stoudemire, Thus, ease.with record weighs like this factor ed to us on appeal. in favor of Plaintiff. claim, Despite majority’s Williams

Stoudemire also supports Plaintiffs ar- guidance also offers for our determination. gument given the scant documentation Williams, plaintiffs’ we held that alleged “exigent circumstance” offered involving group strip claims circumstance, exigent Graham. The officer, should survive the motion to argued by defendant’s the is that the inmates Although Williams dismiss. did not speedily strip to be involve needed searched so summary judgment, motion for that we provided could be medical treat- nev- propositions ment as ertheless asserted of possible. Despite soon law re- Gra- assertion, garding justification ham’s the provided pro- she has not suffi- the defendant why cient as to at Williams evidence such an vided the time. stated in there We was “exigent “[gjiven significant circumstance” that time the the incursion into the performed plaintiffs’ rights searches. privacy by -caused the jail’s preferred Plaintiff. It is clear from searching Graham’s and methоd and .of scenarios, regard Wegener City many 1. With to its citation of v. established. Under factual (6th Covington, 933 F.2d Cir. when, together up by both issues are bound 1991), majority baffling the makes the claim way example, is able to demon- misapply qualified that Plaintiff seeks to the clearly strate that her constitu- immunity by seeking doctrine to show that rights tional were violated but the accused justification clearly officer’s is not estab- attempts justification officer to establish a lished, rather than that Plaintiff’s constitu- might arguably excuse the violation. violated, right, clearly tional which was was onlookers, and con jail’s per- private, without was delousing need to [plaintiffs], making in particular form man- without the officer offen searches ducted unusually it can harassing ner must be dire before comments. Graham did sive and plaintiffs’priva- the affront to outbalance in the manner out not conduct search response to cy.” at 954. In in by F.3d our even decision lined Dufrin justification for. de- purported defendant’s outra though on notice such she was lousing plaintiffs’ genitals spray- with not be geous conduct and offensive would ' ing agent, that “there is no we stated strip tolerated. Graham searched self-application question permitting in other inmates view numerous female delousing solution be less humil- would harassing com and made offensive and- iating than the ‘hose treat- invasive and alleged smell ments about Plaintiffs Williams, Id. 955. ment.’” Similar cleanliness, derogative and used the lack prioritizing-the question no there is “funky monkey” to describe Plaintiff. tern of medical care with medi- inmates need insulting Although offensive and Graham’s cal of the other inmates would cards ahead strip per search render remarks do not alleged timing prob- have solved Graham’s Sowders, unconstitutional, “see Roden v. se lem, importantly, more would have 2003) (6th 611, 613 Cir. Fed.Appx. and em- significantly less intrusive been (‘Even laugh, if prison did [the officer] group strip searches. barrassing than the is not constitutional strip search rendered ly thereby[,]’), may, invalid comments Likewise, our decision Dufrin context, suggest animus personal Spreen supports Plaintiffs proposition that dignitary ‘inherent in implicate the interest unconstitutional conducted Graham privacy component the Fourth on notice and that Graham proscription against unrea that such Amendment’s when conducted searches,’” Stoudemire, 705 F.3d were unconstitutional. sonable group strip searches Cty. (6th Brannum v. 1983). Overton (quoting Cir. at 573 F.2d Bd., 2008)). Dufrin, Sch. held that F.3d unconstitutionally not invasive inmate was Registry group strip three Because the actually “the search conducted because Plaintiffs searches violated estab- was carried out dis only, was visual I rights, Fourth Amendment would lished creetly privacy.” and in quali- that Graham is entitled hold concluded Specifically, we immunity. fied unconstitutional search Dufrin only, con ly it was visual invasive because Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim that De- attendant, con by a “was ducted female rights fendants violated her constitutional privacy of a room which ducted exposing officers forcibly her male could only the matron observe being strip searched in the while she was no claim prisoner.... [wa]s [and] [t]here summary have cellblock should survived part on the of offensive behavior least, judgment. very At factual the a dis- in anyone or of else connection matron pute as to whether the permitted exists search, in beyond'that the inherent with to be male officers Plaintiff viewed Id. inspection nature of the itself.” the during pre- search. the cellblock. Plaintiff 1087. evidence, failed which Defendants sented rebut, three to that demonstrated strip in was least The search at issue Dufrin male officers her she was strip viewed proper example a constitutional while in being strip in the inmate was searched searched cellblock. search because clearly precedent Our establishes issue was this thus insufficient. It would an Fourth inmate has a valid Amendment be therefore beneficial to remand the case privacy alleges when he she claim in give to order Plaintiff opportunity an to opposite members sex viewed them discovery conduct more she identify so can during strip penological search without officers, individual both male and fe- Cornwell, justification. See 963 F.2d at male, in who involved the cellblock mo-, Plaintiff response noted in her to regard, search. this the district court tion summary judgment that “Defen- permit should be instructed on remand to seeking summary judgment dants are not to parties address the issue of whether strip to claims that Plaintiffs her discovery reopened purposes should be search, in the presence of members identifying both the female officers who sex, opposite violation of her Fourth was conducted the cellblock search and (R. n.l.) rights.” Amendment 49 at 1614 to male officers view the allowed fe- majority briefly The claim addressed this inmates, male as well as the male officers held that Plaintiff was mistaken who viewed cellblock search. thought have chal- Defendants were not Because the group strip cellblock search lenging majority this The claim. misinter- violated Plaintiffs prets regard record. With Plaintiffs rights Fourth Amendment and because claims, individual constitutional Defen- to challenge Graham failed this claim on only challenged dants Plaintiffs claim in judgment, I summary hold would that Gra- connection with three is not to qualified immunity. ham entitled I (See in Registry. 44 at R. would instruct the district court on remand 1461 (listing the statement of the issues Plaintiff an opportunity allow amend only challenging one of indi- Plaintiffs complaint permit further discovery vidual constitutional claims—the conducted this claim. Thus, claim Registry).) Plaintiff in stating was correct that Defen- Liability Municipal B. challenge dants did not claim in -their summary judgment problematic majority’s motion. Also is the hold- liability ing municipal that Plaintiffs claim majority The also contends that Plaintiff incorporate fails because failed to has no claim cell- regarding individual other inmates’ connection with affidavits block search because she to sue failed her cellblock claim. The dis- strip search officer other than Graham in individ- their summary granted judgment trict court capacity partaking ual in this search. the county municipal favor of on Plaintiffs majority fails view this claim its claim liability because it determined that proper incapable context. Plaintiff was Plaintiff could demonstrate recalling the names of the officers male county’s policy responsible for male day that viewed her that because their viewing officers her unclothed and other identities were concealed behind the tinted being female inmates searched glass every in the Not male bubble. unless (R. 68, Op’n, Page District Court day deposed cellblock. officer who worked 1715-16.) specifi- ID # court district and the officers who viewed her admitted cally alleged Plaintiff held becаuse such conduct been would only instance in the cellblock where individually able to one name the officers complaint. Additionally, allegedly her officers her Plaintiff was viewed while male searched, given being not to opportunity strip she was her munici- amend her (Id.) complaint Discovery pal liability to address this issue. claim must The ma- fail. duty in station deputies being ratio- male the district court’s jority agrees with to estab- during is insufficient that the search further Plaintiff failed nale and adds policy County had municipal liability Wayne lish that cellblock to mention the in a exposing custom of female inmates response motion at all in her to the claim (R. 58 state of male majority [officers].” The in- undress to summary judgment. 1715-16.) agreed majority The with the her only Plaintiff mentioned mu- sists that to court. as it relates district liability claim nicipal Registry, in not strip searches that the dis- majority The further added cellblock, this was mention deciding in to trict court did not err other in- to include the failed brief and in the affida- allegations consider identical mates’ affidavits. because from vits other female inmates bring them court’s again Plaintiff did to majority improperly has The in with the cellblock properly Plaintiff de- attention connection the issue. framed majority wrong. In Plaintiffs as it claim. The municipal liability claim her fended summary judg- to motion for response search. Plaintiff the cellblock relates to ment, she stated she “filed response expressly the motion argued in her in Court affidavits summary manner with the hundreds judgment “[t]he as to the unreasonable strip testifying inmates conducted these which Graham searches, either in of their compels the denial her manner claim searches room, presence or in supports registry immunity, and also qualified on, men, or “relies against Wayne both” and that she Plaintiffs Monell claims herein, (R. 49, incorporates the affidavits filed Resp. Pl.’s County.” Mot. 1621.) summary opposition in J., ID Plaintiffs Docket 30-1 Page # Summ. 1618, n.2.) (R. 49 In this response judgment.” in “claims” her pluralization of response, to both of district referring was same directs signifies in specific com- attention affidavits alleged claims in her court’s her Monell as (1) in the occasions when male plaint: group strip record recount (2) present during their cellblock The officers Registry; search. 1620-21.) (R. 49 at affidavits majority acknowledge that Plain- searches. failed depict from the inmates grounds for the other female alleged tiff numerous in were forci- liability complaint, her where county’s Monell countless occasions during strip bly officers exposed search where male male including her cellblock (See 30-1, from R. Affidavits inappropriately her. searches. officers viewed Inmates.) Similarly Female Situated claim if Plaintiffs cellblock Even Monell summary by granting court district erred extensively argued have been more could county’s favor judgment summary motion for response in her to the expressly directed claim because Plaintiff Plaintiff was certain that male judgment, specific af- court’s the district attention viewing her in the bubble officers were that corroborated fidavits the record being strip other inmates and the female jail had a claim that the Plaintiffs Monell searched, is no alleged as much. There forcibly policy practice or custom that forecloses the evidence the record exposing to male officers female inmates actually possibility that male officers were during sеarches. in the bubble. The district court erroneous- Likewise, claim it that, if Monell ly Plaintiffs “[e]ven held relates to the alleged in the manner her searched sufficiently in her Registry defended testimony, single instance deposition response summary judgment to the mo- court to viability consider the of Plaintiffs request Plaintiff response tion. noted in her class action designation.

the hundreds affidavits of in- female detailing mates “the unreasonable manner of their searches ... registry support room” opposition her to the sum- (R. mary judgment motion. 49 at n.2 (citing to the hundreds of affidavits which group strip detail countless instances of searches).) Thus, properly put Roy SYLVESTER, Jr., James creating genuine forth evidence dispute Petitioner-Appellant, of a material fact as it relates her municipal liability claim in connection with group strip Registry. searches in the America, UNITED STATES genuine This dispute thus sum- forecloses Respondent-Appellee. mary judgment in county’s favor. Even considering

without No. the affidavits 15-1782 inmates, female other Plaintiff alone al- United States Court of Appeals, leged three different instances where she Sixth Circuit. in group. searched Argued: April Thus, argue I that Plaintiff can demon- only strate an individual constitutional Decided August and Filed: violation as to the group Registry

conducted the strip cellblock, search conducted in also but genuine of a dispute material fact in connection with the county’s custom or practice of allowing these forcibly occur exposing female inmates to male officers during

strip searches.

CONCLUSION above, analyses As articulated uti- majority lized in connection ‍​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‍with its qualified immunity municipal liability plainly wrong.

discussions are Specifically, I disagree with the majority’s holding as it pertains to the finding qualified immuni-

ty for finding Graham and the Plain-

tiff failed to liability raise municipal claims Wayne

against County. I Accordingly, re- spectfully dissent and remand for would further proceedings direct district

Case Details

Case Name: Amanda Sumpter v. Wayne Cty.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 18, 2017

Citation: 868 F.3d 473

Docket Number: 16-2102

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.