Katherine Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, Leslie Watson, Jefferson County Officer

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judges.* * Friedman, Circuit, Daniel M. Judge Circuit sitting by designation. of the United Appeals States Court of for the Federal city Anchorage, officer J., opinion

FRIEDMAN, delivered Bellewood Kentucky, passing who was J., NELSON, joined. court, in which mem- car, the staff telephoned patrol his 367-373), delivered MOORE, (pp. J. everything al- sure to “make bers opinion. dissenting separate id., “say hi.” The staff and to right,” suspi- their the officer about OPINION members told the under “might be girls that the cions FRIEDMAN, Judge. Circuit drugs in have and drugs might influence of a district court’s challenges appeal This officer, joined Id. The possession.” their un- dismissing a suit summary judgment officer, to Ha- proceeded local by another (1994) fe- against a § 1983 der U.S.C. Id. the situation.” ney Cottage “to assess a warrantless who made officer police male Reynolds, were girls, including After the in a chil- of a female resident strip search living room cottage’s in the placed been had The resident dren’s home. a charge of stay there in the instructed to court de- juvenile a following there placed and the member, officers police the staff vari- she committed had termination that girls’ the searched member other staff district court dismissed ous offenses. they found “a Reynold’s room In rooms. it ruled that the suit because her the officers be- ... which plastic baggy immunity. affirm. We qualified officer had In drugs.” Id. have contained may lieved rooms, baggy found “a the officers other I the officers plant a residue with substance are, underlying facts” as the The “basic marijuana, glass ... a thought might be stated, Mem. “undisputed.” district court may have the officers believed vial which at 1. Op. “prescription pipe,” as a been used “believed the officers pills” items juvenile court Kentucky a —all Id. drug with use.” be associated Reyn- Katherine appellant found old, years had commit- olds, then sixteen insinuated point, [Reynolds] “At some marijua- possession ted the offenses officers that she and the the staff members na, fraudulent use of credit forgery, and undergar- in her might drugs have hidden result, removed from she was card. As coupled [Reynolds’] statements ments. custody placed and was parents her in the items located suspicious with Home for Presbyterian Bellewood strange behavior and their girls’ rooms (“the Home”), a state- Bellewood Children girls needed the officers that convinced juvenile of- private facility approved that there were to ensure to be searched there, she, together with fenders. While cottage.” Id. Because drugs no in the Haney Cot- girls, lived other several male, they called all officers were residents, Cottage including tage. Haney to send female county police department having previously “admitted Reynolds, The de- the searches. officer conduct Id. living” drugs used there. while appellee, Officer Leslie sent the partment As the dis- Watson, perform task. (then 8, 1997, Reynolds seven- June On trict court stated: teen) Haney other residents and two arrival, observed the Upon [Watson] facility’s grounds. walked around throughout cottage, running return, girls ob- members two staff Upon their music, yelling. The strange- playing loud “acting girls served they officers said Anchorage drug might be the ly” suspected use located time, girls’ rooms searched a local 2. At that same reason. Id. at what drug parapher- believed be performed on [Reynolds] were objective- nalia. was also She informed that the ly Therefore, reasonable. [Watson] suspected girls officers might qualifiedly [wa]s immune from suit un- be harboring drugs their undergar- § der 42 U.S.C.

ments or other clothing. [Watson] indi- Id. at 11-12. perform cated that she could not body cavity warrant, search without a but that II perform she would visual In its most qualified recent im to look for drugs. decision, munity Supreme Court stated conducted [Watson] the searches one that a court determining “a qualified im a Each girl time. was searched in her munity defense” in “a suit against offi an own with a room female staff member cer for alleged violation of a constitu present. girl instructed each [Watson] right,” tional must make two inquiries. bra, first to remove her blouse and Katz, Saucier v. 533 U.S. 121 on, put them back then to and remove 2151, (2001). S.Ct. 150 First, L.Ed.2d 272 her bottom clothing and underwear and the “court ... must ... consider this bend over to inspection allow visual question: threshold Taken in light the her rectal area. [Watson] never physi- most favorable to party the asserting the cally any of girls touched the during the injury, alleged do facts show the offi drugs searches. No were located on cer’s conduct violated a constitutional any during strip 201, right?” Id. at 121 S.Ct. 2151. “[Sec searches. ond, assuming established, the violation is Id. at 3. question whether right clearly was

Reynolds then filed in the United States established must be considered....” Id. at District Court for the Western of 200, District 121 S.Ct. 2151. “If no constitutional Kentucky present under 42 suit U.S.C. right would have been violated were § against City 1983 of Anchorage, its allegations established, there is no necessi Police, Chief of and the police officers in- ty inquiries for further concerning quali sought injunctive volved. She and declara- immunity. hand, fied On the other if a tory relief, compensatory, exemplary, violation could be made out on a favorable punitive damages. All defendants ex- parties’ submissions, next, view of the cept Watson settled. sequential step is to ask right whether the clearly 201, was established.” Id. 121

On summary cross-motions for judg- S.Ct. 2151. ment, the district court granted Watson’s

motion, ruling that qualified she had im- We therefore shall consider whether Of- munity. The court ficer strip Watson’s search of that in

conclude[d] it was not 1997 violated clear- the Fourth Amendment ly that a established warrant sup- search whether Officer qualified Watson had im- ported by probable required munity See, cause was making in the search. e.g., to constitutionally strip McGinnis, 1030, conduct search Akers v. 352 F.3d 1042 (6th of a suspected minor possessing drugs Cir.2003); Barber, v. Greene 310 F.3d juvenile in (6th 889, Cir.2002). home or detention center. 894 In Virgili v. Gil- facts, bert, Based particular on the Cir.2001), and in 272 F.3d 394 how- light of ever, the then existing Saucier, case law to court, decided after this af- [Watson], guide holding conclude[d] Court ter prison state employees type of the scope qualified search had immunity searching 362 point at this search were conducting in stated: “We employee, prison

another to come Dobrowolskyj about strong. was Fourth not, on the opine do not and need jail general contact with to into direct applied to be standards Amendment who would including prisoners employees.” population, prison strip-searches jail. into all sections be then moved of the Fourth application A. The pre- jail legitimate interests The strip searches to warrantless Amendment into of contraband venting the flow involv in cases largely developed has been at 959. jail.” Id. other sections schools. prisons ing such searches Wisconsin, 483 U.S. v. S.Ct. Wolfish, In Bell Griffin (1987), although 97 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1979), Supreme 60 L.Ed.2d issue, fur- provides involving a different body cavity inspec visual held that Court there was question guidance. ther de pre-trial during strip searches tions warrantless officer’s probation whether after prisoners convicted tainees and home, pursuant probationer’s of a “un were with outsiders had contact authorizing such regulation to a state the Fourth searches under reasonable” grounds” if were “reasonable there conduct The searches Amendment. present that contraband to believe short-term “federally operated ed at the there, Amendment. the Fourth violated City York de in New facility custodial 3164. The search at 107 S.Ct. Id. pretrial detain to house primarily signed told was made after 523, The Court 99 S.Ct. 1861. ees.” Id. at or that “there were department probation reason test of applying “[t]he that stated apart- guns” probationer’s in the might be Amendment the Fourth under ableness 871, 3164. 107 S.Ct. The ment. Id. balancing a requires ... ... case each [i]n handgun apart- in the uncovered a search search particular for of the need search “[t]he held that ment. Court rights that personal of the invasion against was ‘rea- probationer’s] residence [the must consider Courts the search entails. meaning of the Fourth sonable’ within intrusion, the particular scope pur- conducted it was Amendment because conducted, justi it is manner in which pro- regulation governing suant to valid it, place initiating fication for 880, 3164. Id. at 107 S.Ct. bationers.” 559, Id. at 99 S.Ct. which it is conducted.” a “detention It out that pointed warrant indicated “[a] The Court that fraught with seri place facility unique is a appreci to an requirement would interfere of mon Smuggling security dangers. ous system,” probation id. degree with able contraband ey, drugs, weapons, and other 876, 107 3164, proba “the and that S.Ct. Id. is all too common occurrence.” unduly disrupted regime would also be tion cause,” id. at requirement probable County, by In v. Dobrowolskyj Jefferson “In such 3164. It stated: Cir.1987), 107 this court held S.Ct. F.2d unrealistic and analysis, it is both balancing circumstances that under Wolfish’s object of the con of the whole jail destructive in local strip of a detainee search insist relationship to tinuing probation searching detain- of so pursuant policy to a demonstrable degree of upon the same an area moving them into ees before particular supporting items reliability contact with jail they would have where data, degree of certain the same upon was not an prison population, general violation, in other required as is ty of did not search therefore unreasonable especially those In some contexts. The court violate the Fourth Amendment. cases— illegal weapons drugs or jail involving security interests stated: “The —the probation agency must be able to act This court applied the reason- T.L.O. upon based lesser degree certainty analysis ableness to a warrantless strip than the Fourth Amendment would other- for drugs by conducted school offi- require wise in order to intervene before a cials Ellington, Williams v. 936 F.2d probationer damage does to himself or so- (6th Cir.1991). There a female stu- 879,107 ciety.” Id. at S.Ct. 8164. reported dent to the principal (Ellington) that Williams and girl another involving

Cases searches had used by of students school; drugs at school there was authorities also are other instructive. evidence O., that Jersey supported New T.L. principal school conclusion. After a purse locker, searched a student’s after a search William’s teacher books and purse found the smoking student produced the rest no of drugs, evidence princi- room, in violation of school rules. 469 pal asked a female assistant principal to 105 S.Ct. strip Williams, L.Ed.2d 720 which she did. Id. (1985). The Court held that the search at 883. No drugs were found. noting reasonable. After Williams then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Fourth “applies Amendment to searches against § 1983 school officials (including officials,” public conducted school id. at the principal and the assistant principal 105 S.Ct. stated Court search) who conducted the and the “school officials need not obtain a warrant board school members. This court af- searching before a student who is under firmed the district summary court’s judg-

their authority,” id. at 105 S.Ct. 733. ment the defendants. Id. at 889. It It stated that “the accommodation of the held the defendants had qualified im- privacy interests schoolchildren with the munity. Id. This court stated: substantial need of teachers and adminis trators for freedom to Ellington’s maintain in order decision to search Williams the schools not require does possessions adher and her strict presence the of ence to requirement the drugs searches be was upon based the events that based on probable cause to believe that the occurred during the January week of subject of the search has violated or is A of study the record us to leads violating Rather, the legality law. the of a conclude that Ellington and the remain- search of a student depend simply should ing were not Defendants unreasonable reasonableness, on all under the cir in suspecting, based on the information cumstances, of search.... Under ordi time, available at the that a search of nary circumstances, a search of a student Williams would reveal of drugs evidence by a teacher or other school official will be Further, or drug use. Defendants ‘justified at inception’ its there when are unreasonable, not light of the item grounds reasonable for suspecting that the (a sought containing small vial suspected search will up turn evidence that the stu narcotics), in conducting a per- search so dent has violated or violating is either the sonally in nature. intrusive law or the rules of the a school. Such Id. search will permissible be in its scope when the adopted Raybuck, measures Tarter v. are reason 742 F.2d ably objectives Cir.1984), related of the search this court held that school and not excessively light intrusive in of had officials made a reasonable of a search age and sex of the student and the person (although nature student’s he did not re- of the Id. at infraction.” 105 S.Ct. move all of clothing) his where “had (footnotes omitted). activity they observed believed reasonably a method of but misconduct for criminal marijuana, of and sale use

to indicate education, the inmates insuring their a viola constituted plainly activity which re- substantially greater under Home were This policy.” established a well tion of expectation a lesser straint and determining whether that in court stated than do students. privacy reasonable, “we balance was search rights of individual [A]mendment [F]ourth we balancing approach, this Applying of the state interest with students strip search that Officer Watson’s conclude of a maintenance officials in the school In so unreasonable. Reynolds was not to educate environment proper educational admonition concluding, apply we Wolfish’s It “h[e]ld at 982. Id. today’s youth.” particular scope of the to “consider reasonable or teacher’s official it [was] intrusion, which school the manner vio person it, does a student’s initiating search of conducted, justification for [Ajmendment [Fjourth late the student’s it conducted.” [was] which place and the has reasonable official the school rights, if a “deten- pointed out that also Id. Wolfish necessary in is the search fraught to believe with place cause facility unique is tion maintaining school dis Smuggling of dangers. the furtherance security serious order, duty to maintain or his other contra- cipline weapons, money, drugs, to education.” conducive occurrence.” safe environment all too common band is “a Home also Id. The Bellewood Id. variety fraught with” unique place decisions, the foregoing B. Under the use dangers, including problems under reasonableness determination need to by its residents. drugs of a the Fourth Amendment order” discipline ... “maintain[ ] facility in a detention delinquent juvenile Tarter, 742 than in school. less there no for the “the to balance need requires us at 982. F.2d the invasion against particular ju- by the entails.” Following the search determination rights that personal committed Reynolds had 99 S.Ct. 1861. court that venile Wolfish, offenses, including posses- three criminal juvenile delinquent The situation marijuana, the court removed sion of lay some- the Bellewood Home inmates of her custody placed and parents’ from her and prison of inmates that where between Home, thereby which in the Bellewood in- The Bellewood in school. students The Bellewood new “home.” became her or closely confined mates not as were to duty responsibility Home had prison as supervised strictly controlled health, being of safety, and well insure the Perhaps their ex- inmates or detainees. The use inmates. Reynolds and the other were in that privacy of situation pectations or by Reynolds drugs possession and/or prisoners, those of greater than somewhat prob- cause would serious girls the other insignifi- appears slight this difference but ad- Home and the Bellewood lems within hand, still they were cant. On the other functioning. The versely proper its affect restraint; they were subject substantial to in elimi- strong had a interest Home thus the Home remain in required to live and drug on the use nating preventing they to it as they were not free leave by its residents. premises Home, to the Their confinement wished. they girls and other admitted pun- in Watson prison, like that inmates in living drugs while had used previously In prior criminal misdeeds. ishment af- “strangely” acted school, They had the Home. in whose to comparison students walk, led staff from which returning ter mandatory punishment attendance suspect to A drugs. nothing, members use of suspected he that might be police search of their rooms officers concealing bathing suit under their outer paraphernalia had uncovered that the offi- clothing. arranged Friedman for a female cers “believed to drugs be associated with security guard at the mall where the store Op. Reynolds use.” Mem. at 2. had insinu- was located strip search girls. She that drugs ated she had hidden in did so but did not find a bathing suit. The justifiably underwear. officers girls Friedman, sued who claimed only way concluded that assuage qualified immunity. The district court re- girls’ possession these concerns about the grant fused to such immunity, finding drugs “and to ensure that there no there were disputed factual issues. Fried- drugs in the cottage” strip was to search appealed man to this only court from the girls. Id. qualified denial of immunity. Although the strip highly search was a We appeal dismissed the for lack of procedure, invasive it was no more inva- jurisdiction because an denying order qual- sive than necessary accomplish pur- its immunity ified due to the presence of a pose insuring Reynolds disputed issue material fact is not imme- other girls were not concealing on drugs diately appealable. We held that there persons. their It in way was conducted was such issue: girls whether the con- designed to minimize its intrusive effect. sented strip to the search. ruled We Watson Officer made the search in “a officer, reasonable law enforcement girls’ of the privacy own rooms and in the the circumstances presented, could not be- only presence single staff member. lieve that exigent justified circumstances any did not touch She during strip warrantless searches search. Considering all the circum- women,” young only and that “the possible stances, we conclude Officer Watson’s exception requirement to the warrant strip Reynolds search of was not unreason- could have validated the presumptively un- able. reasonable, warrantless search was a rely here, heavily continues pursuant undertaken to the consent court, as she did in the district on this plaintiffs.” Id. at 4. We concluded unpublished court’s opinion in Toles that “[t]he existence of that unresolved Friedman, No. 238 F.3d factual preclude[d] dispute this court from 2000). 2000 WL 1871683 Cir. Dec jurisdiction exercising appeal over this stated, As the district court correctly how- this time.” Id. at 5. ever, the present “circumstances” Toles, sought the defendant justify case significantly “are different from those exigent basis Toles.” Mem. at 6. Op. circumstances, an exception to the warrant Toles, girls three spent had some requirement not involved here. Toles trying time on bathing suits in a depart- arose in the commercial context of a sus- store but purchase ment not did A any. pected by in department theft customers a clerk, suspicious length because of the of store —a totally situation unlike the sus- girls room, time the in the dressing were pected juvenile drugs by of use delin- Friedman, called the defendant off-duty an quent in a children’s home. officer police doing security who was work the store. girls for the When were about analysis C. Should the or result be dif- store, leave to the Friedman stopped them. ferent strip because the con- search was searching After purses their and finding by police ducted by officer than rather a warrantless to conduct permitted Home? We the Bellewood employee

an [Reynolds]. strip search think not. at 11. Op. Mem. out, the cases we points Reynolds As to record, no reason we have On this that formulate Part II.A discussed

have reject those conclusions. or disagree with in determin- balancing test the apply them, require not search did Under reasonable- Amendment the Fourth ing by police though conducted even warrant by involved searches strip ness of searches because Officer reasonable officer. It was It does police than officers. other persons suspicion a reasonable had Watson however, principles follow, that those narcotics. United girls possessed Cf. strip applied where be properly cannot Knights, States Those police officer. by a is search made (“When (2001) L.Ed.2d 497 S.Ct. are principles that their not state do cases suspicion has reasonable an officer of- strip police searches to inapplicable is subject to a search condition probationer ficers. is activity, there in criminal engaged focused on in those cases inquiry The is that criminal conduct enough likelihood particular for the need balancing “the proba- intrusion on the occurring that an per- the invasion against [strip] search in- privacy diminished significantly tioner’s entails,” reasonable.”). the search rights that sonal is terests Wolf- 1861, not on ish, 441 U.S. S.Ct. conducting the identity person Ill shown, have under that As we search. if our conclusion Even balancing test the Fourth did not violate strip search if the staff have reasonable

would been rejected, still to be we Amendment had con- Bellewood Home members summary court’s affirm the district would why the no valid reason it. see ducted We dismissing judgment for Officer Watson it was a be different because should result agree That is because we complaint. conducted the search. officer who police Officer Watson the district court that with instance, objec- the purpose In either immunity conducting qualified to help the same: tive of search. whether the Home determine explained has Court Supreme Home and thus to aid the drugs, possessed suggested immunity the facts the [qualified] what uncovering [t]he concern that reason- illegal drugs by acknowledge inquiry use may have been as to the can made able be some of the mistakes residents. particular legal constraints that, court based The district concluded difficult for It is sometimes conduct. Watson, de- on the facts known Officer how the relevant officer determine above, scribed to the apply ... will factu- legal doctrine An confronts. [Watson] not unreasonable for al officer it was situation all correctly perceive necessary might a search was officer conclude that un- safety a mistaken [Reynolds’] facts but have relevant both ensure Thus, particular to derstanding as whether safety the other residents. legal is those circum- amount of force objectively [Wat- reasonable for it was mistake If the as apart stances. officer’s interests son] conclude reasonable, requires is law what ordinary enforcement from those of law however, Moreover, the officer is entitled to the confined. as is shown immunity defense. analysis, above, in Part II existing prec- edent that deals with the Fourth Saucier, Amend- S.Ct. strip ment status of searches in other con- qualified immunity, “govern Under texts, the question is close and difficult. ment officials performing discretionary It involves legal subtle distinctions and in- functions, generally are shielded from lia ferences that a reasonable officer bility damages for civil insofar as their would not and expected could not be clearly conduct not does violate established make. statutory rights or constitutional of which person a reasonable would have known.” circumstances, In these any mistake that 800, 818, Fitzgerald, Harlow v. 457 U.S. may Officer Watson have made about her (1982). 102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 396 See authority to conduct strip searches was also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. reasonable. It cannot be said that at that (1985) (In 105 S.Ct. 86 L.Ed.2d 411 clearly time it was Reyn- established that damage against suit former Attorney Gen olds had a right constitutional not to be so eral Mitchell for authorizing wiretap, searched except pursuant to a valid search Fitzgerald, Harlow v. “[u]nder Mitchell warrant. immune [was] unless his actions violated Officer Watson was aware of and sensi- law.”). clearly established This court has existing tive settled upon limits stated that rights “[t]o determine what are authority strip to make searches. As the ‘clearly established,’ we look must to deci noted, district upon court arriving at the sions from Supreme Court and from Home, Bellewood she “indicated that she circuit,” courts within although this “[i]n perform body could not cavity search instances, rare authority lacking where is warrant, without a but that she would sources, may from these we also review perform a strip visual search of decisions of other courts.” Williams v. drugs.” look for Op. Mem. if 3. Even Ellington, 936 F.2d at 885. she concluding were mistaken in that she relevant, dispositive “The inquiry in could make a warrantless visual determining whether a right clearly es search, such mistake was reasonable. tablished is whether it would be clear to reasonable officer that his conduct was CONCLUSION unlawful in the situation he confronted.” summary judgment of the district Saucier, 533 U.S. at 121 S.Ct. 2151. court in favor of Officer Watson is af- correctly The district court concluded that firmed. when Officer Watson conducted the strip clearly

searches it estab MOORE, KAREN NELSON Circuit lished that those searches were unlawful Judge, dissenting. and that it would not have been clear to her that her conduct was unlawful. In holding that Officer Watson’s war- strip-search seventeen-year-

There has rantless of a been no decision of the Su- Court, girl preme old was “reasonable” under any this court or courts the Fourth Amendment, or, know, within this as far the district court as we relied on circuit— any “special other court—that exception has addressed needs” to the rule application of the Fourth Amendment that all warrantless searches presump- are to strip juvenile searches of delinquents tively In affirming unreasonable. that du- an institutional home in which are holding, majority bious untethers the follow. Bellewood that we must party, reason- from its language court’s district (“Belle- for Children Presbyterian Home analysis, single paragraph in a

ing, and wood”) for abused group home private is a Knights, States on United relies children, reli- explicitly 587, at-risk with L.Ed.2d and 121, 122 S.Ct. mission, contract to is under gious which that “reasonable (2001), to conclude for Human Re- Kentucky Cabinet justify necessary to is all is suspicion” to Reynolds was sent Bellewood sources. juvenile private in a of a strip-search delinquent adjudicated being after acting au- without by police home group for- second-degree marijuana possession, I home’s staff. be- from that thorization of a credit card. fraudulent use gery, con- wrong to court was the district lieve (“J.A.”) at 84. Appendix Joint While “special a valid needs” this was clude sent to Belle- were wrong Reynolds to others majority is search, I believe juvenile delinquency proceed- after general wood rather than the Knights rely on Bellewood’s of all of ings, this is true presump- is search that a warrantless rule at the Reynolds was seventeen into falling an residents. unless tively unreasonable incident, Haney and lived at time of the I believe that exception, and enumerated juveniles and staff Cottage with other test used in balancing under even 207, 213, 218. J.A. at members. search was unreasonable. Knights, this oth- Reynolds and two On June majority upon the district relies The Haney Cottage took walk facts, residents of doing'so and in er recitation court’s they grounds. When on the Bellewood the district court’s errors. amplifies returned, “strange” and they acting “undisput- underlying are not facts” “basic members, staff Melissa the record re- two Bellewood ed”; thorough review (“Adamchik”)1 Stephanie by Adamchik given of events version veals (“Jacob”), us- suspected deposition in their testi- Jacob police officers roughly at At ing drugs. J.A. 89. and that of the mony reports written time, Toby Anchorage Police Officer resi- same home and its of the Bellewood staff (“Lewis”), beat included whose Compare Dep. Lewis wildly divergent. are dents (“I Bellewood, cell cottage from Watson, called his R. at 32 tried to of Officer by. he Lewis testified pos- phone as as drove strip-searches] gently as it [the do “just say hi.” J.A. at 157. he called to possible”) as with and considerate sible friendly During the conversa- R. at 157 course of Katherine Dep. Reynolds, tion, (“And informed Lewis said,” you “If don’t Adamchik and Jacob [Watson] then * bra, suspicions drug use. J.A. at going I’m of their off the f* *ing take 158-62. Lewis then entered Dep. of you.”) it off for Sarah take (describ- and the decision was made Holman, cottage, 44-45 Lynette R. girls’ rooms. J.A. “cocky”). This 158-62. ing as “rude” and Watson testimony was that deposition at what I believe Lewis’s divergence is most acute had asked him the Adamchik and Jacob key juncture: whether or not be a and when he informed Haney girls, search the of the residents of strip-searches not, and offered them that he could authorized staff members Cottage were rooms, they then asked him to It by police. is of or instead were initiated 161-63. Adamchik do that. J.A. at testi- by Katherine the facts as asserted course per- not ask Lewis to non-moving fied that did (“Reynolds”), name, by her maiden Melissa times identified Melissa Adamchik the staff member's record, name; Wambaugh. is some- in the she married search, form a which conforms her ac might drugs to she have hidden in her under- count of events in written reports, incident garments.” fact, In by frustrated what placed but that a call was to Carol Woch- she no doubt saw as an intrusive and ulti- enko, therapist Haney Cottage, head mately fruitless search of residence, approval who indicated her of the room Reynolds pointed out to Jacob that room 80, 89, 121-22; searches. J.A. at Dep. of useless, searches were girls because the Adamchik, Melissa R. at 37. Lewis could have persons. contraband their called in for backup, and Officer James just “[I]t seemed kind of pointless to me.” (“Ennis”) Ennis arrived at the A scene. at (Dep. J.A. Reynolds). Katherine all five Cottage rooms at Haney The decision was then made to perform a ensued, during which time a third Anchor strip-search on girls. the According officer, age police Timothy Officer Young Lewis, it was Ennis who made the instant (<cYoung”)arrived. at Reyn J.A. decision to girls, search the but consistent room, olds’s packs cigarettes two and with his testimony earlier that the entire (the empty plastic bag “plastic ... baggy prompted incident was by a staff request which the officers may believe have con girls, search the Lewis also testified tained drugs” by majority) noted were arrived, when he Watson informed found; rooms, in other residents’ seven Watson that the staff requested had tablets, Depakote lawfully-prescribed 189-90,199- be searched. J.A. at residue, powder clear vial with a white 200. Watson testified that when she ar- baggie a small with trace of an amounts rived, both members staff and her three unidentified brown substance were found. individually fellow officers requested that J.A. at 86. The latter two items later perform 274-75, she the search. J.A. at tested, powder sent to and the be turned Dep. Leslie at Watson 15-19. Adam- related, non-drug out to be while chik, hand, on the other testified that the brown was substance substantial first mention of strip-searches came from enough be tested. J.A. at 186. The officers, that she did not request district Reynolds court stated that strip-searches, and that she never heard Haney other Cottage residents “admitted request Jacob strip-searches. J.A. at having previously drugs used living” while 128-29, 134-35, 137-38. No phone further at cottage, J.A. at 29. Presumably this call placed was to Carol Reyn- is meant Wochenko. to have relevance in determining olds events; testified that Adamchik or in- subsequent reasonableness of Jacob may this statement refer to Officer Lewis’s formed her that the had decided that at testimony prior talk he given strip-search girls, Haney and other Haney Reyn residents Cottage, Cottage residents described Adamchik as olds had “that she has used drugs stated visibly physically strip- distressed at the past and she will to use continue Dep. Reynolds searches. of Katherine drugs.” Dep. Toby Lewis at 93-94. (“[S]he said that [the reliability Whatever the of this hearsay, it, police] were the ones that initiated such adolescent bravado has value limited search”); Dep. of Carla Dana Hudson in determining whether had con 184-85; Dep. Shatonya Lanyce Elam person traband on her at some future at 136-37. point, girl At that each time. taken into room her own Watson and strip-searched

At point, majority present. with Adamchik repeats this district description Although court’s of a girl statement Watson testified that each by Reynolds supposed to the effect “that was first instructed to remove her shirt Earls, 536 No. 92 v. on, Indep. Sch. Dist. them back bra, put then 2559, 822, L.Ed.2d 735 122 153 underwear and S.Ct. U.S. pants

then remove industries, clothing (1990), back in over, put her and workers sensitive and then bend that to Ry. testified v. Labor Executives’ on, of see Skinner least one at 1402, entirely 602, naked dur- Ass’n, 103 contrary, she was 109 S.Ct. 489 U.S. of (Dep. (1989) 283-84 at (railway employees search. J.A. ing the L.Ed.2d 639 Lynette Watson); Dep. of Sarah in- safety Leslie rules or who are violate who 101, girl also Holman, 45. Each R. at accidents); Treasury Nat’l Em- in volved but- spread her over and Raab, 656, made to bend 489 U.S. v. Von ployees Union drugs were discovered. (1989) tocks. No 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 109 S.Ct. (customs or carry a firearm officials who se unrea per are searches “Warrantless interdiction), sobriety check- in drug work amendment, ex the fourth under sonable v. Dep’t see State Police points, Mich. instanc carefully delineated in a cept few of 2481, Sitz, 444, 110 Radka, 110 S.Ct. 496 U.S. 904 F.2d v. States es.” United (1990), v. 412 and warrantless Cir.1990); also Groh L.Ed.2d 357, see 360 551, , private 124 resi- Ramirez, probationers’ of searches 540 U.S. — Wisconsin, 1290-91, 1284, dences, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 v. U.S. see 483 S.Ct. Griffin (1987). (2004) presumption 3164, war- (reaffirming 868, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 107 S.Ct. in con clear, however, are unreasonable rantless searches The Court has made home). exceptions Those of search of text is law primary purpose searches whose searches, consented-to automobile include “special needs” are enforcement arrest, searches, sei searches incident City v. Ferguson searches. See view, Terry stops, plain in of items zures 1281, Charleston, 67, 121 532 U.S. S.Ct. rule, searches in order hot-pursuit (2001); Indianap- City 205 149 L.Ed.2d or destruction of evi the loss prevent Edmond, 121 v. 531 U.S. S.Ct. olis upon relied district court dence. The (2000). Although Bell v. L.Ed.2d 333 148 quali in granting “special needs” doctrine 1861, 60 441 99 S.Ct. Wolfish, U.S. at J.A. 34- immunity fied to Watson. T.L.O., (1979), its predates 447 L.Ed.2d doctrine, ar needs” first “special The can holding pretrial detainees sub- be in con his by ticulated Justice Blackmun every ject body-cavity searches after T.L.O., Jersey v. in curring opinion New with the Fourth contact visit consonant 83 469 105 S.Ct. U.S. later Amendment has been contextualized (1985), excep 720 constitutes L.Ed.2d part “spe- by Supreme Court as that all searches must be tion to the rule Skinner, doctrine. See 489 cial needs” by warrant obtained pursuant to a search 619-20, Each at S.Ct. 1402. case U.S. 109 cause in probable the demonstration majority part in first of its by cited needs, beyond “special those cases where needs” analysis “special is thus part enforcement, for law the normal need per exception to the warrantless search se re probable-cause the warrant make rule. in quirement impracticable.” Id. T.L.O. doctrine, needs” “special Under of a student public-school a search volved student, with the particular search of a particu on basis of by school officials testing, sup- must exception drug be “special but needs” suspicion, larized which suspicion, ported reasonable by the has since been extended doctrine case. Reynolds concedes exists this suspicionless drug to allow Supreme Court T.L.O., 1; Brief at Reynolds’s Reply students involved testing public-school 341-42, have 733. We activities, Educ. 105 S.Ct. see Bd. U.S. after-school upon holding qualified this to extend relied searches those that are unlawful be- immunity to officials performing strip- ordinary cause serve law enforcement public-school searches students for goals special as well as needs. Fergu- See drugs. Ellington, See Williams son, 121 S.Ct. 1281. (6th Cir.1991). 881, 887-89 The F.2d ma- majority ultimate its conclusion jority therefore likely correct to con- that no constitutional violation occurred strong clude Bellewood Home “had a relies United v. Knights, States in eliminating preventing interest drug 112, 587, U.S. 122 S.Ct. 151 L.Ed.2d 497 premises by use on the its residents” that (2001). To the Knights extent that es support could a strip-search warrantless chewed reliance on “special the needs” ex Reynolds by upon Bellewood’s staff rea- ception general to the rule that a warrant- suspicion sonable that was concealing she less search is unconstitutional in favor of a person. majority contraband on her general more balancing approach, in paragraph the next then reveals its case is necessarily by limited to its facts logical misstep stating, police “The offi- subsequent cases which have reaffirmed justifiably cers only way concluded that the per rule/carefully the se delineated excep to assuage these ... strip- concerns was to approach tions to warrantless searches of girls.” the marriage search This between Groh, home. the See 540 U.S. at the needs of the Bellewood Home and the -, 124 fact, S.Ct. at 1290-91. police conclusions actions of the offi- Knights has not been cited again by the merely question cers is not a of the identi- Supreme deciding Court in nearly a dozen ty searcher, object but of the involving cases Fourth Amendment rea- search. Whether strip- warrantless Nonetheless, sonableness. assessing even search initiated and by authorized Belle- the under Knights’s general reason- staff, wood by but police, conducted would equation, ableness I believe this search been a “special have valid needs” search unreasonable, still key was because the question expressly was a open by left with this problem gov- search is that the T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 342 n. 105 S.Ct. 733 had no beyond ernment in it interest (reserving question of “searches conducted enforcement, generalized interest law by conjunction school officials in with or at and that interest justify strip- cannot the the behest of law enforcement agencies”). search, minor, particularly of a based question perhaps deserving This is thus merely on suspicion. reasonable See page answer, more than a analysis in its Knights, 534 U.S. at 122 S.Ct. 587 but that answer is entirely academic in this (“reasonableness of a search is determined taking Reynolds’s case: version facts as ‘by hand, assessing, on the one correct, degree police we must assume initi- which it upon to intrudes an individual’s performed strip-searches ated and on and, other, facts, privacy degree to their own. Under those it becomes it is needed for did, promotion clear that a which violation constitutional ”) legitimate fact, officers, governmental occur. Police interests.’ invited onto private (quoting property, Wyoming Houghton, cannot v. 526 initiate warrant- strip-search less 119 merely S.Ct. 143 L.Ed.2d 408 citizens because (1999)). authority some other right has the While had an interest Bellewood search those maintaining facility, citizens to maintain order in in order in its one that facility. may its That clearly contrary by result is have been served search of sharp Reynolds, line drawn Supreme entity Bellewood not was Court between valid “special Reynolds, needs” searching necessarily nor is it behest of officials at all; enforcement private it is entity

governmental City v. officials. Shade or school See children. Whether religious home (8th Cir. Farmington, 309 F.3d “deputize” can institution private (search 2002) where “school constitutional residents, sure- its to search officers officers, initi officials, not law enforcement initia- of their own cannot ly police officers search”); and the investigation ated the subject to the being do so without tive Cook, F.2d v. Cason If such searches. governing rules normal Cir.1987) (no indication where “no violation home on a weekend had been Reynolds involvement, the deputy’s for the that but parents and her visit, regular, as was searched”); would not have been plaintiff speak into home invited Watson N.G.B., 568-69 So.2d State use, dangers drug Reynolds about (“reasonable suspi (Fl.Dist.Ct.App.2002) could majority Watson hold would standard” where appropriate cion strip-search proceed then by police officer was of student permission because parents’ without official); by school initiated and directed daughter their keeping in interests their 431, T., 56, 989 P.2d 128 N.M. In re Josue intrusion on justified the away drugs from (1999) (reasonable suspicion applies 437 unreason- to be free from Reynolds’s right “merely assisted police where officer logical distinc- I little searches? see able official, day, at the during the school school obviously po- excessive such tion between protect student request, school official’s police actions of we and the lice behavior milieu”); In re welfare and educational took here. place must assume D.B., 140, 211 564 N.W.2d Angelia Wis.2d enti- disagree I that Watson is Finally, (reasonable (1997) 688, suspicion 682, 690 immunity. Because qualified tled school liaison offi applies where standard is that a rule warrantless general investigation in th[e] involved cer “became in clearly was established unreasonable requested his only after school officials 1997, majority inverts that I believe conjunction in with assistance” worked it notes that no inquiry proper when officials). A.J.M., In re 617 But see school application addressed the court has 1137, (Fl.Dist.Ct.App.1993) So.2d 1138 the situation before Amendment to Fourth (where “directed, participat police officer immunity; qualified today support in us search,” proba acquiesced in or ed instead, police that a suggests if no case courts have required). ble cause is Other on similar admin- rely officer is entitled to police officer also held where initiating “special istrative needs” by the or school district employed school herself, immune is not strip-search Watson “spe with the the search is consonant circuit, nor cases in our from suit. No discipline, the T.L.O. cial needs” of school addressing the related any court indeed People v. applies. also See Dil standard grounds on school issue of when searches 195, 456, worth, 661 Ill.2d 214 Ill.Dec. 169 ac- appropriate, suggest are Watson’s (1996). 310, But con 317 when N.E.2d justified.2 tions were like that issue fronted with T.L.O., here, generally held initiated enforcement officers Since courts have law control of reasonable-suspicion supervisory stan- not under the school that T.L.O.’s authorities, uniformly courts have held by law applies to searches conducted dard 112, 121, anywhere in the record that no indication Knights, States v. 534 U.S. 2. United (2001), 497 can of 122 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d was herself Watson knew that stage help at this course offer Watson no Cottage Haney delinquent or that home events inquiry, it was decided after the as only delinquents. additionally, place; there is question took required. cause is probable See re F.P., (Fl.Dist.Ct.App. 528 So.2d ERNST, J. Richard Ervin, William T. 1988) (exception probable require cause Wilson, James E. and John Patrick not apply ment “does when the search is O’Brien, on behalf of themselves and out at the police”); carried behest similarly all situated, others Plain H., v. Tywayne State 123 N.M. tiffs-Appellants, (1997) (T.L.O. P.2d inap standard plicable where search com “conducted

pletely police the discretion of the offi Douglas ROBERTS, B. Treasurer of the cers”); B.D., In re Thomas 326 S.C. Michigan; Christopher State of M. (while (1997) 486 S.E.2d 504-506 DeRose, Director, Department search was of student and took place on Management Budget Office of property, school inapplica T.L.O. standard Systems; George ble Retirement acting because on M. El their authority own and not agents worth, Member, as Michigan Judges Re school). generally LaFave, Wayne See R. Board; Roy Pentilla, tirement Mem § Search and Seizure 10.11 (discussing ber, Michigan Judges Retirement cases). categories three These cases Board; Doster, Eric Member, E. again demonstrate once “special Michigan Judges Board; Retirement wholly doctrine is inapplicable needs” Lyle Houten, Member, Michigan Van Reynolds’s facts, version of the po where Judges Board; Retirement and Robert lice, unconnected to the institution whose Ransom, Member, Michigan Judges “special justify needs” are said to Board, Defendants-Appel Retirement search, conducted on searches their own lees. initiative. See also Tatter v. Raybuck, 742 (6th Cir.1984) F.2d (pre-T.L.O. No. 02-2287. noting case presence “[t]he police officers does take purely this case United Appeals, States Court of out of the context of school officials seek Sixth Circuit.

ing maintain an environment conducive Argued: educational Jan. 2004. process” but concluding police “involvement of the with re Decided and Aug. Filed: spect plaintiff to the marginal” in case plaintiff was only by

where searched own). acting

school officials on their of all prior

consensus courts is that when initiative, act on their own can rely “special needs” school F.P., 1254;

officials. See Ty So.2d H., 254; B.D.,

wayne 933 P.2d at Thomas

486 S.E.2d at 504-506.

I would therefore reverse the district

court’s decision and remand the case for

trial.

Case Details

Case Name: Katherine Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, Leslie Watson, Jefferson County Officer

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 9, 2004

Citation: 379 F.3d 358

Docket Number: 02-6443

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.