Lenora Daugherty v. Donal Campbell, Alton R. Hesson, Robert W. Starbuck, Funderburk, Rita A. Starbuck, Kevin W. Daniels, Bobby L. Chessor

NELSON, Before KEITH and Circuit PECK, Judges, Judge. Senior Circuit KEITH, Judge. Campbell (“Campbell”)

Defendant Donal 14, appeals from the district court’s June 1989, denying summary judgment order immunity in the basis of this ac- alleging of 42 tion violations U.S.C. § and the fourteenth the fourth amendment amendment. For the reasons set forth be- low, AFFIRM the court’s order. I.

A. Department Tennessee (the “Department”) established Corrections of visitors guidelines governing the search (the “guidelines”). penal institutions Department’s policy authorizing body cavi- any official a visual of a to make an affirma- ty search1 visitor cause to believe tive concealing contraband the visitor is July conducting the search.2 On prior to "strip generally probing See Blackburn v. refers to an or Snow, cavities. 1. The term search” (1st Cir.1985). 561 & n. inspection a naked individual without scruti- nizing subject’s cavities. The term guidelines Department’s 2. Section IV.B. of body cavity to a visual "visual search" refers pertinent part: provides in inspection includes of a naked individual that genital Policy: term "manual the anal and areas. The IV. body cavity, body cavity inspection Strip, refers to an of a man- search" B. and/or persons degree touching with some ual naked individual Next, Daugherty was instructed who was warden Campbell, was condi- (the to visit her husband permission Facility Correctional Turney Center signature on a obtaining her upon tioned De- approved the personally “Facility”), indicating that she had form standardized Specifically, guidelines. partment’s body and visual the vehicle consented to a find- the standard that adopted Campbell conduct- they were cavity searches before must be made before cause ing probable of require- this complied with Daugherty ed. prison a cavity search of body a visual ment. conducted. may be visitor (“Daugher- Daugherty Plaintiff Lenora B. in her following allegations ty”) makes the Daugherty filed suit On June 16, 1988, January Campbell pleadings.3 On other Campbell and several against Facility’s security personnel at the ordered Campbell, respect to With officials. body conduct a to visual visitors annex that he or- complaint alleged Daugherty’s her permitting her before cavity search of her body cavity search of a visual dered Daugherty When her husband. to visit probable cause or rea- without first guards Facility, security two at the arrived possessed con- that she suspicion sonable to they that were ordered her instructed Camp- Daugherty claimed traband. precon- of her vehicle as a a conduct search her under violated bell’s actions permission to visit granting her to dition and four- and the fourth U.S.C. § initially security The officers her husband. the United States teenth amendments search the vehicle because were unable to 28, 1988, Camp- On October Constitution. her inadvertently had locked Daugherty judgment for filed a motion bell security The officers keys in the vehicle. discovery. In its stay of pleadings and a Daugherty enter the an- to than instructed order, 29,1988, the district November body cavity to a visual nex and submit magis- to a pretrial all matters referred security Daugh- officer. by another search 636(b)(1)(A) to 28 U.S.C. pursuant trate § and the visual erty complied motion, (B). considering Campbell’s produce contraband. search failed to guidelines reviewed magistrate search, penal body cavity to governing the search visitors After request to constitute guidelines reinstated their These security officers institutions. therefore, permitting pleadings, before outside search the vehicle evidence treated as a visit. motion was proceed with her the defendant’s Daugherty find- summary judgment. After entry motion vehicle for Daugherty obtained visitor, that, Daugherty had a ing as breaking the driver’s side window. fourth amendment clearly established of the a security conducted a search officers person any search of her right to free of produce be contraband. vehicle which failed other Insti- may only 2. Received from Correctional employees conduct- visitors and be they specifically as are authorized ed when tutions. policy regarding requirements per Turney of this Staff. 3. Center only person information, autho- particular and shall be a whether it be 4. Informant probable believe is cause to rized when there or inmates infor- free world informants from mants, (Em- concealing person is contraband. the phasis credibility, for should evaluated added). utilizing following criteria: Department's guidelines Section V.A.5. previous Credibility a. informant’s —Has pertinent part: provides in so, If how often? reliable? been information V. Procedures: attempting is informant Motive—What b. Searching A. Visitors: by divulging gain information? determining probable cause B. Appellee’s Addendum Brief at search, a extent warrants which search, or a visual cavity manual reviewing purpose the dis- limited 3. For the following performed, summary for the motion denial of trict court's be first determined: factors should alleged by as judgment, state the facts we will information: a. Source of nonmoving party. plaintiff, the Law Enforce- from outside 1.Received Agency. ment claim of is bell’s there- finding of reasonable a absent appealable that is official, fore final decision at magistrate recom- juncture. this Campbell’s motion denial of mended quali- the issue summary judgment on qualified immunity appli Whether magistrate noted immunity. fied cable to an official’s actions is a cause, set higher standard 2817; law. at See id. S.Ct. see proper guidelines, forth Jackson, also 845 F.2d Garvie Campbell’s con- evaluate legal standard to (6th Cir.1988). apply We therefore a de argue did not Daugherty duct because question. novo standard of review to this a fourth amend- regulations created Jones, Long which was denied liberty ment interest Cir.1991). process. due without In Fitzgerald, Harlow v. 457 U.S. magis- adopted The district court 800, 2727, (1982), 102 73 L.Ed.2d 396 S.Ct. on June report and recommendation trate’s “government Supreme Court held that im- 15, Campbell qualified and denied 1989 discretionary performing officials func strip search munity respect to the with generally liability are shielded from tions[ ] 1989, 14, Campbell filed a July issue. On damages for civil insofar as their conduct timely appeal. notice clearly does not violate established statu a tory or constitutional of which II. person would have known.” Id. 818, Reiterating the at 102 S.Ct. at 2738. is in Although Campbell’s appeal test, objective Court stated in to terlocutory, jurisdiction derive our 183, Scherer, 468 104 Davis v. U.S. S.Ct. from 28 the district court’s order review 3012, (1984): 82 L.Ed.2d 139 conveys appellate jur 1291 which U.S.C. § rejected v. the in- Fitzgerald Harlow from “final deci appeals over isdiction in favor of a quiry into state mind court’s denial of district sions.” “[A] wholly objective standard.... Whether immunity, extent qualified to the claim of qualified may prevail in his an official law, is an it turns on an issue immunity depends upon defense the “ob- mean within the appealable ‘final decision’ jective reasonableness of conduct as [his] notwithstanding 1291 ing of 28 U.S.C. § clearly by reference to estab- measured judgment.” of a final Mitchell the absence “circumstances” lished law.” No other 511, 530, 472 105 S.Ct. Forsyth, U.S. qualified to the issue of are relevant (1985). 2806, 2817, L.Ed.2d 411 Under 86 immunity. doctrine, a final deci order” the “collateral 191, (citations omit- at 104 S.Ct. at 3017 may the last Id. under sion § 524, ted). of dis- Before the commencement in a case. Id. at possible order made im- omitted). pleading qualified (citation covery, If the a defendant 105 S.Ct. at 2814 plain- if the munity is entitled to dismissal court’s decision nature of a claim of violation tiff fails to state deferring appellate review to such that Mitchell, clearly 472 U.S. render established law. proceedings conclusion of 526, using objec- unreviewable, at 2815. then 1291 at 105 S.Ct. the decision § qualified to define the limits to review tive terms jurisdiction court with vests this found that it 525, 527, immunity, at the Harlow Court 105 S.Ct. the decision. Id. at determine, on duty court’s to Qualified its is the district immunity entitles 2816. summary judgment, the cur- a motion for “immunity rather possessor to suit from that law rently applicable law and whether liability.” at than a mere defense Id. clearly the time al- (original established at emphasis). was 105 S.Ct. at 2815 Harlow, 457 U.S. at leged action occurred. deny quali The district court’s decision If the law was not at 2738. immunity, is 102 S.Ct. immunity, like absolute fied established, find impossible it is effectively at the conclusion unreviewable for- knew that law that the defendant proceedings. Id. at S.Ct. Under such or her conduct. Id. Camp- bade his The district court’s denial similarity circumstances, expect clarifying the “contextual re it is unreasonable to anticipate subsequent legal quired for the of a estab an official Seiter, officials, right.” F.2d at 1176. Government lished developments. damages therefore, from civil are shielded challenge pris Setter involved a to Ohio could reason- liability “their actions when practice conducting on officials’ thought consistent with the ably been prison employ on rights they alleged to have violated.” are officials claimed that ees. Ohio 635, 638, Creighton, 483 U.S. Anderson they entitled to were (1987). 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 107 S.Ct. right to be because the fourth amendment these searches was not es determining the law was free of whether ac at the time of the officials’ clearly established at the time of the offi tablished action, the offi the Anderson Court advises: tions. The district court denied cial’s cials’ claim of based right The contours of the must be suffi States, 347, 88 Katz v. United 389 U.S. official ciently clear that a reasonable (1967). L.Ed.2d The dis S.Ct. doing he is would understand what trict court reasoned that Katz provides say right. This is not to violates any per se rule of unlawfulness of warrant- protected by that an official action is less search that does not fall within an immunity very action unless the exception articulated to the warrant re previously in has been held un Supreme quirement. Although neither the (citation omitted), say it to lawful but nor the this had ruled on the Court light pre-existing that in the law the specific strip body circumstances of and apparent. must be unlawfulness searches, cavity the held that district court Anderson, 640, 107 483 U.S. at S.Ct. per clearly the existence of the se rule conducting inquiry an to de 3039. When established that such searches were viola- right termine whether a constitutional tive of fourth amendment. This Court established, law of our circuit clearly ruling finding reversed the court’s requires us to look first to decisions of the Katz, link in between the conduct wire Court, Supreme then to decisions of this Setter, tapping, strip and the conduct in circuit, and other courts within Court our body cavity prison employ and searches of finally cir and to the decisions of other ees, Katz so failed to attenuated Crouch, cuits. Masters 872 F.2d authoritative, provide ‘clearly “an estab Cir.1989). Serv. Ohio Civil In 1251-52 forewarning lished’ rule the defendants ... Seiter, Employees Ass’n v. Seiter, pain personal liability.” on (6th Cir.1988), we stated: addition, Setter court F.2d In at 1177. instance, ordinary to find a clear- [I]n prison found that the visitor cases were not right, ly constitutional a dis- established sufficiently similar as to merit reason “so binding precedent trict court must find upon guide prop able reliance them as a to Court, ap- its court of conduct.” er case, peals extraordinary In or itself. an may possible be for the decision of Bearing princi the aforementioned provide “clearly es- other courts such mind, ples in we conclude that the district law,” tablished these decisions must both properly Campbell’s denied claim of point unmistakably the unconstitution- in January because ality complained and conduct prison the search of visitors without clearly by applicable so di- foreshadowed suspicion at least reasonable violated clear authority rect as to leave no doubt Jones, Long ly established law. mind of a reasonable officer that his (6th Cir.1991), were confront F.2d 1111 conduct, if challenged on constitutional in a similar issue. The defendants ed with grounds, wanting. would be found who, during 1984 and Long were wardens or cav Id. at 1177. strip searches Seiter found that the law was authorized ity prison visitors. Much regarding established the rele searches Daugherty’s experience, prison examination of Seiter right. vant An aids like body cavity they strip would not from and with- told the visitors guards probable or fianc- out cause was not allowed to visit their husbands estab- to the lished under the fourth unless the visitors submitted amendment.4 es 1113. The visitors and Id. at searches. plaintiffs The in Long higher invoked the suit. inmate-spouses or -fiances filed their probable cause standard. In the instant alleged that the searches vio- The visitors case, however, Daugherty’s claimed viola- their fourth amendment lated Campbell’s tion is based authorization of freedom from unreasonable searches a visual search without first alleged The inmates seizures. finding either suspicion reasonable or inmates’ wardens violated the fourteenth concealing cause that she was liberty interest visitation amendment dicta, supports contraband. Long, prison regulations. created Tennessee Campbell’s quali- district court’s denial of prison regulations provided The that visit- claim; we, therefore, fied add to only ing rights suspended could be admittedly sparse ease law this Cir- good regulations cause. also regarding protection cuit the extent of probable cause prison official to have prison fourth amendment affords visitors. prison concealing that a visitor is believe so, doing we look to case law from or a visual contraband before a other circuits which establishes body cavity search of the or manual right visitors to be free from the visitor could be authorized. embarrassment and humiliation of a visual filed a motion to dismiss on search unless the offi- wardens They qualified immunity. cial first finds a reasonable the basis they suspi- being had a contraband is concealed. claimed that smuggling plaintiffs cion that were Auger, Hunter v. 672 F.2d 668 Cir. They they maintained that did contraband. 1982), appellate the federal first decision by con- not law violate established requires to hold that the fourth amendment ducting the of the visitors based on search suspicion gov that a standard reasonable denied suspicion. their The district court strip penal ern searches of visitors to insti qualified the motion to dismiss based Hunter, at 674. prison tutions. Id. immunity. prison brought against visitors an action who, receipt based on the of anon Long The court reversed the officials ymous information court’s denial of on the that visitors attempt smuggle drugs during their fourth amendment issue that vis its, prison during required visitors the visitors to submit to a “searches of strip being permitted search before to visit. and 1985 without at least a reasonable law, suspicion weighed The Hunter court the interest of violated established securing penal a reasonable officer should have correctional officials in because person against that found institution the intrusion on known such would be (empha- privacy strip al incident to a search and Long, unconstitutional.” at 1116 added). however, strip particu search of a Long plaintiffs, sis The concluded that the alleged only prob- justified the wardens lacked lar visitor is under the reasonable that searches, prison if officials suspicion for their not that the standard able cause “specific objective facts and rational suspicion. wardens lacked reasonable Id. therefore, plaintiffs, plead support suspicion failed to inferences” that that The attempt smuggle contra cause of action under the fourth amend- a visitor will prison. ment that could wardens’ into the Id. at 674. Hunter obfuscate the band determined that the reasonable sus claim of because the further right prison picion requires standard individualized sus- asserted visitors to be free however, court, liberty Long Long, interest 4. The found that the in- mates. at 1116. Since the established, prison plaintiffs pled were mate had a cause of action under officials requirements the fourteenth amendment. The court reasoned to meet the fundamental regu- violating mandatory language prison process interest. Id. that the of due before liberty lations created entitlements for the in- at 1116-17. prison visitors. The strip search of targeted ing the visitor picion directed plain- are that the at 675.5 relevant facts of Thorne Id. strip search. strip submit to a required to tiff was Snow, Circuit, in Blackburn First The being permitted to visit his before Cir.1985), (1st that a found prison. security state in a maximum son to be prison all visitors policy requiring their prison based decision officials searched, any predicate re- “without re- strip search on information require a suspicion or individualized quirement of plaintiff’s that the from an inmate ceived highly insti- showing special unusual receiving regularly narcotics son was need,” amend- violated the fourth tutional visiting room. through the The Blackburn at 562. ment. Id. legit- retain a prison visitors reasoned that legitimate penological weighing privacy is dimin- expectation imate against privacy inter- security interest security. exigencies prison ished visitors, the Thorne court prison est of Nevertheless, not “suffer prison visitors do suspicion adopted the Hunter rights.” Id. at 563. loss a wholesale Fifth Circuit concluded standard. The with a visi- interference The severe a visitor search must reasonableness during a visual privacy that occurs tor’s in the context of all of the determined by the governed body cavity search Rea- Id. at 1276. facts and circumstances. Circuit, The First amendment. fourth person to the must attach suspicion sonable un- therefore, that absent an concluded suspicion is being searched. Reasonable measures, special security need for usual through readily solely asso- transferred normally requires a more “the Constitution ciation with others with whom reasonable suspicion indi- level of before particularized Id. at 1277. attached. Since has may permissi- wishing jail to visit a viduals pointing to objective no facts there were subject grossly to a bly invasive plaintiff the source of the as narcotics at 564. Thus the Blackburn search.” being smuggled, the search was violative plaintiff’s fourth court found amendment. fourth by the rights had been violated amendment court, nevertheless, granted con- Thorne search which was qualified immunity be policy requiring all officials pursuant ducted search, the law at the time of the cause to be searched. visitors amendment regarding fourth the court further denied the Blackburn The clearly not prison visitors was established. immunity stating, qualified prison official conducted, only one When the was search hardly debated Blackburn can “[i]t had ruled on this issue. See district court had, ‘clearly Fourth a established’ in Amico, (W.D.N.Y. F.Supp. 88 Black v. 387 right be free from unrea- Amendment 1974). The court found this sole Thorne had intimated searches. No court sonable provide district case insufficient today, that then, has intimated as no court a clear indication that prison officials with penal a forfeit who visit institution citizens likely liability. in their would result actions presumptively accorded the protections at Rights.” Bill of 569. by them the ruling qualified We find on the Thorne’s immunity distinguishable from our Jones, F.2d Cir. issue 1270 Thorne Thorne, the search in govern- case. At time of 1985), the also addressed standard suspicion standard because Eighth meet the that rea- reasonable 5. In Circuit reiterated governed strip any suspicion searches of re- record not contain information sonable prison did Gibson, F.2d reliability visitors. Smothers v. garding tip, nature of the Smothers, (8th Cir.1985). prison a informant, degree of corroboration. or strip required search was to submit to a visitor before court, therefore, prison rejected offi- The being permitted son. to visit inmate her they were entitled to cials’ claim that assistant warden claimed he had re- The suspicion the reasonable because tip plaintiff an informant’s ceived in established Decem- was standard bringing drugs prison. into the January when search oc- ber 1981 or court found that facts and The Smothers curred. giving did not rise to the search circumstances legal Camp- conclude that the unlawfulness of spoken on the court had only one justify apparent.7 a search conduct required to bell’s standard case, in In the instant prison a visitor. Black, that have all circuits addition to III. adopted the rea- issue have addressed this reasons, foregoing For the AFFIRM Hunter, standard. suspicion sonable 14, 1989, order the June of the Honorable Blackburn, point and Smothers Thorne Nixon, T. John United States District unlawfulness of the unmistakeably to the Judge for the Eastern District of Tennes- under facts the state officials conduct of see. virtually identical to the circumstances All these in this case.6 presented ones January had been decided before cases NELSON, A. Judge, DAVID We, therefore, in conclude that Jan- 1988. dissenting. addressing the uary the case law case, a I This is close but would resolve suspi- requirement of reasonable

predicate Campbell. in of Warden To favor do other- prison provid- visitors for the search of cion me, wise, greater it seems to is to attribute authoritative, ‘clearly “an established’ ed legal County, acumen to Hickman Tennes- forewarning ... on the rule the defendants see, officialdom than is realistic. Seiter, 858 pain personal liability.” See question The we are to decide is 1177; Long, at 1116. F.2d at see also January proposition of 1988 the whether that the case law estab- We hold the United States Constitution re- prison visitor's lished the contours quires finding suspicion a of reasonable body cavity right to be free from a visual prison can before visits be conditioned suspi- of reasonable absence agreeing to visual visitors’ carrying contraband. cion that he or she proposition a so searches was estab- Court, Anderson, Supreme indicated any lished that reasonable warden qualified immunity need that our denial of pre- within the Sixth Circuit must have upon previous holding that not be based it. sumed to known of very question action —a proposition had never been endorsed cavity search of a visitor without It by the United States Court. prior —is Anderson, endorsed our 483 U.S. at 107 had never been Sixth Cir- unlawful. Yet, case, Appeals. It had been in the instant cuit Court of never 5.Ct. un- the United States District very action in has been held endorsed Tennessee, by every considering circuit the is- Court for the Middle District lawful (Hick- county that includes the sue since 1982. The visitor cases man) Campbell’s prison fa- enough Warden from other circuits are similar where And, as far as I am upon cility reliance them. is located. merit reasonable See aware, Seiter, We, therefore, had never en- proposition F.2d at 1177. been 858 addition, search, cavity involving strip strip search or man- case law We, searches of individuals other than visi- search on a visitor. ual nevertheless, generally tors has followed Hunter’s mandate. acknowledge support- the case law Employees, See Sec. & Law Dist. ing regulations as a basis for Enforcement the use of (2d Cir.1984) Carey, v. 737 F.2d 187 Council 82 Walters, Spruytte F.2d established law. v. 753 (reasonable suspicion required strip to (violation (6th Cir.1985) estab- 498 guards probable and and a warrant cause regulation provid- or lished state administrative required to conduct searches of proof claim ed sufficient to defeat state official's prison guards); Mary City Chicago, Beth v.G. alleging four- in action (7th Cir.1983) (reasonable suspi- F.2d 1263 723 violation). process due teenth amendment ar- cion to search misdemeanor Department’s guidelines do not raise While the awaiting money). restees confined while bail reasonable the fourth amendment’s cause, we note that a four- holding standard to relying 7. We reach this without on liberty may Campbell’s approval Department's guide- amendment interest have of the teenth prior finding higher requiring Long, a of a lines stan- created. at 1116-17. been conducting probable cause—before a dard — 788 equip- carry surveying police to of Tennessee Supreme Court by the

dorsed officers patrol; Digest on state. a Decennial of that ment and any or lower held to a title-searcher’s they cannot be however, en- had, been proposition or a metes and bounds knowledge courts of by federal years in recent dorsed expertise in constitu- legal scholar’s Louis, Boston and in sitting St. appeals supplied.) (Emphasis law.” tional two of these cases New Orleans. pris- the defendant allow refused to courts qualified in these question The relevant any signifi- subjected to to on officials reasonable not a immunity cases is whether liability,1 none of monetary but cant Aldrich, or law (Bailey e.g.) judge circuit rejected the question had circuits three the chal- have believed professor could prison visitors underlying proposition lawful; lenged conduct to submit to searches may asked not be posi- official in the a reasonable whether case at issue in the at comparable have believed defendant could tion of the particularized bar without reasonable Creighton, 483 Anderson v. See lawful. suspicion. 3034, 3039, 641, 635, 97 107 S.Ct. U.S. legal most schol doubt that I have little (1987), the Court de- where 523 L.Ed.2d predict January 1988 to ars, if asked question in this relevant clared that “[t]he would take whether Sixth whether ... is ... case offi- view, in the have answered would same conduct have believed cer could [the least, ordinarily, pris But affirmative.2 (Emphasis lawful....” question] to be Like legal are not scholars. wardens on Telb, 831 Dominque v. supplied.) See also responsi charged with many other officials Cir.1987), (6th quoted in 673, as 676 F.2d nuts-and-bolts work the difficult bility for v. Ass’n. Employees Ohio Civil Service tranquility, prison preserving domestic Cir.1988), (6th Seiter, F.2d normally enjoy advan do not wardens the issue was suggested that where we and the law school education tages of a rights “were so plaintiff’s whether sheets and ponder the advance leisure to the acts were when clearly established may may or not on the law speculate how any committed defen- officer As the circuits. develop in the different objectively, measured position, dant’s Garza, put it in v. Fifth Circuit Saldana that he was understood (5th Cir.1982), cert. duty to have re- under an affirmative denied, 460 103 S.Ct. U.S. (Emphasis from such conduct.” frained (1983), L.Ed.2d or Supreme Court supplied.) Absent action are measure official “[I]f point, decision Seiter Sixth Circuit standard, objective it must be against an teaches, qualified the officer entitled a rea- speaks to what a standard which general ease law is so immunity unless the officer should or should sonable doubt in the overwhelming as to “leave no enforcing and he is know about the law that his con- reasonable officer mind of a effecting its enforce- methodology duct, challenged on constitutional if expect our Certainly we cannot ment. portions of law in this [the our Circuit that "in Auger, Cir. 672 F.2d 668 1. In Hunter only today.” 1982), 'clearly established’ which decided before become area] Snow, Court's Til F.2d 556 enunciation 1277. Blackburn Id. at Fitzgerald, U.S. Cir.1985), doctrine in Harlow v. (1st upheld of substantial an award 2727, (1982), Eighth officials, 102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 396 the damages against but the defendant an Circuit declared that it would not allow dissented, Aldrich, Bailey main- Judge who damages. A sub award of more nominal than colleagues the First Cir- on tained that his two decision, Eighth v. sequent Smothers committing "deep conclusive er- and cuit were Gibson, (8th Cir.1985), F.2d 470 778 reversed qualified immuni- rejecting claim of ror” in summary judgment without for the defendants ty. at 575. imposing any v. restriction. In Thorne such denied, Jones, Cir.1985), (5th F.2d cert. 765 1270 1111, Norris, 1116 Long F.2d in 929 Dicta 1199, 1016, 1198, 89 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. 475 106 1991), three more than a case decided Cir. (1986), that the where the Fifth Circuit held later, support years this conclusion. prevail entitled to defendant officials were immunity grounds, noted the court 588-89, 104 S.Ct. at 3233-34. The Su- wanting.” 858 at found would be grounds, reaffirmed, general repeatedly read the has preme I do not Court at 1177. F.2d power- having moreover, very in this area as “the limited role that courts law case play ful an effect. in the administration of deten- should 584, facilities.” Id. at 104 S.Ct. at tion S.Ct. 441 U.S. Wolfish, Bell 3231-32. (1979), the Su- as 60 L.Ed.2d Rutherford, in Block v. preme noted Court not, fact, Campbell did in If Warden 576, 587-88, 104 S.Ct. 468 U.S. grounds suspect plaintiff Court, (1984), dealing L.Ed.2d 438 trying per- to conceal narcotics on her of required body policy that awith seen, course, it remains to be son—and con- prisoners after cavity searches of all actually grounds he had such or whether visitors, with tact probable cause for the search ac- whether Amendment against a Fourth “sustained tually obviously warden made existed—the conducting rou- challenge practice ordering plaintiff in that the be a mistake following con- body cavity searches tine to a search. It subjected visits, though there had been even tact regardless would have been a mistake attempt smuggle reported only one considerations, any constitutional because facility in a into the contraband regulations permitted such applicable at 558-560 S.Ct. cavity. U.S. [99 only in cases of cause. cavity purpose 1884-1885]. applying regulations But a mistake was to discover searches Wolfish ipso is not a violation of Constitu- facto weapons and contra- smuggling of deter pronounce- tion—and absent a definitive band, by-prod- which was found the constitutional ment on security contact visits. Given uct of Circuit, I or the Sixth am Court protect not and the need to demands the warden’s mistake not satisfied that but also the only other inmates facili- liability subject personal him to should personnel, regard we did not ty’s full case,” extraordinary damages. “In an particu- searches [without teaches, may possible for the Seiter (Em- suspicion] as excessive.” larized provide other courts to decisions of supplied.) phasis necessary clearly established law that test of reminds us “[t]he Wolfish qualified immuni- overcome the defense of Amend- under the Fourth reasonableness world, today’s ty. 858 F.2d at 1177. or capable precise definition ment is not that led unfortunately, the circumstances re- In each case it application. mechanical Campbell the search at to order Warden balancing of the need for quires a hardly be considered “ex- issue here can against the invasion particular search traordinary.” I therefore reverse the search entails.” personal the district court and direct the the order of at 1884. 441 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. judgment for Warden summary entry of which we are con- particular search with ground qualified immu- Campbell on the here, plaintiffs according to the cerned nity. complaint, ordered Warden own plain- Campbell to determine whether possession of narcotics. There

tiff was complaint that allegation in the

is no personal animosity or acted out of

warden motive; as far as the

any other ulterior discloses, simply he wanted to

complaint bring plaintiff did not

make sure that the prison. into “We can take

narcotics unauthorized use of

judicial notice that the plagues problem virtual-

narcotics is every penal and detention center

ly Rutherford, 468 U.S.

country.” Block v.

Case Details

Case Name: Lenora Daugherty v. Donal Campbell, Alton R. Hesson, Robert W. Starbuck, Funderburk, Rita A. Starbuck, Kevin W. Daniels, Bobby L. Chessor

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 27, 1991

Citation: 935 F.2d 780

Docket Number: 89-6008

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.