Robin Hill v. Kevin McKinley

HILL, Plaintiff/Appellee, Robin Miller; McKINLEY; Michael

Kevin Thomas; Barry

Timothy Jen Shoppe; Defendants/Appellants, Holmes,

nifer Doe; Fitzgerald; Sheriff Paul

Janet Iowa;

Story County, Michelle

Bahr, Defendants. 01-2574.

No. Appeals, States Court

United

Eighth Circuit. Dec. 2001.

Submitted: 26, 2002.

Filed: Nov. damages. We reverse district denial of on the

court’s well federal as award of dependent on that fees federal claim. Bruns, argued, L. Cedar

Christopher IA,

Rapids, appellant. for I. argued, Des Hulting, M. Patricia 17, 1996, Hill of evening August On the Moines, IA, appellee. for public for intoxication while was arrested Nevada, walking home from bar in Iowa. WOLLMAN,1 Judge, Chief Before a large had amount of alco- She consumed FAGG, HANSEN, Judges. and Circuit hol—more than three hours after her ar- WOLLMAN, Judge. Chief rest, her alcohol mea- blood content was g/dL. at Michael Miller and 42 sured .306 brought this action under Robin Hill duty jail at Holmes were on the McKin- Jennifer alleging § Kevin U.S.C. officer, police Miller, Bar- when a who is not defen- Timothy Shoppe, ley, Michael action, jail. Thomas, Holmes, jail brought all Hill to and dant this the ry Jennifer Story officer them that Hill had Fitzgerald, Sheriff of The told assault- guards, Paul uncooperative Iowa, Bahr, jail another Hill County, and Michelle the ed officer. during booking process, yelling and matron, Fourth Amendment violated her at cursing viola- Holmes and Miller. The offi- alleged Hill also to cell, placed holding in a under Iowa state cers where privacy rights tion of her the door pounded raised the of she and kicked at of law. defendants defense The time, period After of Holmes immunity the federal claim cell. a short to Miller answer, place jail’s to Hill in de- and decided but the district court with this padded cooperated motion after cell. ruling ferred on this until jail charge policy transfer. Written states given single trial. The claims, in the cell placed it are and state and for both federal clothing in- counts, to normal but awarding Hill on allowed wear found for both $2,500 paper gown nothing damages. The stead must wear district that she offered at all. Holmes contends granted Fitzgerald’s qualified paper Bahr before the transfer but against gown the suit claim and dismissed it. Hill claims that Hill refused wear the statute of limitations. based on gown that she was not offered the and remaining district defen- court denied clothing. of her remove judgment for as a matter Miller observed dants’ motions case, law, any Hill was naked while in the qualified immunity, and a reduc- At some times while in this granted padded cell. damages, tion of cell, but other times she ap- quiet, she was at remaining fees Hill. The defendants the walls and door. rulings yelled them. We struck peal the adverse they and Holmes claim that were judg- of Miller affirm the district court’s denial to hurt her- going Hill was matter law as the Iowa concerned that ment as a jury’s claim award self. state law and affirm January He stepped 2002. Roger L. close business

1. The Honorable Wollman Honorable David Judge States has been succeeded as Chief United down Eighth at the R. Hansen. Appeals Circuit Court of for the Bahr, Shoppe, rulings Tim on the issue should made Defendants Michelle McKinley, Barry ar- expenses “so that costs and early Kevin. .Thomas shortly the scheduled 11:00 rived before are trial avoided where the defense dis- new- p.m. change. Together Katz, shift positive.” Saucier v. 533 U.S. officers, and Holmes ly Miller de- arrived 200, 121 150 L.Ed.2d 272 S.Ct. cell cided to remove Hill from immunity, Like absolute the de place on a board. The qualified immunity effectively fense “is claim that the decision was defendants erroneously permitted lost if case is decid- made for Hill’s trial.’-’ go Forsyth, Mitchell part ed to make the move at time 86 L.Ed.2d 411 required a greater because the transfer (1985). Therefore, qualified denials of im duty guards than were on for number of munity immediately appealable are under policy required guards each Jail the shift. 1291, § “notwithstanding the ab 28 U.S.C. prisoners from quickly padded to move the judgment.” sence final Id. at 105 board, practice cell to restraint and the the 2806. The defendants raised the S.Ct. regard so without to prison- was to do the qualified immunity defense in their answer McKinley of dress. Thomas and er’s state to Hill’s third amended and substituted in- previously had testified been not complaint, but did file a motion for jured prisoners they by attempting were summary judgment, prac as is the usual Hill, moving Prior offi- to restrain. to the not Although tice. the defendants did re cers and food on closed windows slots the an early ceive benefit of resolution to nearby cells. The officers then removed qualified immunity, claim of the their de cell, a hall from the walked her down by is fense not waived failure to assert it room, strapped into another to the Bise, by prior motion trial. to v. 173 Goff face-down, naked, in restrainer board (8th Cir.1999). appeal 1072 F.3d On position. spread-eagle á No one other rejection a post-trial qualified from a than the defendants observed Hill while defense, immunity we the evi consider strapped she was naked. She remained in a light prevailing favorable to the dence approximately for the board three hours. Boulter, F.3d Iacobucci v. 193 party. point, At some Bahr covered Hill’s but- (1st Cir.1999); Mahre, Thompson 23 v. 110 towel, although tocks parties the Cir.1997). F.3d 721 issues of The dispute long how Hill was on the board evidence, in whether viewed this before this was done. re- After light, establishes a constitutional violation board, leased 'she given from and, so, right if whether violated was prison uniform to wear. at clearly ques established the time are of law that review Elder tions de novo. II. Holloway, 516, 114 v. S.Ct. U.S. argue Defendants dis 1019, 127 (1994). L.Ed.2d 344 judg trict court should granted have them ment matter law as a on the Fourth A. qualified Amendment claim im based quali inquiry The threshold munity. This case is unusual in immunity analysis fied a motion determination of decided on question qualified summary is judgment was first decided after a trial on whether plaintiff has facts Supreme alleged merits. Court has em sufficient es phasized repeatedly qualified Hope immuni tablish constitutional violation. — Pelzer, trial,” U.S. -, ty is an “entitlement to stand S.Ct. (2002). response is that it was an inquiry exaggerated dence This L.Ed.2d concerns); security see also Lee v. right assert so that even if the first

made Downs, established, 1120-21 Cir. clearly a determina is not ed 1981) (upholding vagina search of inmate’s forth might “set it was tion that violated presence a female nurse of two the basis for which will become principles guards). male clearly estab holding Saucier, lished.” Regarding Hill’s second post- this reviewing dispute there is no that Hill was unclothed immunity, we ex trial denial taken cell when she was from the in a presented at trial the evidence amine room the restrainer to the exercise where if favorable Hill to determine light located. followed board was Defendants was so that defendants one-sided evidence ordinary practice moving prison of law. prevail as a matter were entitled unruly justify enough er who is removal argued 110 F.3d at 721. Hill Thompson, cell to from a restraints. Because privacy rights were violated that her female, enough there were 1) ways: she was particular three Hill, transfer male and available to both a male offi in the to disrobe guards participated in the transfer. female 2) cer; through required she was to walk than the No one other defendants saw in the of male offi jail presence nude the naked as she walked from the cell 3) cers; was nude on she restrained light of these to the exercise room. male in of presence board the restrainer circumstances, we hold that use of male officers. justified in an transfer of guards otherwise is not unruly prisoner and naked female respect Hill’s first With of the Fourth Amendment. a violation dispute required guard which parties the Franklin, Timm, 1102; F.2d at in the placed when she was Hill to disrobe at 656-57. F.2d Mil that it was padded cell. testified re ler, that she had the Fourth and Holmes testified The third violation of having jury by was enti asserted Hill is Hill to undress. The Amendment quired board testimony that it was the restrainer to credit been secured tled presence in spread-eagled the who her to disrobe. naked and guard male however, restrained we male officers. was guard, if it was a male of Even hours. and a half that it is this manner three say light precedent cannot into the brought Amend naked when first prisoner’s of a Fourth She was violation board, to the guard to exercise room secured rights for a male privacy ment remained disputed long how she prisoner but it is a loud female require violent partially Bahr covered placing presence in his before naked before to disrobe Bahr, Hill was safety. According to with a towel. in a cell for her own Gunter, immediately after she almost F.2d covered Timm v. Cir.1990) the board. Hill testified per (opposite placed surveillance sex just until before uncovered as same-sex she remained on the same basis formed Al the justi released from board. where she was unreasonable surveillance the at the time of though con Hill’s intoxication safety employment by equal fied Lockhart, inconsistent subsequent and her cerns); incident Franklin v. credibility, (8th Cir.1989) (visual testimony undercut her body cav 654, 656-57 Hill on jury believed indicates in view of other verdict ity conducted searches Viewing disputed points. of the evi- several upheld absent substantial cier, however, in light Supreme Court conflicting evidence favorable stated Hill, inquiry alleged that the found that whether the assume into right clearly she remained unclothed constitutional established than a guards period male for more brief in light specif- “must be undertaken safety case, of time. The interests and secu- ic context of the not as a broad Saucier, rity by general asserted the defendants are suffi- proposition.” 533 U.S. at prompt Thus, support cient to Supreme S.Ct. 2151. prisoner, a violent when she is even naked Court has that the lower directed courts and some male must be used to not take too broad a view of what consti- perform procedure. Those same clearly inter- tutes law. established justify exposure do the continued ests clearly For a constitutional to be prisoner’s genitals once she has been established, its contours “must be suffi- longer poses any restrained and no threat ciently clear that a reasonable official inability to herself or others. Hill’s would that what doing understand he is invasion turning minimize the right. violates that This is not say any way covering herself distin- that an protected by official action is guishes oppo- this case from cases where very unless ac- justified monitoring by security site-sex in question previously tion has been held Timm, concerns. 917 F.2d at unlawful; say but it is to in the 1102 (upholding opposite-sex monitoring light preexisting law the unlawfulness pat searches where inmates can shield apparent.” must be themselves a towel while in the toilet Hope, 122 (quoting S.Ct. at 2515 Anderson or shower and a same-sex rule would sig- Creighton, v.. nificantly cost staffing affect the of (1987)) 3034, (citation 97 L.Ed.2d 523 omit resources). Thus, we hold that Hill’s ted). Thus, precedential case need not rights Fourth Amendment were violated clearly be on all fours to establish a consti when the allowed her defendants to remain violation, tutional it must but be sufficient completely to exposed male for a ly analogous put to a reasonable officer on period substantial of time after the threat that notice his conduct was unconstitution security passed. had Bachmeier, 845, al. Meloy v. 302 F.3d 849 (8th Cir.2002). we

Although conclude that the violation, facts establish constitutional The district- court cited several cases believe the indicating defendants were entitled to that prison officials must bal qualified immunity on ground ance an right inmate’s with the clearly actions violate security did not estab needs of institution. Order of 15, prior 2001, lished law. Citing (citing case from our June Wolfish, 29 Bell v. proposition 1861, for the 441 we take a 99 “broad clearly (1979); Chapman Nichols, view” of what constitutes L.Ed.2d 447 v. (10th law, Ianni, 393, Cir.1993);

established Burnham v. 119 989 F.2d 395-97 (8th 668, Cir.1997), Edwards, F.3d The district Jones v. 770 F.2d 741-42 (8th Cir.1985)). court concluded that the violation alleged general this While state clearly correct, claim three was ment of established. the law is the cases do not view,” Applying this clearly “broad the district establish defendants’ actions unconstitutional, court held that a reasonable officer were especially given would have known that holdings while she cases that prison several other . right unclothed was unwarranted In ers have general Sau- no to be seen See, clearly precludes § by guards opposite sex. established naked of fees); Gunter, of attorney’s Hopkins v. 917 F.2d award v. e.g., Timm (8th Cir.1999) Cir.1990) Saunders, (8th 199 F.3d (opposite-sex pat 1101—02 (same). monitoring prison of naked searches Amendment); of Fourth not violative ers B. Thurman, 619-22 v.

Somers Cir.1997) (9th appeal (finding clearly no estab The defendants also from the of their for opposite-sex judgment free of visu denial motion lished 1993); matter of law on the merits of cavity as of John body al searches Phelan, claims. Because the defendants are enti- Cir. 69 F.3d son 1995) qualified immunity tled on the federal of naked (opposite-sex monitoring only we address claim. state law permissible, guards prisoners “entitled upon Hill sued under the “intrusion seclu- every daily of regulate watch and detail theory life”). privacy. sion” of invasion of Thus, authority indi the relevant district court submitted federal very are entitled to cates jury state law claims to the under the circum privacy, of narrow zones instruction. proper- same That instruction may warrant the most invasive stances listed the ly elements intrusion light bodily intrusions into law, so seclusion under Iowa in order authority, say matter we cannot as a this return a must verdict for clearly law that it was established found ele- proved have that she all the intoxicated, highly loud of her claim. ments state law constitutionally prisoner could not violent all naked outside the view of be restrained court’s “We review district Thus, guards. small but a number de judgment denial as matter of law have court should ruled that district novo, applying the same standard as that im entitled to defendants were employed by district court.” Belk v. claim. munity on Hill’s Fourth Amendment Cir.2000), Eldon, City rt. denied 532 U.S. 121 S.Ct. ce attor received award of 1734, 149 L.Ed.2d 659 We resolve 1988, § 42 ney’s pursuant fees U.S.C. non-moving party all doubts favor any “In provides pertinent part: which rea give that the benefit of all party proceeding provision or action enforce Id. “Judgment sonable inferences. 1983, court, ... ... in its section[ ] of all appropriate only matter of law is discretion, party may prevailing allow the way one and is points of the evidence attorney’s Defen ... a reasonable fee.” sus susceptible no reasonable inference argue “prevailing dants taining position nonmoving par they claim party” on her federal because (quoting McKnight Id. at v. ty.” 877-78 immunity. Be qualified are entitled to Controls, 1396, 36 F.3d 1400 Johnson cause we hold that defendants are entitled (internal omitted)). Cir.1994) quotation claim, immunity on the federal of inva- prevailing party adopted section Iowa has the elements Hill is not on her claim, in the Restatement privacy and thus the section 1988 sion of found 1983 (Second) Winegard § 652A. v. necessarily fails. of Torts award of fees 1977). Larsen, (Iowa Helms, 759-60, 107 260 822 v. 482 U.S. Hewitt N.W.2d (1987) Restatement, stan- According to (qualified 96 L.Ed.2d 654 upon § is an claim for “intrusion seclusion” dismissal 1983 where dard upon the solitude found “intentional intrusion constitutional violation but 906 Thus, highly

seclusion of another-which would be hers. affirm the verdict toas (cit person.” privacy offensive to a reasonable Id. the state law claim. (Second) of

ing Restatement Torts C. 652B). § Supreme The Iowa Court has any great explained detail the ele challenge defendants also the dam- ments to meet this standard. award, ages arguing that there is a causal that have “intru Other courts confronted physical disconnect damages between the upon sion cases empha seclusion” have award privacy and the invasion of tort. highly reasons, sized that the conduct must be of For tactical Hill did not claim the person. damages ordinarily fensive to reasonable See Borse emotional distress as- Inc., seclusion, sociated Shop, upon v. Piece with intrusion Goods sub- (3rd Cir.1992) mitting only physical instead a claim (applying Pennsylvania pain Restatement); suffering. The district court citing law and Fields v. found that Hill Atchison, special was entitled to Co., dam- Topeka, Ry. and Santa Fe ages invasion, caused (D.Kan.1997) and the F.Supp. $2,500 physical pain awarded for her (“both the manner of intrusion as well as suffering. acquired the nature of the information ... being must highly rise to the level of offen Hill argued, and the district court person”), sive to the reasonable withdrawn accepted, position the Restatement (D.Kan.1998); part, F.Supp.2d “special damage of which the invasion is a Service, Inc., Watkins v. United Parcel legal may cause” be recovered on an inva (S.D.Miss.1992) F.Supp. 1359-60 (Sec privacy sion of claim. Restatement (Mississippi requires law conduct “to which ond) 652H(c). § According Torts strongly object” reasonable man would Hill, focus should be on the actions utterly “some bad faith or reckless tort, constituting the but she offers no

prying”), aff'd, Cir. support for this assertion. The cases cited 1992). by the suggest defendants that to be re coverable on an invasion of presented evidence to ef special damages in the form physical fect unnecessary that it was and unreason injuries and pain associated and suffering able for the immediately defendants not to must abe result of the emotional distress cover her after restrained her. We associated with Kjerstad the invasion. say cannot that as a matter of law the Publ’ns, Inc., Ravellette 517 N.W.2d defendants’ actions were not an unreason (S.D.1994) (damages included vomit highly able and offensive intrusion headaches, ing, sickness); stomach Sabri Hill’s question There is no that Willman, 149, na W. v. 4 Neb.App. 540 being hallway by marched down a several (1995) N.W.2d (listing examples persons, including oppo members of the shock, fright, sleeplessness, and head sex, site being strapped and then aches). face- jury We are reluctant to reverse a spread-eagle position, down to board in a damages. award of United States v. Lar naked, all completely while would be con ry Reed P’ship, & Sons highly by ordinary per sidered offensive Cir.2002) (“[W]e will not reverse sons. sup There is sufficient evidence to jury verdict for insufficient evidence un port jury’s apparent belief that juror less no reasonable could have re defendants did not need to restrain turned a verdict for non-moving par naked in protect ty.”) order to (quoting Corp. Symons EFCO Cir.2000)). at “clearly established” law was Corp., 219 trial, I the restraint. Because believe at time of presented the evidence Based on began the constitutional violation juror could have believed reasonable transported Hill was straps were the moment Ms. injuries from the physical cell, and that the naked from the of Hill’s by the invasion caused “fair warning” officers in this case had complete exposure in that rights amounted to an unconstitu- their actions anger anguish caused Hill such privacy, I re- tional invasion of Ms. struggled against her bonds naturally she Thus, spectfully portion we dissent from that of the thereby became bruised. $2,500 opinion grants which the officers compen- court’s award of affirm qualified immunity and which reverses the satory damages. attorney’s fees on the federal award III. claim. agreement with the emphasize our We analyzing the reasonableness were violated. rights that Hill’s dissent the Fourth Amend- officers’ actions under the estab- disagree only on whether We ment, the need for this court must balance the violation was at the time of lished law deprivation pri- against such actions offi- sufficiently place a reasonable clear vacy rights that resulted therefrom.2 See unlaw- that his conduct was cer on notice 520, 559, 99 Wolfish, Bell v. 441 U.S. S.Ct. that the hold that it was not and ful. We The Su- 60 L.Ed.2d immu- qualified are entitled to defendants historically given great preme Court has claim. Fourth Amendment nity on the policies practices deference to the the as- we must also reverse Accordingly, See, e.g., id. at prison administrators. attorney’s fees. With sociated award judicial (noting that defer- pri- Hill’s state law invasion of respect to should be prison ence to administrators finding of affirm both the vacy regard “wide-ranging,” particularly damage award. liability and the policies adoption “the and execution judgment Fourth Amend- are need- judgment on the that in their practices reversed, award of order and disci- preserve as is the internal ment claim is ed claim, and the case institutional securi- fees on that and to maintain attorney’s pline Procunier, 817, 822, di- 417 U.S. ty”); to the district court with Pell v. is remanded (1974) complaint as to the 41 L.Ed.2d 495 to dismiss the 94 S.Ct. rection (“ ‘[Ljawful claim about the brings claim and the incarceration Fourth Amendment many respects, limitation of necessary In all other withdrawal or fees. justified rights, affirmed. a retraction judgment privileges underlying penal our considerations HANSEN, Judge, dissenting. Circuit omitted). ”) (citation But see system.’ Palmer, 468 U.S. Hudson v. that the con- Although the court states (1984) (“[P]ris- 82 L.Ed.2d a naked S.Ct. of Ms. tinuing restraint rights not accorded those unconstitutional, oners [must] it concludes condition imprison- fundamentally inconsistent the officers are entitled objec- with the incompatible or the ment itself claim because immunity on federal arrestee, under either analysis, the methods results claim Ms. Hill submitted her 2. As an Although sufficiently I analysis similar that do Fourth Amendment. are under the cite, I as well as those of the cases that cases. some between these differentiate court, by process upon apply the a due relied incarceration.”)- Nevertheless, clothing entering padded their the tives of cell, involving prison upon jail’s practice adminis- the usual this is not a case transporting or a criminal. these arrestees “as is” from tration convicted padded restraining cell to the board that the court relies To the extent using no fewer than five officers. The involving prisoners convicted of cases claim that methods are nec- officers these crimes, pause to note that I must essary safety for the of both arrestee rights prisoners are not identical of these duty. appar- and the officers on Officers Hill as an arrestee. The to those of Ms. ently rely surprise on the elements of give prison to administrators deference we overwhelming moving show of force in “legitimate penological under the rubric quickly padded the arrestee from the cell necessarily constrains the con- interests” board, restraining thereby avoiding to the prisoners. rights stitutional of convicted any unnecessary delay where an officer Safley, Turner v. 482 U.S. See might injured by poten- be an arrestee’s Incar- S.Ct. 96 L.Ed.2d tially violent actions. by very nature ceration its limits the ex- prisoners may I tent to which convicted le- understand that arrestees whose con- in gitimately expect privacy day-to- following requires their duct arrest use Hudson, day padded may present significant safety lives. See 468 U.S. at 526- cell (noting duty, that convicted concerns to the officers on I severe, legitimate expecta- agree do not have a that when these concerns cells). prison may justify employed by tion of their Un- the methods Hill, However, prisoners, like these Ms. as noncon- officers in this case. in the case innocent, Hill, presumed application to policy victed arrestee of Ms. of the fully unnecessary retained her Fourth Amendment was both and unreasonable. subject right privacy, only Instituting policy justified to such rea- a blanket that is imposed by as must be legitimate safety sonable constraints concerns and there- safety security. If interest there fore constitutional on its face cannot shield evidence in the record substantial law enforcement officers from their con- exaggerated tinuing duty indicate the officials have constitutional to evaluate the response legitimate their to otherwise fight reasonableness of their actions in the concerns, safety longer then no are presented. circumstances professional judgment. shielded their The arrestee this case was a 110- Wolfish, 441 See 99 S.Ct. 1861. pound, highly intoxicated female. Al- balancing After the officers’ though belligerent concern she had been when offi- safety alleged attempted yelled about and their need to cers to book her and had walls, transport pounded and restrain Ms. Hill in a state on parties the cell both against right agree of total Ms. Hill’s compliant during nakedness that she was privacy, I that the conclude actions of move to the cell and from cell the officers unreasonable the cir- were board. Two officers had poten- successfully cumstances of her detention. The moved Ms. without inci- danger posed tial holding Ms. of dent from the cell to the cell, duty herself and the signifi- obeyed officers and she the male officer’s disrobe, cantly outweighed by her Fourth requiring yet Amend- order her to an hour later, defending ment alleg- of six officers was conduct, rely upon county jail edly protection the officers insufficient to allow Ms. policy that requires opportunity arrestees to remove even the briefest to cover upheld employment of female by male offi- court being escorted herself before prison, finding an all-male that guards at to a hallway strapped cers down employment equality, the interests in effi- concerns Any general restraining board. staffing, prison security cient out- an arres- removing in officer about minimal into the weighed the intrusions certainly cell were padded from the tee prisoners’ privacy. Ms. is not com- in the arrestee this by the size of mitigated general policy which al- plaining about officers. Fur- presence of six case and the lows surveillance male or the thermore, that she apparent once it was in fact that viewed her naked had compliant as she been would be Rather, padded alleges cell. she that their padded holding cell to the moved from the from decision to remove her cell, for the officers it was unreasonable cell, hallway, escort her down the secure obviously not that did rely policy board, restraining and then her to the unrea- circumstances. This apply in the restrained, all in a state of leave her so greater over with even carried sonableness nakedness, humiliat- degrading, total was At Hill was restrained. force once Ms. jail ing, application and an unreasonable absolutely legiti- no point, there Downs, policy. See Lee failing to cover security purpose mate (4th Cir.1981) (“Most ... people have strapped body naked while she genitals, in their special sense of upon the board. “spread-eagle” in involuntary exposure of them the in rights concluding that Ms. people may of the other sex be “clearly es- circumstances were not these demeaning humiliating. especially tablished,” the court cites number necessary, that sort reasonably When that fe- support proposition cases upon degradation is not to be visited right not to general have no male inmates prisons.”). confined in our those opposite by guards seen naked be inci- distinguish court fails to between the true, proposition may be sex. While convicts that takes viewing dental of naked Hill makes in it is not the claim that Ms. place day-to-day life of Instead, alleges she this case. of a continuing and the total restraint ar- night actions on the she was officers’ pres- in the spread-eagled naked woman unconstitutionally unrea- rested were an may the former ence of six officers. While application policies of their sonable reasonably necessary for the efficient involving pris- practices. Unlike situations prison sys- day-to-day administration harboring suspected of contraband oners tem, unnecessary to wholly the latter was or subjected strip are searches who safety of the arrestee protect either the searches, transporting body cavity visual present. of the officers cell and secur- an arrestee from cites Franklin v. Lock The court also ing board do (8th Cir.1989), hart, which nudity, much less the necessarily require policy requiring upheld prison’s geni- prolonged exposure of the arrestee’s in body cavity searches of daily visual opposite sex. Be- tals to members of seg serving mates time administrative legitimate security con- cause there was no searches were instituted regation. These Ms. the officers to make cern ongoing problem to an response as a nude, by the Hill remain the cases cited in the area of the weapons drugs distinguishable. court are dangerous and housing the most prison Gunter, inmates. The court concluded 917 recalcitrant The court cites Timm v. intrusive, equally (8th Cir.1990), no less there was which F.2d 1093 general right, a constitution- ensuring security ee Fisher had method for effective subjected by ally protected, not to be state The court noted its prison. of the case, involuntary exposure action to in a state of facts of the holding limited to the was opposite sex only nakedness members is allowable when and that action such reasonably nec- exposure unless that was “exaggerated response” it is not legal essary maintaining her otherwise at 657. If re- security concerns. See id. detention.”) added). In (emphasis the cir- compliant, 110-pound a woman to quiring cumstances, I Hill’s ex- conclude Ms. transporting nude while her remain posure reasonably necessary was not jail’s hallway securing her through the safety maintain her to a board officers. offering much officers without so six gown exag-

a or a blanket is not an paper Because the actions of the officers concerns, security gerated response to amounted to a clear violation of Ms. Hill’s is. then I am unsure what rights, I do not believe are entitled to immunity. In Buckley Roger v. Downs, Finally, court cites Lee v. son, Cir.1998), 133 F.3d 1125 our Cir.1981). This case 641 F.2d 1117 explained: being an inmate evaluat- involved who In order to determine whether a suspected attempt. ed for a suicide She established, clearly necessary it is not clothing, to surrender her directly bra, Supreme that .the Court has ad- including her underwear and because issue, precise dressed the nor does the prison hang doctor believed she could question action or omission in need to given paper them. She was herself with have been held unlawful. In the ab- gown, burning was later discovered it but binding precedent, sence of a court rightfully in her cell. Prison officials be- should look to all available decisional posses- lieved that she had matches law, courts, including sion, decisions of state prison and therefore ordered the circuits search, other and district courts. body cavity nurse conduct including vaginal examination. Evidence (citing 133 F.3d at 1129 v. Arkan Norfleet showed that there was not a sufficient Servs., Dep’t sas Human guards of female available at the number (8th Cir.1993)). recently, More replace time to the two male who Supreme reiterated the test for de Court legs during held her the examination. termining “clearly whether the law was Furthermore, there were no alternative purpose granting for the established” quickly poten- recovering methods qualified immunity. analysis, Under this tial appears contraband. This case also court must ask whether the state be limited to its facts. gave “fair warning” law the officers Hope unconstitutional. conduct was Furthermore, in Lee and other cases — Pelzer, -, it, that followed the Fourth has Circuit 2516, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 repeatedly recognized involuntary ex- law, posure of a In genitals pres- examining detainee’s our own case as well people may, Supreme ence of of the other sex as that of the Court and other circuits, reasonably necessary, I at constitute vio- conclude that the time of Ms. constitutionally protected rights. detention, lation of Hill’s arrest and the officers had 1119;- Washington warning” See id. Fisher v. “fair that their treatment of Ms. Auth., Metro. Area Transit 690-F.2d Hill was unconstitutional. addition (4th Cir.1982) (“[A]s pretrial legal precedent, of ordi- detain- common notion reasonably not decency necessary should have alerted nakedness was nary human Hill’s Fourth Amend- and therefore was violation of her consti- to Ms. the officers tutionally protected right privacy. intrusions I right against ment unreasonable Indeed, under affirm would the district court’s denial of analysis, they were re- balancing qualified immunity uphold the award Wolfish to evaluate the reasonableness quired fees this case. intrusion Given that

their actions. very signifi-

upon Ms. intrusive,

cant, nonrisky and that less available, the cases cited

methods were sufficiently analogous

the court are with a reasonable be-

provide the officers comported with the

lief that their actions constitution. PONCE, Appellant, Ramon P. that in- clearly established The law was voluntary exposure genitals of a detainee’s presence people of the other sex America, UNITED STATES of reasonably necessary, may, when Appellee. constitutionally a violation of amount to rights. general Ms. Hill had a

protected No. 02-2058. constitutionally protected, not to be right, Appeals, United States Court of subjected involuntary exposure and to- Eighth Circuit. in a of nakedness incapacitation tal state opposite members Submitted: Nov. 2002. exposure reasonably sex unless Nov. 2002. Filed: necessary legitimate to further interest, namely protection either deny- Hill or the officers. its order

Ms.

ing qualified immunity, the district

stated: jus-

Only conceivably two could reasons jail

tify moving through the (1) her on the board naked:

placing injury was so

risk of or others there was not time to

immediate Hill a to cover

permit opportunity brief (2)

herself; presented such [or] giving of assaultive behavior that

danger opportunity pre- to cover herself harm to Hill significant

sented a risk of officers.

or the 45.) agree I the district

(App. p. officer could have

court that no reasonable

believed that either of these conditions was case,

present. In the circumstances of this officially-imposed

I find that Ms. Hill’s

Case Details

Case Name: Robin Hill v. Kevin McKinley

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 26, 2002

Citation: 311 F.3d 899

Docket Number: 01-2574

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.