Tiffany Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education

BLACK, COX, Before RONEY and Judges. Circuit COX, Judge: Circuit appellants, thirteen schoolchildren in Clayton County, Georgia, sued their Tracey Morgan, teacher Zannie Officer Police, Clayton County principal their Rob- school’s assistant R.G. erts, principal Ralph the school’s Mat- thews, District, Clayton County School County, alleging they and the subject strip to unconstitutional searches. The district court found that grant- searches1 were unconstitutional but though 1. Even do not all contend for convenience to refer to of the searches during required all remove which the children were clothes, “strip phrase clothing. use we will search” remove items summary judgment ed to all defendants on Morgan took the trash cans to the school’s claims, all concluding the individual workroom. There Morgan met qualified defendants were entitled to im- principal, school’s assistant defendant R.G. improper and the munity searches were Roberts, and a paraprofessional. product of School District or Because the school’s principal was affirm.2 policy. We time, the building at the Roberts was serv- ing as acting principal. Background3 Morgan informed Roberts that money the morning On of October was missing from her classroom and asked fifth-grader Sergio brought Evans to West that she be allowed to conduct a search to Clayton Elementary an envelope School search, find it. Roberts authorized a al- containing twenty-six dollars he had raised though response her exact dispute. is in selling candy trip. for a school Sergio Roberts maintains that gave Morgan she proceeded teacher, to the classroom of his limits, very specific authorizing only a Tracey defendant Morgan, and laid the search of girls’ purses boys’ and the envelope on a table near her desk. Mo- pockets. Morgan testified that Roberts later, Sergio ments noticed that the envel- placed specific no limits on the search and ope longer was no on the in- table and simply search, approved a stating that “no formed Morgan, who asked the class child should have that amount money anyone money. had seen the None of the (Pis. 60). them.” Ex. Morgan Dep. at children in the class indicated that they Two students testified they heard happened knew what had envelope. to the Morgan Billingslea tell that Roberts had Sergio searched belongings, but failed authorized her “strip to search” the chil- to find the money. Morgan, who oversaw dren.4 Roberts and Morgan disagree also a class filled with children who were too as to whether Roberts Morgan authorized poor lunches, to afford their school testi- in Billingslea to use the search. fied that she felt that the missing money presented Roberts, speaking serious situation. After with Morgan returned to her began classroom and to point, At this defendant Officer Zannie envelope. Billingslea search for the re- Clayton of the County Police mained in the room. Morgan searched the Department arrived teach a class desks, bags, students’ book purses. drug awareness for the Drug Abuse Resis- She then asked the students to remove (“DARE”) tance Education program. shoes, their so she could if they determine Morgan left the class in Billingslea’s had secreted the hands, envelope their socks. carrying out the room’s trash cans Finally, Morgan told the children to turn through to search them for envelope. pockets out their front unsuccessfully pat After and allow her to attempting to contact Sergio’s if Sergio pockets. mother to see down their back Morgan had for- did not gotten bring school, the envelope to missing envelope; find the nor did the Principal searches, 2. gallons, including Matthews has been dismissed as the extent of the appellee by agreement of counsel. We whether some students were searched absent therefore will not suspicion, address the district court's reasonable and whether some stu- grant summary judgment get on the claims were dents threatened in order to them to against him. comply the search. presented light The facts are disregarded most 4.The district court this testimo- plaintiffs. ny, concluding favorable to the The defendants it was inadmissable hear- vigorously dispute many say. of the alle- students’ him. The en- any pants, Billingslea individu- released point

results of At this potential suspect. velope as a was not found the searches. al student who three students point, Morgan allowed boys had returned to class- Once out DARE hand had been scheduled room, Morgan girls told all line third-grade to leave class ribbons in the up hallway girls’ outside the rest- students, despite being classroom. These brought girls room. She then into the envelope disappeared, when the present two five groups restroom investigation. further subject to no at a time. The students testified that Billingslea, who had Morgan informed pants lower Morgan made them their of the from the back observed efforts their Most of raise dresses shirts. room, envelope. that she had not found asked to lift their brassi- girls also that it had become Billingslea Morgan told expose eres breasts ensure children, boys, to especially fashionable for envelope was not hidden under pairs pants wear two more girls testified their bras. Some in a lower envelope might be secreted them as Morgan touched she searched for up layer. Morgan boys broke into envelope. testimony There is five them groups of four and and sent Morgan girls warned the that could boys’ with group by group to-the restroom “juvenile” complying. sent boys the testified Billingslea. Several Sales, first at Mor- Cherika who arrived restroom, that, Billingslea in the once the gan’s girls lining when classroom pulled pants his and underwear down restroom, up to be searched the was chil- the his ankles to demonstrate what subjected to the same search as other Billingslea to do. also dren were girls. Although Cherika had been an- pull boys they didn’t informed morning, other classroom entire Mor- directed, pants they their as would down personal first gan belongings searched her jail. suspended from school or taken to pants and then pull made Cherika dropped pants, All and boys their and bra down lift her above her breasts in dropped pants some of them both envelope Again, the restroom. and underwear. One student testified not found. Once the searches com- neighborhood saw him girls two from his plete, Morgan conducted no further inves- drop pants through the restroom’s tigation the rest of school day open dropped his door. As each student proceeded as normal. visually pants, inspected Billingslea the envel- boy’s underwear to ensure that day, parents The next three sets com- ope was not inside. Ralph plained Principal Matthews and Roberts about the searches. Matthews Billingslea searching

While assured them that the school would con- Grace, boys, Lester Lenard a student thorough investigation. duct a Roberts class, fifth the rest- grade another entered gathered then the children asked them called over and Billingslea room. Lenard describing to write statements the events money. him Le- missing asked about the previous day. of the After he read the protested nothing nard that he knew about statements, children’s Matthews asked money even and wasn’t a member of Morgan her version give of events. The Morgan’s Billingslea class. told Lenard School District thereafter launched in- pull pants pockets out his and loosen his into vestigation of its own the matter. Af- then belt. shook Lenard’s pants envelope ter the students’ reviewing to see if the was secreted statements and Roberts, Matthews, nothing meeting inside. When fell of Lenard’s out (2) al; Morgan, investigator despite the District’s con- the unconstitutional nature “strip searches, cluded the students were not the individual defendants Clayton County searched.” The (3) Police were entitled to qualified immunity; Department performed its own investiga- the District was not liable for the actions conduct, Billingslea’s tion of which resulted Roberts, (4) Morgan, or Billingslea; in the issuance of a reprimand letter of County was not liable for the actions of against Billingslea and a reduction in his (5) Billingslea; and the students’ state law pay increase.5 claims should be dismissed preju- without dice. The students filed a motion to re- The students filed suit the Northern open the case to determine whether Georgia District of on May injunctive were entitled to and declarative complaint Their amended alleges several review, Upon relief. the district court de- First, complaint claims. alleges requested nied the appeal relief. This fol- Roberts, Matthews, Morgan, Billingslea, lowed. District, County deprived and the rights students “of them to privacy, to be Appeal Issues on secure in their persons and to be free from pro- unreasonable searches and students contend on appeal seizures as that the First, Fourth, Fifth, tected district court Ninth erred in: determining ” (R.2- and Fourteenth Amendments.... the individual pro- defendants were 21.) complaint 52 at by qualified tected alleges immunity; conclud- deprived defendants the District and could their rights process protected to due searches; not be held liable for the the Fourteenth Finally, Amendment. injunctive denying and declaratory relief. complaint alleges violations of Georgia We review district grant court’s of sum- Georgia constitution and statutes. The novo, mary judgment de drawing all rea- complaint compensatory puni- seeks sonable inferences from the record in favor damages declaratory tive as well as of the nonmoving party. See Korman v. injunctive relief. Florida, Inc., 1291, HBC 182 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.1999). grant A district court’s

The defendants moved for summary denial equitable subject of relief is to re- judgment, which the granted district court Kidder, view for abuse of discretion. See comprehensive in a ninety-one page order. Brandt, Peabody 1001, & v.Co. 131 F.3d First, the district court determined (11th Cir.1997). 1003 the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search applicable and seizure claim made Discussion through the Fourteenth Amendment was We will begin by viable federal claim. our discussion consid- The district accordingly ering court the constitutionality dismissed the other fed- of the searches eral applied proceed claims and Fourth and then each by Amend- issue raised ment standards to the students’ claims.6 the students in turn. See Sac- Lewis, The proceeded 833, 840, district court that: to find ramento v. 523 U.S. 118 (1) 1708, 5, searches were unconstitution- 5.Ct. 1714 n. 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 police restroom; investigators 5. The improperly concluded Bil- used threaten- lingslea probable had: acted without ing pull tactics to force the children to searches; (2) conducting cause in failed to pants down. searches; obey known caselaw on school department's policies violated the on school question 6. The students do not the dismissal searches; (4) unprofessionally acted in lower- of their other constitutional claims. ing pants boys’ in front of students in the 1166 Ct., 523, 536-37,

(1998) (courts S.Ct. to determine Mun. 387 U.S. obligated (1967)). After a 18 L.Ed.2d 930 alleged constitu- plaintiff whether a has weighing legitimate expectations students’ proceeding to ad- before deprivation tional privacy against school officials’ need an individual dress whether proper a maintain educational environ immunity). to qualified actor entitled ment, that it would be the Court concluded for The standard assess- constitutional “require adherence to improper strict by undertaken legality searches requirement be based on school officials first established subject probable cause to that the believe T.L.O., Jersey Supreme Court New violating of the has violated or is search 325, 105 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed.2d 720 469 U.S. at the law.” Id. at 742. S.Ct. (1985). T.L.O., prin- a school vice high Instead, “legality the Court held purse a student who cipal searched depend a of a search of student should a caught smoking violation of been reasonableness, all the simply on under T.L.O., rule. U.S. at school See circumstances, of the search.” Upon opening purse, 105 S.Ct. at 736. pack ciga- a principal the vice found T.L.O. Court established a package rettes. He noticed See id. test two-pronged to determine whether in the cigarette rolling papers purse, school search officials reasonable. high First, which knew school students often a court consider whether the he must marijuana. justified id. Fur- inception. used to See search was at its See smoke a small id. at 742-43. A search searching ther revealed amount at S.Ct. marijuana, inception will pipe, large quantity justified of dol- at its bills, apparently grounds lar index which official has “reasonable for card suspecting up money listed those students who owed the search will turn has two that further evidence student violated or is drugs, letters implicated violating either the the rules of the drug dealing. her in id. law or See 341-42, at 743. school.” Id. S.Ct. principal vice turned evidence Second, the court In a must determine whether police. over to the id. subse- scope reasonably quent proceeding, the delinquency student “ justi related to the ‘circumstances which suppress moved evidence found 341, 105 fied the Id. interference....’” at purse, arguing that the search violated Ohio, Terry S.Ct. at 743 v. 392 (quoting 329, id. Fourth Amendment. See at 1868, 1879, U.S. 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 105 S.Ct. at 736. (1968)). The scope 889 of a will be search constitutionality reviewing of the permissible adopted “when the measures search, Supreme first Court deter reasonably objectives to the of related applies mined that the Fourth Amendment excessively in search and not intrusive schoolchildren searches of conducted light age and sex of student and 333, 105 school officials. See at at id. S.Ct. 342, the nature of the infraction.” at Id. 738. then that the The Court noted stan 105 at 743. S.Ct. governing dard of reasonableness a class “by searches must determined ‘bal yet apply This court has ancing against need to search the inva which T.L.O. standard to situations in ” sion which the search entails.’ See id. at require school officials students to remove 337, (quoting during at 740 v. their clothing 105 S.Ct. Camara some of a search.7 Cir.1997) (en banc). plaintiffs 7. We were faced with searches similar to in The Jenkins in those case Jenkins v. Tallade eight-year-old girls in this 1997’s two stu- were who other ga City Bd. Educ. 115 F.3d 821 See

1167 1402, 624, 1417, concluding, little how- 109 103 trouble S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 639 ever, (1989). in this case recently searches Court applied The above, were unconstitutional. As noted test searches in school Vemonia Sch. Court held that a official T.L.O. school Acton., 646, Dist. 515 U.S. 115 S.Ct. 47J for sus- grounds” must have “reasonable (1995). 2386, peti 132 L.Ed.2d 564 The a guilty that a student is of viola- pecting district in no tioner school had Vemonia Id. at 341- tion of school rules or the law. a of drastically drug ticed trend increasing 42, declining S.Ct. at 743. 105 While by high use school students. id. at See suspicion decide individualized 648, 2388. 115 S.Ct. at Especially disturb necessary element the reasonableness ing to officials was school that student searches, standard school the Court not- in the vanguard athletes were bur requirement pos- ed officials 649, geoning scene. drug See id at 115 suspicion a particular sess student at The S.Ct. 2388-89. rise had drug use searching illicit act committed before fueled what the district court deemed very subject the student to a limited “ ” among ‘state rebellion’ the student 8, 342 at exception. id. at n. 105 S.Ct. body a three-fold increase in class n. 743 649, room at disruptions. at money’s Given circumstances of the Acton v. Dist. (quoting 2389 Vernonia Sch. Morgan reasonably disappearance, sus- (D.Or.1992)). 47J, F.Supp. pected that a student her class responses One district’s However, envelope. Morgan taken the mandatory this situation was to establish a not possess did individual- testing for all drug program athletes suspicion pointed specific ized provide urine group responsi- student of students as samples. at See id. S.Ct. at 2389. ble. In order to determine whether plaintiff in Vemonia was a seventh justified inception, were searches grader wanted to but play who football we therefore first ask whether the must testing drug refused to consent justified absent individual- at regime. See id. at 2390. S.Ct. suspicion. ized was denied participation, Once student Supreme Court held that has district, parents he and his sued the school may be conducted without individu- seeking declaratory injunctive relief privacy alized inter- when “the drug grounds on the tests minimal, by the implicated ests search are id. unreasonable searches. See important governmental and ... an inter- S,Ct. at 2390. would est furthered the intrusion Court The Vemonia first noted that placed in jeopardy by a requirement T.L.O., sup- search conducted while not suspicion.” Ry. individualized Skinner Ass’n., cause, ported by U.S. “was probable Labor Executives’ 489 based alleg- parents § taking had accused of dollars filed an U.S.C. 1983 action denis seven alia, a fellow id. at 822. from classmate. See the ing, that the inter searches violated accusations, Based on these students’ the appeal Fourth See id. On from Amendment. guidance and a took the teacher counselor grant summary judg- the district court’s of girls required they a restroom where were to ment, we issue addressed the of whether all id. to of their See The remove clothes. the defendants should have been individual was not money found. See id. After further granted qualified immunity reach and did not missing investigation up failed to turn the question of whether the the broader searches girls money, again required to re- the were See were unconstitutional. id. girls' move their clothes. id. at The See 662-63, drug id. at risks from abuse. See wrongdoing.” of individualized at The Court therefore (emphasis at 2391 115 S.Ct. 2395-96. 115 S.Ct. at drug justi the in Verno were searches concluded that the tests original). Because case, nia, the instant suspicion. See like the searches fied individualized absent sus by individualized supported 664-65, 115 were not at at 2396. id. S.Ct. proceeded determine picion, the Court balancing the test Applying Skinner excep fit into the the urine tests limited here, all but one of the searches conducted require tion the Fourth Amendment’s however, a different result. Stu- leads to suspicion. id. See ment of individualized less- in the school environment have dents test, balancing the the applying Skinner expectations than privacy er of members ath that student first determined Court T.L.O., public. See 469 U.S. general of expectation privacy of letes reduced (Powell, at 746 J. concur- at 105 S.Ct. (1) general high school because: However, question is no ring). there than expectations privacy of ly have lesser expecta- a legitimate schoolchildren retain (2) ath public; of the adult members including privacy persons, tion of in their letes, “voluntarily subject themselves who that one be able expectation an should than regulation higher of even degree exposure avoid the unwanted of one’s generally,” have imposed on students “private parts.” body, especially one’s See concomitantly priva expectations lower of City City, Justice v. Peachtree 656-657, at 2392-93. cy. Id. at Cir.1992). stu- Although concluded that Court thereafter expectations dents surrender some by character the intrusion caused privacy they when enter the schoolhouse insignificant tests because students door, expectation they will free provide samples permitted were strip from forced searches is not one of monitoring and the without invasive tests them. conclude that the stu- We therefore amount of revealed a limited information. privacy an important dents had interest 658-60, at 2393-94. id. S.Ct. involuntarily. being unclothed Finding privacy interests and the searches, it to the nature Turning by implicated drug tests to intrusion apparent readily searches minimal, then bal- the Vemonia Court intrusive. All of the children highly against anced the interests athletes except required to Lenard Grace were avoiding school district’s interest drop pants their or lift their skirts widespread drug by high use school stu- boys reveal their underwear.8 Some privacy In contrast to the minor dents. pants both their and underwear. lowered tests, implicated by drug interests girls lift Most of the were also dis- Court concluded that: the school their breasts to their bras reveal drug in curbing trict’s interest use its teacher and other children. important, compelling; if not athletes was represented in this clearly case therefore posed the threat crisis to drug upon per- [the students’] “serious intrusion im- functioning high school was rights.” sonal Id. at 192. Because of mediate; and tests effec- drug athletes, important privacy interest at stake and the tive because were limited to searches, drug who intrusive nature of were both the leaders im- subject possessed truly and health must have a scene also to increased officials question 8. Grace infra. We address the constitution- ality of the less invasive search of Lenard picion, they interest that would have were portant justified otherwise at and endangered justify inception in order to Mor- been thus unreasonable un- Fourth Billingslea’s actions. der the Amendment. gan is axiomatic that school have It officials We now turn to the constitutionali in maintaining a substantial interest order ty of the limited search of Lenard Grace. discipline in A stu their classrooms. above, As noted Lenard was a student in money, dent’s theft of another student’s grade another fifth happened class who to possibly petty while a offense outside need use to as Billingslea restroom classroom, seriously impact could a searching boys. was Lenard testified maintain ability teacher’s to a safe and that he told Billingslea that he wasn’t a learning effective environment. of School of Morgan’s member class and knew noth significant ficials have a interest the missing envelope. about Billing assuring that children do not receive the required slea Lenard pull to out pants his message that stealing acceptable behav pockets belt; and loosen he his then shook However, ior. there no reason to be pants. Lenard’s After he failed to locate that government’s lieve interests envelope, Billingslea let Lenard return maintaining discipline pro classroom class. his Lenard was not required to moting development moral would have any of clothing. remove We conclude jeopardized Morgan Billingslea been if Billingslea’s cursory of Lenard reasonable, possess individualized given the information suspicion forcing before Billingslea children available at time. Skinner, clothing. remove their already We have concluded that Billing- 624, 109 at U.S. S.Ct. possessed slea some suspicion reasonable Vernonia, This Morgan’s case is unlike one children in which class- possessed envelope. room Billingslea school district faced with a seemingly recognized testified that he problem intractable has Lenard’s using of students dan name, couldn’t but remember what he gerous narcotics in and around school. Billingslea looked like. Given that had no where, is this a example, Nor case idea who Lenard was when Lenard en- school officials receive that an information restroom, tered the it would not have been may unidentified student carrying unreasonable of Billingslea conclude or weapon dangerous other article was a Morgan’s Lenard member of property, requiring gen school therefore class who been sent in to be searched. eralized search to avoid an immediate Even we assume that a reasonable offi- students, physical threat of harm to facul protesta- cer have would taken Lenard’s ty, staff. simply There has no been tions at face value and concluded Le- showing important here that Morgan’s class, nard wasn’t a member of interests were in jeopardy such appearance in the Lenard’s midst permissible. intrusive mass search was boys Morgan’s from could still class have therefore alleged conclude that reasonably suggested may that he have dollars, twenty-six theft of certainly while opportunity had the acquire to somehow insignificant in the context of a grade envelope. it Accordingly, was not un- school, present does not such an extreme Billingslea reasonable conclude that discipline threat safety may Lenard envelope. had the children subject strip to intrusive However, searches without suspicion. individualized as the students Mor- classroom, Because the gan’s searches in case posséss did not were conducted pointed without individualized sus- Lenard sus-

1170 protection government the Skin- officials sued again apply must pect. thusWe long as “their capacities whether it their individual test determine balancing ner ‘clearly violates no established to search Lenard without conduct appropriate First, statutory rights it is or constitutional of which suspicion. clear individualized ” person inter- a reasonable would have known.’ legitimate privacy had a that Lenard Univ., A&M 28 F.3d pockets his and Lassiter v. Alabama est in the contents- of Cir.1994) 340, 1146, T.L.O., (quoting Harlow 469 U.S. at 105 1149 pants. See children, 818, 800, Fitzgerald, v. 457 102 S.Ct. at 741. the other U.S. S.Ct. Unlike (1982)). 2727, 2738, however, In subjected to a far 73 L.Ed.2d 396 Lenard was search; “clearly only for the law to be estab he was order less intrusive lished,” developed it at the must have been pull pockets Billingslea out and allow his that, “in alleged pants. time the violation such We conclude shake factually and defined context given important government interests concrete it all cursory govern nature the make obvious to reasonable at stake and the search, actors, place, tips test defendant’s that balancing ment Skinner Therefore, he federal law.” doing’ Bil- ‘what violates government. favor of the justified Creighton, v. 483 lingslea’s (quoting of Lenard was Anderson search 97 suspicion. U.S. individualized absent (1987)). pre-existing law L.Ed.2d 523 we have determined Since (not compel “truly just suggest must justified incep- in its search of Lenard was about)” question allow or raise a the con tion, now only question remaining doing clusion that “what defendant is vio adopted [were] whether measures “the lates law in the circumstances.” federal objectives reasonably related (emphasis in original). Id. at Law excessively intrusive not clearly can be established in this circuit light of the and sex of the student and age only by Supreme decisions U.S. Id. at the nature of the infraction.” Court, court, court of highest at 743. conclude S.Ct. the state from which case arose. See were both reason- measures undertaken 1525, 1532 Cannon, 80 n. Hamilton v. F.3d ably goals of the search and related to (11th Cir.1996). excessively Billingslea intrusive. limit- ed where Lenard could his search areas court that Mor district concluded envelope and did not have secreted Roberts, gan, and Billingslea were entitled subject Lenard to the intrusive embar- qualified immunity it because was rassing remaining search the children clearly time established Billingslea had to Because had at endure. strip searching searches that the children Lenard have least some en masse On appeal, was unconstitutional. envelope conducted the students contend that law was cursory person, Lenard’s we con- search of sufficiently day on the established Billingslea’s search of Lenard clude that a reasonable of 'Fourth was reasonable under the Amend- ficial would been aware that ment. re searches were unconstitutional. We court’s view district determination

Qualified Immunity immunity qualified an official is entitled to Hollowell, question to the novo. We turn now de See Pickens (11th Cir.1995). grant sup whether district court erred‘in Roberts, port Morgan, argument qualified sum im mary judgment qualified munity improperly granted, based on immuni the stu T.L.O., Qualified ty. immunity provides rely mainly arguing complete dents

1171 it, and the cases from other circuits cited from” that presented by different the facts within T.L.O. made it case. opinion, Supreme clear Id. at 828. The may opinion that school officials search stu later in Court’s Vemonia clarified particularized suspicion. dents only holding absent the situation far as as officials, situations, in may school certain above, however, As noted the T.L.O. search students without individualized sus- expressly addressing Court from refrained picion. suspi the issue of whether individualized cion is for a school search be It imagine is thus difficult to how school T.L.O., reasonable. See 469 U.S. at n. reading 342 officials T.L.O. or Vernonia would 8, Instead, 743 n. 8. have compelled Court found themselves to con a two-pronged, established multi-factored clude that the searches in this case were balancing test constitutionally impermissible. student’s interest Although a against those of school The officials. reasonable school official might illustration, in opinion paused T.L.O. offered “no strip searching before a class of dication, hint as to how enumerated fifth graders, the best she could have dis play factors come might reading into when other covered from a of the available concrete circumstances faced school was that a court caselaw later deter personnel.” Talladega Jenkins Hall v. mine that the searches unreasonable. Educ., City Bd. 115 F.3d 825 We conclude that the law was not devel Cir.1997) (en banc) in (emphasis original). oped factually in such a defined context “attempt The Court made simply T.L.O. no that the individual defendants should have clearly they establish the contours of been aware that were acting illegally they Fourth as right applied performed Amendment to the when either ordered variety of possible settings question.9 wide The district court supra, Morgan lining girls As noted officials sued in their indi up generally hallway § capacities Ap- vidual under 1983 are to be searched the restroom. qualified immunity parently concluding entitled to unless a factu that she treat should ally controlling clearly way and similar case has Cherika same she treated the other .the (a impermissible. that the established conduct members of the class tactic that teachers Univ., reasonably v. apply disciplinary Lassiter Alabama A&M 28 F.3d often mat- have, (11th Cir.1994). ters), Morgan immediately howev took into Cherika er, her, recognized exception” requiring a "narrow to that the restroom and searched her City pants rule in a cases. lift few Priester Riviera to lower her bra over her Beach, (11th Cir.2000). Viewing light breasts. the evidence in the Cherika, exception apply, order for the narrow most favorable to we conclude that plaintiff Morgan suspect show "the must official's con had no reason that Cherika obviously very possession. envelope Although duct lies at the core so of what had the in her prohibits un Fourth Amendment that the her decision to search Cherika was unconsti- tutional, readily appar Morgan we lawfulness conduct cannot conclude official, notwithstanding ent to factually the lack of absent should held liable similar Mattox, controlling caselaw.” Smith v. 127 F.3d exception es- caselaw. (11th Cir.1997). narrow, conduct very applying must in Smith tablished beyond hazy "so far border” question egre- between when the conduct in sois reasonable unreasonable search that the gious actor must be See, violating officials had to know acting illegally. e.g., aware she is Priester, Constitution. (denying qualified 208 F.3d at 927 students, immunity exception narrow The search of one on basis of Cherika Sales, police slightly cir- excessive force case where defendant occurred under different dog Cherika "ordered attack cumstances. testified she had officer and allowed his Plaintiff; been in another classroom the entire Plaintiff morn- bite threatened kill ing. dog Morgan’s effort to She first arrived at classroom when Plaintiff kicked in an 947, County, F.2d Owens v. Fulton 877 granting Morgan, See not err in therefore did (11th Cir.1989). con- immuni- The students qualified 950-51 and Roberts Roberts, top was the admin- tend that who ty- time of present at the school at the istrator Liability District School search, policy- District’s final was the three rely on alternative The students children maker on the issue whether the of for the hold the District liable theories to strip could be searched.10 First, Billingslea. Morgan and actions of searching on stu- policy The District’s acted as a “final that Roberts contend provides, part, that the District dents District when she for the policymaker” limited to search students’ right- retains “a children. Morgan to search the permitted ” (Pis.’ Exs. personal belongings.... Sch. Second, the Dis- argue the students 1). Par- Ex. The District’s Student and responsible it be held because trict should “ad- provides that ent Handbook further employees its on adequately train failed authority posses ... ministrators limits of student constitutional a search of students conduct reasonable maintain Finally, the students searches. ... re- possessions [and are] be held accounta- that the District should only quired to have reasonable it ble because ratified unconstitutional (Def. Clayton conduct such searches.” argument each will address searches. We for Dist’s Mot. J. at Sch. Summ. in turn. 1). Ex. It is Bass Affs. at and Warren held lia governments Local can be Roberts, top beyond dispute that as “exe for torts when the ble constitutional school, was vested administrator custom, policy government’s cution of a power to order children be with by by made lawmakers or whether its this to- Looking at evidence searched. may fairly those whose edicts or acts be conclude, did gether, we as the district policy” represent said to official caused the court, policy had a District of Soc. Servs., injury. Dep’t. Monell 436 v. upon permitting searches based reasonable 2018, 2037-38, 694, 658, U.S. 98 56 S.Ct. authority suspicion and Roberts had (1978). Liability im L.Ed.2d 611 policy within the District’s order searches posed single decision made for Although provided limits. Roberts was official, that the offi government provided “ order with- discretion to ‘possesses authority cial final to establish school, authority to alter in the she had no respect ... action or policy with ” explicit policy the District’s that searches Park, City dered.’ Scala v. Winter could not be conducted absent reasonable Cir.1997) (quot 116 1399 v. suspicion. City Pembaur Cincin- Cincinnati, City Pembaur 475 nati, 469, 481-82, 475 U.S. S.Ct. 469, 481, 1292, 1299, U.S. 106 S.Ct. (fact (1986) 1299, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 that offi- (1986)). L.Ed.2d an official Whether partic- cial has in the discretion exercise policymaker question is a final is a of state automatically give does law to the trial court. ular functions be determined attack; unprovoked dog in T.L.O. that she must have been resist the and let established minutes”); impermis- searching for aware Cherika was attack Plaintiff at least two Smith, sible, (declaring granting did not 127 F.3d at 1419-20 the district court err qualified excep- "barely” qualified immunity conduct narrow on Cherika’s claims. police arm of tion where officer broke the that, discussion, we will assume allegedly admittedly who had docile arrestee contend, Morgan's explicitly Roberts au- fleeing). the students' previously been Because beyond Morgan boundary thorized search the children. actions were not so far Harris, municipal liability City rise to based exercise Canton v. U.S. discretion). 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989)). successful, To plaintiff must suggest The students that Rob demonstrate that: in au erts’ untrammeled unreviewable adequately supervised trained its em thority within the to conduct searches ployees; the failure to train is an offi suggests that she strongly policy; cial policy caused the previously final decisionmaker. We have employees plaintiffs rights. violate meaningful noted that a lack of of review A plaintiff may prove See id. that a policy an official’s decisions can be evidence that by existed that showing policymaker. was a final See she Mandel a knew that need to train or supervise its (11th Cir.1989) Doe, 888 F.2d employees existed but made a “deliberate (physician’s county workcamp assistant at any choice not to take A action.” Id. need subject whose decisions to review training supervision for will be and/or issues). proven final was decisionmaker on medical when there is sufficient evidence (1) the government’s employees that: case, however, “face In this it irrelevant clear constitutional duties in recurrent sit subject Roberts’s decision was re (2) uations”; pattern or “a of constitutional contrary it view because was to the Dis [govern violations exists such policy. City trict’s official written of knows or should know that correc ment] Praprotnik, Louis v. St. 485 U.S. Young tive measures are v. City needed.” 99 L.Ed.2d 107 Augusta, Through DeVaney, Ga. (plurality opinion). When ex official’s 1160, 1172(11th Cir.1995). F.3d discretionary ercise duties is “con by policies argue strained not of that official’s students that the rec supports ord the conclusion that a need for making, policies, those rather than the training upon evident based both theo departures them, subordinate’s from are court, agree ries. We with the district the act government].” [local of the however, that the students have failed to Roberts’s decision children present sufficient evidence to demonstrate without reasonable therefore employees either that the District’s faced fairly cannot be represent said the Dis questions clear of Fourth law Amendment policy. trict’s recurring on a or that a basis there was reject students’ pattern of unconstitutional searches and contention that the District should be held being perpetrated by seizures ad school hable based its to train on failure its em was, ministrators of which the District ployees. There are “limited circum been, should have aware. stances” which a local government will presented The students have evidence held it inadequately liable because that searches have occurred in the Dis- employees, trained supervised its who personnel trict’s schools and upon plaintiffs infringed then constitu in majority were involved of the searches Miami, rights.

tional Gold v. City during period immediately conducted (11th Cir.1998) prior issue (quoting events at here.11 How- presented competent by evidence to the students involved but does not include support students their claim unconsti- information as to whether the students were searched; deposition testimony tutional searches conducted District em- ployees widespread Principal of: consists a list Matthews which he acknowl- disciplinary edged incidents at that he had searched students and au- District schools others; (3) during description 1995 which de- includes thorized searches Roberts's punishments position testimony each incident and the meted she had also been out mary the failure to train judgment failed demon- on ever, personnel recur- claim. are that District strate situations which so faced rently that the District argument The students’ instant case that to the facts similar investiga- because its should be held liable training be obvious. for would

the need was tanta- following the searches tion of evidence fact, the record is bereft mount to a ratification of conduct ever conducted a District officials whether rely without merit. The students similarly the events magnitude before search of this opinion in Supreme plurality Court therefore conclude case. We of the instant City Praprotnik Louis v. for St. to show evidence there is insufficient liability can attach when proposition viola- of “constitutional that the likelihood policymaker “approve[sj local government so that liabili- highly predictable tions and the basis a subordinate’s decision Gold, incident.” ty single for this attaches 926. it.” at 108 S.Ct. at 485 U.S. F.3d 1352. They suggest that the District’s inade- in a quate investigation, which resulted with the district court agree alsoWe personnel acted present failed to that all school students have conclusion that essentially was a ratification of properly, unconstitutional pattern of a evidence However, searches. led District the unconstitutional have behavior that should Praprotnik is a import that training employees. Again, its clear to begin a multiple government may local be held liable for that searches reflects record policymakers tort when Proving District schools. constitutional had occurred at occurred, however, opportunity not had the to review subor- does that searches they fi- id. at decisions before become burden. See dinates’ meet the students’ nal.12 the case at bar. show that See id. That not They 1351. must also Here, opportunity District had to personnel school no searches conducted constitutionally suspect. Morgan, Billingslea’s id. measure Roberts and against to the children This, failed do. The evidence decisions search they have to after policy lacks the detail District until the searches presented by the students go place. wheth- taken The decision to forward necessary for a court to determine were, if uncon- with searches therefore cannot be er any searches stitutional, poli- a “final” decision District suspect. Because the deemed at least no present cymakers. evi- Because District had to sufficient students failed to opportunity ratify Dis- to the decision search their claim that the support dence occurred, need train or the children before trict was on notice a Praprotnik on supervise employees, its the district court the students’ reliance support sum- their claim that the District rati- granting did not err in District (4) searches; 'custom'...” sub- an affidavit can [unconstitulional] involved student describing ject government liability. clerk her review Fundiller of an ACLU law City Cooper City, conducted in the District's of the searches However, Cir.1985). period January 1995 plaintiffs rely- schools from the when provide which fails to sufficient ing pattern October 1996 not on a of unconstitutional con- permit duct, incident, that would a court to determine detail single but on a must dem- suspect. constitutionally any government policymakers that local onstrate opportunity to had an review subor- course, agreed "persistent dinate’s decision both failure to take Of give decision’s basis against decision and the before disciplinary action officers can government hold on a municipality court can liable to the inference that has rise conduct, establishing theory. thereby ratification a[n] ratified pus give fied the unconstitutional conduct is mis- DARE presentations. Kerr v. placed. Beach, City West Palm 875 F.2d (11th Cir.1989). Liability County also agree with the court district students three for raise bases no Billingslea’s there is evidence that County, Bil contention lack training on search and seizure law lingslea’s employer, should be held liable led to the unconstitutional searches. The for his unconstitutional search conduct dispute do County offi- ing suspi boys without individualized training cers receive on search and seizure cion. argue The students Billingslea and that received such training should be liable it: ne held because and 1994. It is difficult to glected to train DARE officers on when how conceive seizure train- they can act as law on agents enforcement received, which in- property; failed to instruct Bil him probable structed cause re- lingslea the proper limits of school quired conducted, before a search can be searches; responsi its disregarded inadequate prepare Billingslea bility properly supervise discipline conducting a school search under less its officers. rigorous T.L.O. reasonableness standard. above, As noted local Accordingly, the court not district did err be held for a liable constitutional tort if its granting County in summary judgment the. policy inadequately training supervis- on the students’ failure to train claim. ing employees employee its caused to Gold, plaintiffs rights. violate the See The students further that contend the at argue F.3d 1350. The students that the supervise, investigate failure County’s to County’s Billingslea failure to train discipline and its officers in general, and when act in he could a law enforcement Billingslea particular, moving was the capacity provided visiting when schools the force behind the unconstitutional searches moving force behind the unconstitutional boys. The students note that searches. we noted in our As discussion of Billingslea time was to transferred liability, a need for training District’s program, DARE had at he least dozen can County’s be demonstrated if the em- complaints personnel citizen in his file and ployees “face clear constitutional duties superiors poor had cited for been recurrent Young, situations.” record, performance. Despite this undisputed 1172. It DARE that officers County suspend did not or terminate Bil- permitted not generally to act lawas permitted and lingslea instead him to be- agents enforcement while on school a DARE come officer. The students fact, grounds. point the students can argue County therefore that the was delib- examples no outside of the instant case erately possibility indifferent to the County where DARE officers conducted Billingslea would violate students’ Fourth performed any searches or en- other law rights Amendment when he visited schools property forcement duties while on school part program. the DARE Even if for responsibilities. their DARE itWhile assume, however, allega- we both that the County have behooved the to better every complaint tions of citizen filed define the boundaries of a DARE officer’s against Billingslea true and duties, the students have failed to demon- had County policy disciplining not its strate that the knew to a County “moral officers, the students have certainty” that failed meet officers would conduct showing County’s searches of school children while on cam- burden give that the rise an inference unconstitutional searches. do policy led to the Gold, Neither the F.3d at 1350. County being deliberately indifferent was against Billingslea, filed complaints citizen potential conduct of its illegal to the offi- gave any County’s internal reviews nor the The therefore did not cers. district court tendency Billingslea indication County’s granting motion for err sus- citizens without reasonable to search summary super- the failure to judgment on Therefore, County’s alleged picion. discipline claim. vise discipline Billingslea cannot be failure County liable for holding basis for Injunctive Declarative and Relief id. at case. See the searches Finally, we conclude that the district The contend students also in deny- did court not abuse its discretion to maintain an effective County’s failure declaratory requested the students’ depart- in the police Unit Internal Affairs injunctive relief. district court events that set in motion the led ment correctly declaratory found that relief searches. fail- the unconstitutional sought, a the searches declaration in the system, stu- County’s ures of the unconstitutional, unnecessary view, permissive climate dents’ created court’s to that light the district order that led officers like police within force in- requested effect. The students conclude that would junctions the District and the requiring disciplined violating rights County policy to: correct identified noted previously citizens. deficiencies; training prevent offi- agency that a law enforcement evidence conducting cials from searches under facts complaints routinely log failed to citizen case; similar to those of instant evidence, permit an may, along with other expunge all references the searches deliberately agency inference that of citizens. from District records avoid rights indifferent to GA., Murray, Vineyard County being the by sugges- the children tainted of (11th Cir.1993). Keeping F.2d criminality. tion of If there were deficien- complaints allows to a record of officials County’s policies in cies the District and “particular officer determine whether training, driving and were not the may problem have a that could be correct- the force behind constitutional violations. discipline or through reassignment, ed Accordingly, the court did not err in de- bar, however, training.” case the clining compel County to and the District in the to sug- there is no evidence record policies. alter to gest complaints ignored that citizen were The correctly district court also declined Instead, or not the investigated. enjoin the County and District from system, of in- rely problems on other searching Morgan children in manner disposition cluding that: of some did this It is in case. now complaints, against those made including clearly in circuit established law this logs; Billingslea, were not noted in were unconstitutional. An the searches disposi- officers not informed of the injunction ordering County and the complaints complaints of unless the tion “obey the law” District would serve valid; to be citizens were found purpose. City little Burton v. Belle ever, rarely, informed about the of Glade, Cir.1999). complaint. of in results These failures Finally, rejecting court did not err in system certainly County’s nothing are conclude, It however, request expungement. the students’ celebrated. We problems system undisputed County’s in the is the students’ individual analysis parameters hold no reference tutional school records to the searches. reference circumstances that require individualized held included in suspicion. Certainly neither the district personnel Billingslea’s file. Since the re- court nor this Court holds that individual- in maining references to the searches ized suspicion in every school no on District’s files can have effect The search probably situation. went too in system future the school students’ far this ease to be classified as reason- elsewhere, no danger there is able, and I do not fault the Court for suggestion children will be tainted with the deciding level, rises to a constitutional conclude, criminality. of We further following the somewhat unclear guidance court, retaining did the district some prior cases. record of the searches would be a valuable preventing tool in future constitutional vio- appears It knowledge, be common in the There- lations District’s schools. however, that schools be- distress fore, district court did not abuse its problems cause disci- maintaining declining discretion order ex- pline. Courts should be cautious in im- of all pungement references to the posing theory constitutional that well fits searches. general individual adults in societal situa- upon tions group requirements ele-

Conclusion mentary public principles schools. hold that the chil- searching guide a decision as reasonableness dren without in or- individualized in one situation too useful envelope twenty- der to find an containing the other. School children basic have a six dollars unreasonable and therefore education, right to receive an which a violation of the Fourth Bil- should Amendment. Grace, lingslea’s limited Lenard not be trumped play peripheral however, was not unreasonable given the rights.” As I “constitutional understand Accordingly, circumstances. we affirm the however, opinion, the Court’s that of grant summary judgment to all defen- court, the district no hard and rule fast dants on claims. affirm Lenard’s We also established, has been and there seems grant summary judgment the court’s be room for teachers and authori- qualified immunity based on to the individ- to, occasion, in a way ties act ual defendants on the claims of the re- might be in a considered “unreasonable” maining children. The district court’s view, being common sense without held grant summary judgment District “constitutionally unreasonable.” County, as well its denial of declar- relief, injunctive atory similarly are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

RONEY, Judge, specially Circuit

concurring: fully

I in the decision court concur

to affirm the district court’s judgment case, fully in this I defendants

concur decision that the individual qualified immu-

defendants entitled

nity. I have more as to consti- doubt

Case Details

Case Name: Tiffany Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Aug 15, 2001

Citation: 261 F.3d 1160

Docket Number: 00-11361

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.