Federal Court Holds Qualified Immunity Appropriate in Officers’ Warrantless Entry and Arrests, Not in Transporting Arrestees Naked

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia has held that three law enforcement officers were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ claim of the officers’ unconstitutional entry, search and arrests but not on the claim of transporting the plaintiffs to jail virtually naked.

Police officers Harvey Stewart, David Whirrell and Michael Maxey, investigating a crime involving a minor, entered the home of Megan Mitchell and Clifton Jackson without a warrant or their consent, instead relying on a search consent condition of Jackson’s probation. After questioning and a search of the house, the officers arrested Mitchell and Jackson on marijuana and contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor charges. Mitchell and Jackson, according to supported testimony, were transported to the jail nearly nude. Mitchell and Jackson subsequently filed suit in the district court against the officers alleging that the officers’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment and state law. The defendants sought qualified and state official immunity on the claims. On June 12, 2014, the district court determined that qualified immunity was warranted in the defendants’ entry into and search of the plaintiffs’ home and in the arrests of the plaintiffs but not in the manner of [p]laintiffs’ arrest.”

On October 14, 2010, after attending GED class together, Mitchell and 16-year-old Nikki Beasley were driven to Mitchell’s home. At some point, Beasley consumed alcohol and took a pill. She became ill and her aunt was called for help. Beasley’s aunt met Mitchell at a convenience store to pick up Beasley and she was taken to the hospital.

According to Beasley’s aunt, she told officers Whirrell and Stewart at the hospital that Beasley had drunk “some alcohol and smoked some blunts,” not saying whether she knew that Jackson had also been at the house. After Whirrell and Stewart ate, they met up with Officer Maxey, and together they went to Mitchell’s home to investigate possible charges, without any warrants but aware of a condition of Jackson’s probation allowing searches without consent or a warrant.

When the officers arrived and announced themselves, they did not give the plaintiffs – naked – and opportunity to dress before the officers entered the home. Besides an open sweater that Mitchell had managed to put on that left her breasts and genitals exposed, neither she nor Jackson were permitted to dress while the officers were in the house, despite their multiple requests. The lights were off and the plaintiffs were instructed to sit on the couch. Mitchell testified that the officers shined their flashlights up and down her exposed body, looking at her.

The plaintiffs were questioned by the officers concerning Beasley, with Mitchell admitting that Beasley had drunk alcohol around her. Stewart then began searching the house, finding what he believed to be marijuana in an ashtray – which was eventually determined not to be marijuana. When asked who the substance belonged to, Mitchell stated, “He don’t even smoke. I smoke” and, “I’m not going to let him go to jail for nothing.” The plaintiffs were subsequently arrested for possession of marijuana and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Before the plaintiffs were escorted from the house, Jackson was able to put on a jacket, but it left his buttocks and genitals exposed. Neighbors witnessing the arrest testified that they could see the plaintiffs’ genitals and Mitchell’s breasts. At the jail, before Mitchell had been given clothing, two pretrial detainees admitted to at least seeing Mitchell’s breasts.

The plaintiffs later filed suit, claiming that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when the defendants entered and searched their home without a warrant or consent, arrested them without probable cause, and carried them to jail virtually naked. Seeking punitive damages on the federal claims, the plaintiffs also sought damages on state claims. In response, the defendants sought summary judgment based on qualified and official immunity on all of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The district court found that summary judgment based on qualified immunity was appropriate as to the plaintiffs’ entry and search claims. Jackson’s consent provision of his probation was enough to justify the defendants’ entry and search of the house where (1) no law was clearly established that a consent provision is not a total waiver of the warrant requirement and (2) Mitchell, a cohabitant, had “pointed to no evidence that she refused consent when [d]efendants entered the house.”

The district court also held “that [d]efendants had arguable probable cause to arrest [p]laintiffs for marijuana possession” based on Mitchell’s statements about smoking the substance and the plaintiffs sharing the bedroom where the substance had been found. The court thus determined that it had no need to decide probable cause on the other arrest.

As to the manner of the plaintiffs’ arrest, the defendants claimed that they had not “notice[d] anything compromising or revealing about the appearance of either Jackson or Mitchell” during the arrests. In viewing the facts most favorably towards the plaintiffs, the district court concluded that the evidence contradicted this view. The court relied on evidence including the plaintiffs scant clothing, the defendants’ use of their flashlight, the plaintiffs’ multiple requests for clothing and the neighbors’ and pretrial detainees’ testimonies.

In applying these facts, the district court held that as federal law set forth a “clearly established principle that individuals who have been placed in police custody have a constitutional right to bodily privacy,” the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment as to the manner of the plaintiffs’ arrest. Likewise, the defendants were denied summary judgment based on state official immunity and on the plaintiffs’ state and federal claims for punitive damages as they related to the manner of the plaintiffs’ arrest.

See: Mitchell v. Stewart, U.S.D.C. (M.D.GA), Case No. 3:12-cv-00132-CDL

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case