Brandy Hamilton v. Nathaniel Turner

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

No. 16-40611

Fif h Circuit

FILED

Summary Calendar January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

BRANDY HAMILTON; ALEXANDRIA RANDLE, Clerk

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

v.

AARON KINDRED,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-240

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge:

Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Aaron Kindred appeals the

district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this case involving the roadside

body cavity searches of two women during a traffic stop. This case arises from

an investigatory traffic stop in 2012. Three officers were involved in the

incident. The two Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) officers, Nathaniel

Turner and Amanda Bui, have reached settlement agreements with Plaintiffs

Brandy Hamilton and Alexandria Randle. The question presented by this case

is whether the third officer at the scene, Deputy Kindred, is liable under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 as a bystander for not intervening to prevent the body cavity

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

No. 16-40611

searches. Because material issues of fact remain, we do not have appellate

jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we DISMISS.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On Memorial Day weekend in 2012, Hamilton and Randle were pulled

over by DPS Officer Turner for speeding. Turner smelled marijuana and asked

the women to exit the vehicle. Hamilton was wearing a bikini bathing suit, and

Randle was similarly dressed. Turner did not allow the women to cover

themselves before exiting the vehicle. He used his radio to request help from

local law enforcement and a female officer to conduct a search of the women.

On the radio, Turner stated that the car smelled like marijuana and that one

of the women “had the zipper open on her pants, or Daisy Duke shorts,

whatever they are.” Turner handcuffed and separated the women before

ordering Hamilton to sit in the front passenger seat of his patrol car. He then

conducted a search of the vehicle. When Kindred arrived, Turner asked him to

identify the drivers of several other cars that had arrived near the scene. When

Bui arrived, she parked next to Turner’s patrol car. When he had completed

the vehicle search, Turner informed Bui and Kindred that he had finished the

search but wanted Bui to search the women. Bui asked the men if they had

any gloves, and Turner gave her the gloves he had used to search the vehicle.

At that point, Kindred asked Turner, “Do you want me to make this

easier and go in the back?” Turner agreed that Kindred should stand behind

the car. Kindred stood behind Turner’s patrol car and can be seen in that

position in the video. Turner told Hamilton: “[Bui] is going to search you, I ain’t

going to do that . . . cause I ain’t getting up close and personal with your women

areas.” Turner and Kindred stood together behind the car while Bui performed

the body cavity search. During the search, Turner told Kindred: “I don’t know

if she stuck something in her crotch or this one did.”

2

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

No. 16-40611

After the search, Turner asked Bui if Hamilton had “[n]othing on her,”

and then requested she search Randle because “she is the one who had the

zipper open.” Hamilton immediately asked, “Do you know how violated I feel?”

and said she felt so embarrassed. Turner replied that if they “hadn’t had weed

in the car they wouldn’t be in this situation.” Randle, who had been standing

by Hamilton’s car, was escorted to Bui’s patrol car. Kindred was still standing

behind Turner’s vehicle. When Bui performed the body cavity search on

Randle, Randle began to scream: “That is so fucked up! I am so done!” Hamilton

yelled at her a couple times to “calm down” and “be quiet.” Randle sounded as

if she was crying when she again said, “Man, this is so fucked up!” After the

searches were complete, Hamilton stated to Turner that “it was going to the

extreme” to have someone “put their fingers up your stuff.” In their complaint,

Hamilton and Randle describe Bui’s actions as “forcibly search[ing] in their

vaginas and anus[es] against protest,” and explain that the search was

“physically and emotionally painful.”

B. Procedural Background

Hamilton and Randle filed their complaint on June 27, 2013, asserting

§ 1983 claims against the officers involved and their employers. They alleged

that the invasive cavity searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights to

be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Kindred moved for summary

judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because at the

time of the incident, bystander liability was not clearly established in the Fifth

Circuit in cases not involving excessive force. The district court denied

Kindred’s motion for summary judgment on April 28, 2016. The district court

found that the Plaintiffs had asserted an excessive force claim and that it was

clearly established that bystander liability would apply. Additionally, the

district court held that there was a “serious dispute as to material facts” in the

3

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

No. 16-40611

case regarding the objective reasonableness of Kindred’s actions. Kindred

timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified

immunity “only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question

whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the facts that

the district court found sufficiently supported in the summary judgment

record.” Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 347 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “[W]e

lack the power to review the district court’s decision that a genuine factual

dispute exists” and “instead consider only whether the district court erred in

assessing the legal significance of conduct that the district court deemed

sufficiently supported.” Id. at 348. We review the district court’s conclusion de

novo. Id. at 349.

A. Excessive Force

Kindred first argues that the district court erred in allowing the

Plaintiffs to go forward on an excessive force theory of liability. He argues that

the Plaintiffs never pleaded excessive force. In qualified immunity cases,

plaintiffs must “rest their complaint on more than conclusions alone and plead

their case with precision and factual specificity.” Nunez v. Simms, 341 F.3d

385, 388 (5th Cir. 2003). “To bring a § 1983 excessive force claim under the

Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must first show that she was seized.” Flores v.

Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff must then “show that

she suffered (1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the use of

force that was excessive to the need and that (3) the force used was objectively

unreasonable.” Id. We agree with the district court that Hamilton and Randle

alleged facts in their complaint that meet this standard. The pleadings clearly

stated that both Hamilton and Randle were seized during the course of the

traffic stop when they were handcuffed and placed in patrol cars. They alleged

4

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

No. 16-40611

that they were detained for over thirty minutes and were subjected to invasive

body cavity searches during that time in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Plaintiffs asserted that there were no warrants or exigent circumstances

allowing the searches. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs alleged injuries resulting

directly from the cavity searches that took place during the detention.

Additionally, Kindred argues that excessive force does not apply to the

facts of this case because “[e]xcessive force is a seizure, not a search.” This

argument is meritless. The Plaintiffs were clearly seized when they were

placed in handcuffs and escorted to the patrol cars. Furthermore, excessive

force applies because Hamilton and Randle have alleged that they were

subjected to a use of force—the insertion of Bui’s fingers into their vaginas and

anuses—during the course of an investigatory stop. The Supreme Court has

recognized that excessive force is unconstitutional during such a seizure.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989) (holding that the Fourth

Amendment protects against the use of excessive force during an “arrest,

investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of [the] person”). Likewise, “Fifth Circuit

precedent [has] plainly established [that] . . . [a] strip or body cavity search

raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns.” Roe v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective &

Regulatory Servs., 299 F.3d 395, 409 (5th Cir. 2002). See also Martin, No. SA-

05-CA-0020, 2006 WL 2062283, at *5 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (cataloguing case law

and finding no reasonable officer would have found a roadside body cavity

search reasonable even if they “reasonably suspected that Plaintiff was

concealing contraband in a body cavity” if “there were no exigent circumstances

requiring the search to be conducted on the public roadside rather than at a

medical facility”). Plaintiffs have alleged facts showing they were subjected to

an unreasonable use of force excessive to its need. Therefore, the district court

did not err in determining that excessive force was a viable theory in this case.

5

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

No. 16-40611

Finally, Kindred contends that even if excessive force applies, the

Plaintiffs abandoned it as a theory of liability. In support, Kindred points to

statements the Plaintiffs made that suggest they were not asserting an

excessive force claim. In particular, in their response to Kindred’s motion for

summary judgment, the Plaintiffs stated that “‘excessive force’ is not an

element of ‘bystander liability’ but a cause of action, and the Defendants cannot

choose which causes of action for Plaintiffs to plead in a suit against

Defendant.” Additionally, when the Plaintiffs submitted proposed jury

instructions, those instructions explicitly stated that “excessive force does not

apply in this case.”

Judge Hanks held a lengthy hearing on this issue on February 9, 2016.

At that time, “counsel for Hamilton and Randle unequivocally stated that they

[had] not abandoned their bystander liability claim under an excessive force

theory.” Kindred argued that the Plaintiffs’ vague arguments “show an obvious

intent to remove excessive force from this case,” but he was unable to point to

an exact document in the record evidencing waiver. After reviewing the

pleadings and motions and hearing argument from the parties, the district

court noted that the pleadings exhibited a lengthy and “rather confusing

debate . . . as to whether excessive force is an essential element of a bystander

liability claim or a separate cause of action, whether bystander liability can be

based on theories other than excessive force, and whether Hamilton and

Randle have a claim for ‘direct’ liability.” But the district court concluded that

the excessive force claim had not been waived.

After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court’s

determination. While the Plaintiffs never used the words “excessive force” in

their complaint and were less than clear during the proceedings about exactly

which theories they were advancing, the district court did not err in finding

that excessive force had not been waived. Throughout the case, Plaintiffs have

6

Case: 16-40611 Document: 00513833340 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/12/2017

No. 16-40611

clearly argued that they were subject to an unreasonable search and seizure in

violation of the Fourth Amendment, and have alleged facts that support a

claim for excessive force.

B. Bystander Liability

Kindred argues that the district court erred in denying summary

judgment because even if bystander liability applied in this case, there is no

genuine issue of material fact as to the elements of bystander liability. In

Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2013), this Court stated that “an

officer may be liable under § 1983 under a theory of bystander liability where

the officer ‘(1) knows that a fellow officer is violating an individual’s

constitutional rights; (2) has a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm;

and (3) chooses not to act.” Id. at 646 (quoting Randall v. Prince George’s Cty.,

302 F.3d 188, 204 (4th Cir. 2002)). At the time of the incident, it was clearly

established in the Fifth Circuit that an officer could be liable as a bystander in

a case involving excessive force if he knew a constitutional violation was taking

place and had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm. See Hale v.

Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 918 (5th Cir. 1995). And “[o]fficials can still be on notice

that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual

circumstances.” Roe, 299 F.3d at 409 (quoting Hope v. Paltzer, 536 U.S. 730,

741 (2002)).

The district court found that “there [was] a serious dispute as to the

material facts” regarding each element of bystander liability. We lack

jurisdiction to review the district court’s determination that a genuine factual

dispute exists. Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347–48. Because we find that excessive

force applies in this case and disputes of material fact remain, Kindred’s appeal

is DISMISSED.

7