# Archuleta v. Wagner

> Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · April 29, 2008 · 523 F.3d 1278

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9437861

## Case

- **Full name:** Mercedes ARCHULETA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle WAGNER, a Detective With the Lakewood Police Department, in Her Individual Capacity; Shayne Butler, an Officer With the Colorado Highway Patrol, in His Individual Capacity; Ted Mink, Jefferson County Sheriff, in His Official Capacity, Defendants, and D.L. Mandelko, a Jailer With the Jefferson County Jail, in Her Individual Capacity, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 29, 2008
- **Citations:** 523 F.3d 1278; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9295; 2008 WL 1875195
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hartz
- **Judges:** Kelly, Lucero, Hartz
- **Cited by:** 265 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9437861

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that, on a motion to dismiss, “[t]he court ... is ‘limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint’ ” (quoting Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 494 (10th Cir. 1995))
- concluding that, in the motion to dismiss posture, a court must “accept as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations”
- concluding that a court must "accept as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations" when deciding a motion to dismiss

## Opinion text

HARTZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree that Deputy Mandelko is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding. According to the complaint, Deputy Mandelko, after noting that Ms. Archuleta did not have tattoos or moles, told the receptionist that “this isn’t her.” Although Deputy Mandelko’s subjective state of mind is irrelevant to whether she had grounds to strip search Ms. Archuleta, the quoted comment could imply that she had objective evidence showing that Ms. Archuleta was not the person named in the warrant. To strip search Ms. Archuleta in that circumstance, particularly given what she was wearing and that she had already been frisked, would be a clear violation of established Fourth Amendment principles. There may well be grounds for strip searching arrestees at a jail without individualized reasonable suspicion, but not in this circumstance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9437861. Public record. Not legal advice.