Williams v. Kaufman County

• Decision Date: 09 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-10500.,02-10500.
• Citation: 352 F.3d 994
• Parties: Oscar D. WILLIAMS, Jr.; et al., Plaintiffs, Thomas Gene Brown; Cecil Jackson; L.B. Brumley, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY; Robert Harris, Kaufman County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 994

352 F.3d 994

Oscar D. WILLIAMS, Jr.; et al., Plaintiffs Thomas Gene Brown; Cecil Jackson; L.B. Brumley, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY; Robert Harris, Kaufman County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

No. 02-10500.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 9, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William Charles Bundren (argued), Wm. Charles Bundren & Associates, Frisco, TX, for Thomas Gene Brown.

Stephen Cass Weiland (argued), Robert Allen Hawkins, Patton Boggs, Dallas, TX, for Kaufman County.

John Bernard Rizo, Sr., Garland, TX, Edgar Leon Carter (argued), Carter Law firm, Dallas, TX, for Robert Harris.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and FURGESON, District Judge.^*

WIENER, Circuit Judge:^**

Plaintiff-Appellants Thomas Gene Brown, Cecil Jackson and L.B. Brumley (collectively "plaintiffs") appeal the district court's denial of their unlawful detention, invasion of privacy, and oral harassment claims in their § 1983 suit against Sheriff Robert Harris ("Harris") and Kaufman County, Texas ("the County"), (collectively, "defendants"). Defendants cross-appeal the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their claims for illegal strip search, municipal liability against the county, nominal and punitive damages against Harris in his personal capacity, and state constitutional declarative relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In April of 1995, Sheriff Harris obtained a search warrant, based on information he received from a confidential informant, for a night club called the "Classic Club" in Terrell, Texas (the "Club"). The affidavit used to secure the warrant identified five individuals suspected of dealing crack cocaine, none of whom are the plaintiffs here, and included as suspects "all other person or persons whose names, identities, and descriptions are unknown to the affiant." The warrant itself, however, only authorized the police to "enter the suspected place described in [the affidavit] and to there search for the personal property described... and to seize same and to arrest and bring before [the magistrate] each suspected party named in [the affidavit]."

At about 9:45 p.m. the same day, Harris led a contingent of approximately forty (40) officers to the Club to execute the "hazardous" warrant.¹ Although some individuals were able to run away, and others outside the premises allegedly hurled bottles and rocks at the officers, the law enforcement personnel were able to secure the outer perimeter of the search area, which included the Club's building and parking lot, and the entire city block up to the roadway. On entering the Club, the officers noticed drugs on the floors and tables.

Plaintiffs Cecil Jackson and L.B. Brumley were inside the Club; plaintiff Thomas Gene Brown was outside, but when he repeatedly attempted to gain admittance, an officer arrested him and took him inside to be searched. The police detained approximately 100 people, including plaintiffs, inside the Club for about three hours. During that time, officers conducted a pat-down search, strip search, and warrants check on each individual there. Although strip searches were not part of any written policy concerning the execution of hazardous warrants, Harris testified that it was his standard policy to conduct a strip search on each person within the search area, with or without individualized probable cause. Also, pursuant to this "policy," the officers re-handcuffed plaintiffs (and all other detainees) and continued to detain them after the strip searches until the entire search of the Club and all occupants had been completed. Brumley got obstreperous after he was strip searched and was arrested for disorderly conduct.

Three years later, 17 individuals brought suit under § 1983, claiming that Harris and the County violated their Fourth Amendment rights by engaging in an illegal strip search, unlawful detention and oral harassment.² Four plaintiffs were dismissed, and 10 others settled their claims. The three remaining plaintiffs (plaintiffs-appellants herein) unsuccessfully attempted to amend their complaint, in part to include an invasion-of-privacy claim.

At the summary judgment stage, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on (1) the unlawful detention claims of those plaintiffs inside the Club when the premises were secured; (2) plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims; and (3) plaintiffs' verbal harassment claims. The court denied defendants' summary judgment motion on (1) plaintiffs' illegal strip search claim; (2) the unlawful detention claims of plaintiffs who were not originally in the Club, but were brought in only after the premises were secured; and (3) plaintiffs' policy claims against Kaufman County.

After conducting a bench trial, the district court concluded that (1) Harris had conducted an unconstitutional strip search of plaintiffs, and he is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rule of law prohibiting these searches was clearly established at the time, making Harris's conduct objectively unreasonable; (2) Harris is entitled to qualified immunity on Brown's illegal detention claim, the only detention claim surviving summary judgment;³ and (3) Kaufman County is liable for Harris's conduct because Harris is a policymaker whose actions (specifically, his orally established policy of conducting strip searches irrespective of the absence of reasonable suspicion) had been the moving force behind the violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Based on these rulings, the court awarded each plaintiff "nominal damages" of $100, and punitive damages of $15,000 against Harris in his individual capacity. The court also awarded plaintiffs declaratory relief, decreeing that Harris and the County had violated plaintiffs' rights under Article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.⁴ Both plaintiffs and defendants timely filed notices of appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court's summary judgment decision de novo.⁵ Summary judgment is only proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.⁶ To determine whether there are any material factual issues, we consult the applicable substantive law to define which issues are material, and then consider the evidence relevant to those issues in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.⁷

We review the district court's bench trial conclusions of law de novo, and findings of fact for clear error. Finally, we review the district court's decision to award punitive damages for abuse of discretion,⁸ and examine the constitutionality of the amount of such an award de novo.⁹

B. Parties' Contentions

Because the district court addressed plaintiffs' claims at both the summary judgment and trial stages of the litigation, and because the parties appeal different aspects of the judgments rendered, we briefly summarize the parties' contentions on appeal in the interest of clarity.

Plaintiffs make four claims (1) Harris supervised an unlawful detention, which was objectively unreasonable, pretermitting qualified immunity; (2) Harris's search method amounted to an invasion of plaintiffs' privacy; (3) the officers' use of racial epithets violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights; and (4) the County is liable for the constitutional violations caused by Harris's conduct. In short, plaintiffs contest essentially all of the district court's summary judgment holdings adverse to them.

For their part, defendants argue that (1) within the context of executing a hazardous search warrant, it was proper for the officers under Harris's command to conduct strip searches; but even if plaintiffs' rights were violated, Harris deserves qualified immunity; (2) Harris acted reasonably in detaining plaintiffs until the completion of the entire search of the Club; but even if Harris acted unlawfully, he is entitled to qualified immunity; (3) the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims of invasion of privacy for their failure to plead such claims; (4) the district court properly denied plaintiffs' claims of oral harassment because plaintiffs failed to plead an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) the district court erred in assessing nominal (insisting that $100 per plaintiff is not nominal) and punitive damages; (6) the district court erred in finding that defendants violated the Texas Constitution; and (7) the County is not liable for conduct that does not amount to a constitutional violation.

C. Qualified Immunity Standard

To prevail in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must overcome an officer's defense of qualified immunity. Last term, in Hope v. Pelzer, the Supreme Court rendered its most recent articulation of this standard,¹⁰ which we subsequently adopted.¹¹ To determine whether relief is appropriate, the court must undertake a two-step analysis.¹² First, the court must evaluate whether a "plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation."¹³ We address this inquiry in greater detail in connection with each of the contested constitutional claims.

Second, if a constitutional violation is found to have occurred, the court must determine whether the defendant's actions violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."¹⁴ The Hope Court reiterated the standard for a constitutional right to be clearly established:

[I]ts contours "must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by...