Current Folder: Drafts Sign Out Compose Addresses Folders Options Search Help Servage.

net Message List | Delete | Resume Draft Previous | Next Forward | Forward as Attachment | Reply | Reply All Subject: 86 F. Supp. 2d 586, *; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1596 Offiders held to objective judgment in spite of Sheriff From: Date: Wed, December 20, 2006 5:10 pm To: Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version Source: Legal > States Legal - U.S. > Texas > Cases > Federal & State Cases, Combined Terms: "bring before magistrate" and arrest (Edit Search | Suggest Terms for My Search) Select for FOCUS™ or Delivery LEXIS 1596, ** 86 F. Supp. 2d 586, *; 2000 U.S. Dist.

OSCAR D. WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-0875-L UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION 86 F. Supp. 2d 586; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1596 February 7, 2000, Decided February 7, 2000, Filed; February 7, 2000, Entered on Docket DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment granted in part and denied in part. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants county sheriff and county filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims relating to alleged illegal strip searches, unlawful detention, invasion of privacy, and verbal harassment based on race.

OVERVIEW: Police executed a warrant and plaintiffs were strip-searched. Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim against defendants county sheriff and county. Warrant authorized search of club and arrest of five individuals. Police did not have probable cause to strip search every individual present. Right to be free from unreasonable search was clearly established, and reasonable officer could not have believed that strip searches were objectively reasonable. Search and detention was not unreasonable only as to plaintiff named in warrant. Defendant sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to unlawful detention claims of plaintiffs on premises when warrant was executed. Invasion of privacy and U.S. Const. amend. XIV claims were dismissed. Defendant sheriff was final policymaker for defendant county. Plaintiffs raised genuine issue of material fact concerning unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom claim. Defendant county was not entitled to summary judgment. OUTCOME: Summary judgment granted on verbal harassment and invasion of privacy claims. Unlawful detention claims of plaintiffs on premises at time of execution dismissed. Motion granted as to claims of plaintiff named in warrant. Motion denied as to other plaintiffs' illegal strip search claim. Motion denied as to defendant county's liability. CORE TERMS: summary judgment, strip search, qualified immunity, probable cause, search warrant, law enforcement, strip, searched, reasonable suspicion, invasion of privacy, unlawful detention, pat-down, harassment, weapon, constitutional right, intrusive, custom, Fourth Amendment, governmental entity, detention, verbal, suspected, Fourteenth Amendment, reasonable officer, pleaded, slur, subjected, hazardous, racially, probable cause to search LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Hide Headnotes Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Legal Entitlement Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment >