Ioane v. Hodges, No. 16-16089 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to an IRS agent who violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy when, during the lawful execution of a search warrant at plaintiff's home, the agent escorted plaintiff to the bathroom and monitored her while she relieved herself. Weighing the scope, manner, justification, and place of the search, the panel held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the agent's actions were unreasonable and violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the agent's general interests in preventing destruction of evidence and promoting officer safety did not justify the scope or manner of the intrusion into plaintiff's most basic subject of privacy, her naked body. The panel also held that the law was clearly established at the time of the agent's actions. A reasonable officer in the agent's position would have known that such a significant intrusion into bodily privacy, in the absence of legitimate government justification, was unlawful. Accordingly, the agent was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s order, on summary judgment, denying qualified immunity to an Internal Revenue Service Agent in an action alleging that the agent violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy when, during the lawful execution of a search warrant at plaintiff’s home, the agent escorted plaintiff to the bathroom and monitored her while she relieved herself. The panel held that weighing the scope, manner, justification, and place of the search, a reasonable jury could conclude that the agent’s actions were unreasonable and violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. The agent’s general interests in preventing destruction of evidence and promoting officer safety did not justify the scope or manner of the intrusion into plaintiff’s most basic subject of privacy, her naked body. The panel further held that a reasonable officer in the agent’s position would have known that such a
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 19, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.