Anastausia Sepulveda v. R. Ramirez, Cresa B. Appleby, Parole Agent Jim Ludwig

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a 16 male parole officer’s unobscured and close observation of a female parolee’s use of the toilet 17 violates the parolee’s “clearly established” right to bodily privacy
• holding that a parole officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for depriving a woman of her clearly established due process right to bodily privacy by entering a bathroom stall and watching her urinate
• explaining that “[t]he right to bodily privacy is fundamental” and that “common sense, decency, and [state] regulations” require recognizing it in a parolee’s right not to be observed by an officer of the opposite sex while producing a urine sample
• stating that the \right to bodily privacy was established\ in York
• involving a male parole officer forcibly entering a bathroom stall with a female parolee to supervise the provision of a urine sample
• emphasizing the up-close, unobscured privacy intrusion rather than the fact that the parole officer and parolee were of opposite genders

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).