Hartline v. Gallo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that arrest for a misdemeanor drug offense, by itself, does not satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement
• explaining that the “Fourth Amendment requires an individualized reasonable suspicion that . . . [the] arrestee is concealing weapons or other contraband”
• affirming application of intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
• finding unconstitutional a strip search of a misdemeanor arrestee at a police station, conducted pursuant to a department policy but without reasonable suspicion, and denying qualified immunity under this Court's clearly established law
• “even if there were a departmental policy of strip searching all arrestees without making any assessment of particularized circumstances, the relevant question is still: Do the circumstances of [the] arrest support a reasonable suspicion that she was secreting contraband on her person?”
• “Officer 12 Gallo did not notice anything about Hartline’s physical appearance that 13 suggested she was secreting drugs on her person, nor did he engage in a less 14 invasive pat down search that suggested the presence of contraband.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).