Mia Fontana v. D.E. Haskin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, although “[s]exual misconduct by a police officer” is often analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment, appellant’s claim is properly brought exclusively under the Fourth Amendment since she had been “seized” by the police
• holding that “[t]he trip to the police station is a ‘continuing seizure’ during which the police are obliged to treat their suspects in a reasonable manner” under the Fourth Amendment
• holding that the defendant police officer was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s substantive due process claim since inappropriate touching and sexual harassment is so “egregious” that it “shocks the conscience”
• noting that sexual misconduct by an officer during an arrest “if proved, is malum in se. No reasonable officer could believe this conduct did not violate [the arrestee’s] constitutional rights.”
• explaining that the Fourth Amendment protects an arrestee from “unreasonable seizure and intrusion on [her] bodily integrity” (cited with approval by Hicks v. Moore, 422 F.3d 1246, 1253–54 (11th Cir. 2005))
• finding that 17 “[s]exual misconduct by a police officer toward another generally is analyzed under the 18 Fourteenth Amendment; sexual harassment by a police officer of a criminal suspect during a 19 continuing seizure is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).