Zailey Hess v. Jamie Garcia

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana considers former police officer Jamie Garcia’s motion for summary judgment in Zailey Hess’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court concludes that the evidence could permit a reasonable jury to find violations of Hess’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights and Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure arising from alleged sexual misconduct during a police ride-along. The court denies summary judgment except in one respect, which is not identified in the provided excerpt.

Holdings

1. The evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find that Garcia purposefully discriminated against Hess based on her sex through sexual harassment, sexual assault, and abuse of governmental authority; summary judgment and qualified immunity were therefore unavailable on the equal-protection claim.
2. The evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find that Hess was seized and that the seizure was unreasonable, but Garcia was entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established in the particular circumstances in February 2019.
3. A reasonable jury could find that Garcia's intentional sexual assault of Hess, a minor, was an abuse of governmental power that shocked the conscience and violated substantive due process; Garcia was not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find that Garcia purposefully discriminated against Hess based on sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find that Garcia seized Hess unreasonably under the Fourth Amendment through alleged sexual assaults or by taking her to a secluded location during the ride-along.
3. Whether the alleged sexual misconduct could constitute a substantive-due-process violation because it infringed a fundamental right and shocked the conscience.
4. Whether Garcia was entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged conduct did not violate a constitutional right or because the asserted rights were not clearly established in February 2019.

Disposition

other