Shaquita Davis appeals from the April 2, 2004 order entered by the State Court of Fulton County dismissing her amended complaint pursuant to the Georgia Tort Claims Act, 50-21-20 et seq. “GTCA”. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Davis’ state common law and constitutional claims brought against all appellees, as well as the trial court’s dismissal of her federal constitutional claims brought against appellee the Georgia State Patrol “GSP” and appellee the Georgia Department of Public Safety “DPS”. However, because of the incomplete state of the existing record, we remand with direction on the issue of whether Davis can proceed with her federal constitutional claims against appellee Ronald A. Standifer, a patrol officer with the GSP. Davis filed the present action seeking damages from GSP Officer Standifer, GSP, and DPS for the “severe physical, mental, moral, and emotional harm” that she suffered as a result of Standifer’s alleged sexual misconduct during a routine traffic stop. In her complaint, Davis alleged that on November 8, 2001, Standifer, while “acting within the scope of his official duties and employment as a state employee of the GSP, a division of the DPS,” stopped her vehicle for a traffic violation. She alleged that during the traffic stop, Standifer touched her “on the outside of her pants near her vaginal area,” placed his hand underneath her clothing, and “inserted at least one finger in her vagina.”
Based on these allegations, Davis asserted claims for 1 extreme mental and emotional anguish and harm; 2 sexual assault; 3 sexual battery; 4 “assault under color of law . . . of the state of Georgia”; 5 false imprisonment; and 6 violation of her state and federal constitutional rights. Davis asserted an additional claim against GSP and DPS for exhibiting deliberate indifference to her rights, privileges, and immunities through inadequate hiring procedures; inadequate instruction, supervision, control, and discipline; and acquiescence in unconstitutional practices. Davis’ complaint further specified that she was bringing the action pursuant to the GTCA and 42 USC § 1983.
