ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., Judge) dismissing plaintiffappellant’s amended complaint asserting that his civil rights were violated when (1) he was subjected to a strip search upon his admission to the Chemung County Jail as a misdemeanor arrestee, and (2) his release was delayed following the posting of his bail. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, holding that (1) the search was constitutional and the searching officer was entitled to qualified immunity, and (2) the two-hour delay in plaintiff-appellant’s release did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. DENNY CHIN, C.J. On June 5, 2014, plaintiff-appellant Christopher Murphy was sitting on a bus when police officers boarded the bus, removed him, and arrested him on a misdemeanor bench warrant. Murphy, then 67 years old, was a resident of the City of Elmira (the “City”), in Chemung County (the “County”), New York. Murphy was taken to the County Jail, where an officer subjected him to a visual body cavity strip search. In addition, although Murphy’s girlfriend promptly posted his bail, his release was delayed about two hours. Murphy sued the County, the City, and officers in the County Sheriff’s Department and City Police Department in the Western District of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that the strip search and the delay in his release violated his constitutional rights. The district court (Geraci, J.) dismissed the claims against the City and County at the outset of the case and eventually granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the individual defendants as well, holding that (1) the search was constitutional and the searching officer was entitled to qualified immunity, and (2) the two-hour delay in his release did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Murphy appeals the dismissal of the claims against the individual defendants. We AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Because this appeal arises from a grant of summary judgment, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to Murphy, the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Guan v. City of New York, 37 F.4th 797, 804 (2d Cir. 2022). I. The Facts On the morning of June 5, 2014, Murphy was sitting on a bus at the County Transportation Center in Elmira, New York. The bus was scheduled to depart at 9 a.m., and Murphy was planning on taking it some twenty miles to Sayre, Pennsylvania, where he had four medical appointments scheduled. Before the bus could leave, however, police officers arrived and asked Murphy to disembark.1 Once the officers confirmed his identity, they handcuffed him, placed him in a police car, and took him to the Elmira City Hall.2 The officers arrested Murphy pursuant to an “active bench warrant” issued by the Elmira City Court charging him with the offense of maintaining a “structure unfit for human occupancy” in violation of §107.1.3 of the New York State Property Maintenance Code, as well as “lesser offense(s)” of violating the Property Maintenance Code and the New York State Fire Code. Docs. 67-5 at 1; 67-1 at 1. These “[c]ode violations” relating to Murphy’s home had been charged in a “misdemeanor complaint.” Doc. 67-10 at 13. At City Hall, the officers put a chain around Murphy’s waist before taking him to court. They placed him in a room outside the courtroom and, at approximately 9:45 to 10 a.m., they brought him before Judge Steven W. Forrest of the Elmira City Court. Murphy’s girlfriend, Barbara Camilli, was sitting in the courtroom. Judge Forrest set bail at $750 cash or a $1,500 surety bond, and ordered that Murphy remain in custody until he made bail or until 1 p.m., when he was to return to court. Murphy advised the court that he only had $400 in his possession and asked the court to lower the bail to that amount. The court denied the request and told Murphy that, unless he made bail, he would remain in custody until 1 p.m. Hence, as confirmed by the Securing Order signed by the court, Murphy was remanded to the custody of the County only until he returned to court at 1 p.m. or until he posted bail, whichever came first. See Doc. 67-1. While he was still in the courtroom, Murphy asked Camilli to go to an ATM to get the balance of the money he needed to make bail. Murphy was taken from the courtroom downstairs, back to “the Elmira police station proper,” and placed into a “small room.” Doc. 67-11 at 16. He was not fingerprinted, photographed, or processed at that point. After waiting there for about five minutes, he heard Camilli, outside the room, saying, “I’m here with his bail.” Id. at 23-24. Although he could not see what was happening, Murphy heard a male police officer tell Camilli that because Murphy was in the Sheriff’s custody, he could not be released from the Police Department, but had to be taken to the County Jail, and that she had to go there to bail him out. After about another twenty minutes, Murphy was transported by van from City Hall to the County Jail, a short ride away. He was put into a holding cell, and after five or ten minutes an officer, Gunderman, fingerprinted and photographed him. The fingerprinting took a while because Gunderman was having trouble with the process. As Murphy was being fingerprinted, Gunderman said to him “[y]our bail’s sitting out there and we’re going to cut you loose” or “[w]e’ve got to cut you loose.” Id. at 50. Gunderman also said that Camilli — who was attempting to post Murphy’s bail and secure his release — was “making a real fuss, making a real commotion” about the delay. Id. at 51. Murphy’s impression was that he would be released “immediately.” Id. Murphy was then placed into a second holding cell, where a young man was already being detained. After about an hour, and about an hour before Murphy was due back in court, the Booking and Admissions Officer — defendant-appellee William Washburn — removed him from the cell. Washburn brought Murphy to a small room and conducted a visual body cavity search, requiring Murphy to disrobe, lift his scrotum, and spread his buttocks.3 Washburn did not touch Murphy during the search, which lasted around ten minutes.4 After the search was completed, Washburn escorted Murphy out of the search room. Washburn gestured to other officers with his thumb and forefinger, which Murphy understood as mockingly connoting that he had a small penis. Murphy was then brought back to the holding cell. After ten or fifteen minutes, officers took him to a different area for questioning, where he was processed; deputies asked him personal questions for another ten or fifteen minutes, with one or two of the deputies typing into a computer. During the questioning, Murphy repeatedly asked when he would be released, noting that his bail had been posted. Murphy received no response, except from one deputy who said “Well, we’ve got to take you to court at 1:00.” Doc. 67-11 at 68. At least two or three times, in the presence of other deputies, Gunderman said “[t]his guy’s bail’s out there. We’ve got to cut him loose.” Id. at 62. Washburn responded: “No. We’re not done with him yet. He’s not going anywhere. He’s going to sit in my jail for a while.” Id. at 61. Washburn made comments to this effect both before and after the strip search. After the questioning was completed, Murphy was returned to the holding cell. Shortly thereafter, he was released, without ever entering the jail’s general population. At that point, it was close to 1:00, and so Murphy, accompanied by Camilli, walked directly over to court to appear before Judge Forrest. At the time, strip searches in the County were governed by rules set forth in a policy numbered C-110 (the “Policy”), which bore the subject line “Admitting of Inmates into the Facility” and was produced in discovery. The Policy provides, inter alia, that “only those inmates that present a reasonable suspicion for being strip-searched will be strip-searched. All other new admissions that do not meet these criteria will be pat searched only.” Doc. 66-9 at 2. The Policy also requires that, if a strip search is conducted, “a report will be made” setting forth (1) the reason(s) for the search; (2) the search’s time, date, and location; (3) the supervisor or officer-in-charge who authorized the search; and (4) the officer who conducted the search. Id. at 2-3. The strip search of Murphy was reported on a form, also produced during discovery, entitled “Strip Search Justification Sheet” (the “Justification Sheet”). It notes the date and time of the search (June 5, 2014, at noon) and lists Washburn as the “Search Officer.” Doc. 66-8 at 2. In the space reserved for the “[e]xplanation of the grounds or reasons for conducting a strip search,” the form states only “per Post 1.” Id. The form does not name any supervisor or officer who authorized the search; rather, the fields for “finding/result of search,” the “Watch Commander’s Signature,” badge number, date and time, and an additional space for “[c]omments” are all blank. Id. II. The Proceedings Below Murphy initiated this lawsuit on June 1, 2017. See Doc. 1. In his amended complaint, Murphy alleges that the individual defendants — Washburn, other County employees, and several Elmira police officers — violated his federal constitutional rights by subjecting him to an unjustified strip search and delaying his release after Camilli posted his bail. See generally Doc. 7. A longtime resident of Elmira, Murphy contends he was targeted for harassment because of his contentious relationship with the City and County, which included prior legal disputes. In his deposition, Murphy identified Washburn as the officer who conducted the strip search. Although Washburn was not deposed, during discovery, he submitted an affidavit stating that he had neither conducted the strip search nor directed that it be conducted. Rather, he identified himself as the “Booking/Admissions Officer,” meaning he had “merely recorded that the strip search took place as part of the booking process.” Doc. 66-7 15. According to Washburn, the notation “per Post 1″ on the Justification Sheet meant that some supervisory officer — he did not identify whom — had authorized the search. Id. 16. Washburn contended that the strip search “was necessarily based on reasonable suspicion” because the Policy required it to be; moreover, Washburn averred, neither he nor any other officer “directed to perform the search[] would have had the discretion to disobey the order.” Id.
