Haley Olson sued Oregon law enforcement officials. She alleged that the officials violated her Fourth Amendment rights by extracting the contents of her cell phone without a warrant.
Olson was arrested in Idaho for marijuana possession. She signed a form giving Idaho police consent to search her phone. They then created an “extraction,” or copy of the contents of her phone. During the search of her car, Idaho police found the business card of Tyler Smith, a Grant County, Oregon sheriff’s deputy.
Glenn Palmer, then-Sheriff of Grant County, Oregon, heard about the arrest. Out of “curiosity” as to Deputy Smith’s possible connection to criminal activity, Sheriff Palmer asked Jim Carpenter, then-Grant County’s Attorney and County Prosecutor, to request the phone extraction from Olson’s Idaho case.
Attorney and Prosecutor Carpenter reviewed the extraction for evidence of any criminal activity as to Deputy Smith. Finding nothing, he said he deleted his copy.
Olson heard gossip about the contents of her phone, including nude photos, that seemed to originate from the Grant County sheriff’s office. She sued Palmer and Carpenter, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment for Palmer for lack of supervisory liability, and for Carpenter on grounds of qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established law.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court found no supervisor liability for Sheriff Palmer because there was no evidence that Palmer reviewed the phone extraction or had any supervisory authority over Carpenter. Third-parties may only be liable for the constitutional violations of others if they are a supervisor and they were personally involved in the constitutional deprivation. Thus, Palmer’s request that Carpenter procure and review Olson’s cell phone data failed to establish supervisory control.
The Court also agreed that Carpenter was entitled to qualified immunity because Olson’s right to be free from Carpenter’s search was not clearly established at the time. A government official violates clearly established law if at the time of the challenged conduct, a right was sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right. Olson did not point to any cases that showed her rights were clearly established as to the unique issues at hand, including if a separate law enforcement unit’s review of a phone extraction constitutes a search. The Court affirmed the grant qualified immunity to Carpenter because Olson’s right to be free from Carpenter’s search was not clearly established at the time.
The Court also declared for future cases that the Oregon official’s search of the phone extraction infringed on Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Haley Olson v. County of Grant, 2025 U.S.App. LEXIS 3005 (2/10/25).