IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

TOSHA N. HENRY, ) Case No. ________________

)
Plaintiff, ) JURY DEMANDED
)
v. )
)
WHITE COUNTY, TENNESSEE; )
)
BRANDON YOUNG, individually and )
in his official capacity; )
)
DALLAS SLATTON, individually and )
in his official capacity; )
)
MARISSA SONGER, individually and )
in her official capacity; )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Tosha N. Henry, by and through the undersigned counsel, for

cause of action against the defendants, jointly and severally, and respectfully states unto this

Honorable Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 for deprivation of civil rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution and other claims which arise under color of state law.

Defendant White County, Tennessee, has employed and maintained an unlawful policy,

practice, and/or custom of strip searching citizens without probable cause or exigent

circumstances during investigatory Terry stops, and other non-custodial encounters.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

1
 Defendants Young and Slatton prolonged a traffic stop longer than reasonably necessary

to initiate the unlawful search of Plaintiff’s vehicle and unlawful strip search of Plaintiff’s

body. Defendant Songer performed an unlawful, invasive, and humiliating strip search of

Plaintiff on the side of a public road in plain view to anyone on the roadway and nearby

motel without probable cause or exigent circumstances.

2. Plaintiff brings this action to recover all damages allowable under the law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), and § 1367(a).

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims of violation of civil rights pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(a).

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that the factual acts and

omissions which give rise to this cause of action occurred within this judicial district and

within one year of the filing of this Complaint and all defendants reside in the State of

Tennessee and within this judicial district.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Tosha N. Henry is an adult female citizen of the State of Tennessee, residing in

Sparta, White County, Tennessee.

7. Defendant White County, Tennessee is a governmental entity organized under the laws of

the State of Tennessee and is known as a county, which acts through its elected

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2

2
 commissioners and County Mayor. Among its other functions, White County operates

and maintains a law enforcement agency known as the White County Sheriff’s Office.

8. Defendant Brandon Young, upon information and belief, is a male adult resident and

citizen of White County, Tennessee. At all times material hereto, Defendant Young was a

deputy sheriff of the White County Sheriff’s Office and at all times relevant was acting

by virtue of his position as a law enforcement officer and under the color of state law.

Defendant Young is also being sued in his individual capacity.

9. Defendant Dallas Slatton, upon information and belief, is a male adult resident and

citizen of White County, Tennessee. At all times material hereto, Defendant Slatton was

a deputy sheriff of the White County Sheriff’s Office and at all times relevant was acting

by virtue of his position as a law enforcement officer and under the color of state law.

Defendant Slatton is also being sued in his individual capacity.

10. Defendant Marissa Songer, upon information and belief, is a female adult resident and

citizen of White County, Tennessee. At all times material hereto, Defendant Songer was

a corrections officer of the White County Sheriff’s Office and at all times relevant was

acting by virtue of her position as a corrections officer and under the color of state law.

Defendant Songer is also being sued in her individual capacity.

FACTS

11. On October 19, 2019 around 10:00 p.m., Tosha Henry and her friend, Amanda Oakes,

were traveling together in a Nissan Maxima owned by Ms. Henry. Ms. Henry was

driving; Ms. Oakes was in the passenger seat.

12. As the women crossed Highway 111 on Fred Hill Road, they noticed officers from the

White County Sheriff’s Office were conducting a stop of another vehicle.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3

3
13. Ms. Henry continued driving on Fred Hill Road.

14. As Ms. Henry approached a stop sign at the intersection of Fred Hill Road and Doyle

Highway, a sheriff’s vehicle with flashing lights came speeding up behind her.

15. Ms. Henry pulled her vehicle over in front of the Budget Inn, located on the corner of

Fred Hill Road and Doyle Highway. The area was in plain view of anyone at the Budget

Inn on one side, and in plain view of Doyle Highway and Fred Hill Road on the other

side.

16. Defendant Brandon Young, a deputy with the White County Sheriff’s Office, initiated the

traffic stop, supposedly due to a faulty license plate light.

17. Shortly after Defendant Young approached the driver side of Ms. Henry’s vehicle,

Defendant Dallas Slatton arrived and approached the passenger side of the vehicle.

18. Defendant Young asked for Ms. Henry’s identification. Upon recognizing her, he leaned

down in the car, recognized the passenger, and asked for Ms. Oakes’s identification.

19. Defendant Young asked where the women were going. Ms. Henry responded that she

had just dropped off her children at their father’s house and she was on her way to drop

off Ms. Oakes at her house.

20. Defendant Young asked if there was anything illegal in vehicle. Ms. Henry responded,

“No.”

21. Defendant Young asked Ms. Henry if she was on probation and if she had just gotten out

jail. Defendant Young also asked Ms. Oakes if she was on probation.

22. Defendant Young told Ms. Henry that if she consented to a quick search of her vehicle, he

would give them a warning ticket and let them go.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4

4
23. Ms. Henry, who was on parole at the time, and fearing that she could get in trouble with

her parole officer for the traffic stop, agreed to the search in order to get a warning.

24. Neither Defendant Young nor Defendant Slatton had any articulable reasonable suspicion

to conduct a search of the vehicle.

25. Defendant Young ordered Ms. Henry and Ms. Oakes out of the vehicle and Defendant

Slatton began searching the vehicle.

26. Defendant Young took Ms. Henry and Ms. Oakes to the front of his patrol car where he

ordered the women to empty their pockets. No weapons, no drugs, nor anything illegal

was found on either woman.

27. Defendant Young returned to his patrol vehicle and ran the identifications of both women.

28. Five minutes into the traffic stop, the warrant check came back clear for both Ms. Henry

and Ms. Oakes.

29. Defendant Young wrote out and signed the warning ticket for the plate light.

30. Seven minutes into the traffic stop, Ms. Henry signed the warning ticket, and Defendant

Young gave her the warning ticket.

31. Defendant Young would not allow Ms. Henry nor her passenger to leave after the

warning ticket was issued.

32. The women were not under arrest, but were in custody.

33. Defendant Slatton continued to slowly, with sloth-like speed, search the vehicle,

purposefully drawing out the search longer than necessary.

34. The only thing allegedly found in the vehicle were brand new, never used baggies that

were located inside Ms. Oakes’s purse.

35. Neither Ms. Henry nor Ms. Oakes were questioned about the baggies.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5

5
36. The baggies were not pulled out of the vehicle and were never shown to Ms. Henry nor

Ms. Oakes. The baggies were not seen on body cam nor dash cam video.

37. Defendant Young asked Ms. Henry and Ms. Oakes again if they had anything illegal on

them, to which they replied, “No.”

38. Instead of letting Ms. Henry and Ms. Oakes go with the already issued warning ticket or

investigating the brand new, unused baggies further and without any evidence of

wrongdoing, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, Defendant

Young ordered White County Deputy Brandon Farris to bring a female corrections officer

to the scene.

39. Neither Ms. Henry nor Ms. Oakes heard the order for the female officer.

40. While waiting on the female officer to arrive, Defendant Young went over to Defendant

Slatton, who was still slowly searching the vehicle, and said, “Take your time, take your

time, take your time!”

41. Defendant Young wanted Defendant Slatton to purposefully drag out the search of the

vehicle in order to prolong the traffic stop until the female officer, Defendant Marrisa

Songer, arrived.

42. When Defendant Marissa Songer arrived, Defendant Young told Ms. Henry to go back to

Defendant Songer to be patted down.

43. Neither Ms. Henry, nor her passenger, Ms. Oaks, were told they were going to be strip

searched and made to squat and cough on the side of the road.

44. At this time, there were four White County Sheriff’s vehicles on the scene, four male

deputies (Defendant Young, Defendant Slatton, Deputy Brandon Farris, and another

unknown male deputy), and Defendant Songer.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6

6
45. Ms. Henry was taken to the passenger side of a White County Sheriff’s vehicle parked

behind Defendant Young’s patrol vehicle.

46. The passenger side of that vehicle was facing Fred Hill Road, in plain view of anyone

driving down Fred Hill Road, or anyone looking down Fred Hill Road while driving

down Doyle Highway. The Budget Inn was on the other side of the vehicle. Male

officers were standing in front of the vehicle on either side.

47. Defendant Songer ordered Ms. Henry to take off her hooded sweatshirt, t-shirt, and bra.

48. Ms. Henry, who was only expecting a pat down, was completely shocked at the request.

Ms. Henry questioned, “All the way off?” Defendant Songer confirmed, all the way off.

49. Defendant Songer then ordered Ms. Henry to pull down her pants and underwear all the

way down to her ankles, squat and cough. Defendant Songer, with a flashlight in hand,

viewed the exposed areas of Ms. Henry’s genital and anal region.

50. During the strip search of Ms. Henry, Defendant Young sent the unknown male deputy

back to where the search was occurring to check on Defendant Songer and Ms. Henry.

51. Defendant Songer found nothing during the intrusive strip search of Ms. Henry.

52. Embarrassed, humiliated, and dehumanized, Ms. Henry pulled up her pants and

underwear, put on her hooded sweatshirt, and slung her t-shirt over her shoulder.

53. All of this was done alongside a public road with a motel on the other side of the vehicle

and male officers standing around.

54. At least three vehicles drove by while Ms. Henry was being strip searched.

55. Ms. Henry walked back to the front of Defendant Young’s patrol car visibly shaken over

what just occurred, but tried to play it cool.

56. Defendant Young then told Ms. Oakes to go back to Defendant Songer.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7

7
57. Defendant Songer ordered Ms. Oakes to take her shirt off and shake out her bra. Upon

finding nothing, Defendant Songer grabbed Ms. Oakes bra, pulling it away from Ms.

Oakes’s body. Two empty syringes containing no drug residue fell out.

58. Defendant Songer then ordered Ms. Oakes to pull down her pants and underwear all the

way down to her ankles, squat and cough.

59. All of this was done alongside a public road with a motel on the other side of the vehicle

and male officers standing around.

60. During the strip search of Ms. Oakes, Defendant Young walked back to the vehicle where

the strip search was being performed.

61. The traffic stop, strip search, and search of Ms. Henry’s vehicle continued far beyond the

time necessary to investigate a faulty plate light and issue a warning ticket.

62. No warrant was obtained for the strip searches.

63. None of the searches were justified by either reasonable suspicion, probable cause, nor

exigent circumstances.

64. Neither Ms. Henry, nor Ms. Oakes were under arrest during the invasive strip searches.

65. No exigent circumstances existed to justify the strip search of Ms. Henry on the side of a

public highway.

66. It was only after the strip search of Ms. Henry that she was questioned about the brand

new, unused baggies allegedly found in Ms. Oakes’s purse. The baggies were never

shown to Ms. Henry.

67. Ms. Oakes was never questioned about the baggies found in her purse.

68. This is not the only incident of the defendants conducting strip searches on the side of

public roads in White County.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8

8
 69. On October 10, 2019, nine days earlier, Defendant Young pulled over a car driven by

Tonya Qualls. Defendant Young ordered a female officer to the scene. Defendant Songer

was brought to the scene where she made Tonya Qualls disrobe, squat, and cough on the

side of the road. Nothing was found during the strip search. Ms. Qualls was issued a

citation for items found during the search of the vehicle.

70. There may be other instances that are unknown at this time.

71. At all times relevant to this complaint, White County, Tennessee and in particular, the

White County Sheriff’s Office, maintained an illegal written policy, practice, and/or

custom pertaining to strip searches. Said policy is attached as Exhibit 1.

72. White County officers, including the named defendants, apply this custodial search policy

to investigatory traffic stops, Terry stops, and other non-custodial police/citizen

encounters.

73. Ms. Henry has suffered emotionally and mentally as a result of the actions of the

defendants. She has experienced panic attacks and anxiety when near law enforcement

officers. Ms. Henry gets tearful and emotional when speaking about the incident and has

sought the help of a mental health counselor.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Unlawful Search and Seizure
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights as Guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
(Defendants Young, Slatton, and Songer)

74. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates, in their entirety, each and every

paragraph contained in this Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9

9
75. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under color of state law to

violate Tosha N. Henry’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

76. The actions of the defendants violated Ms. Henry’s civil rights as protected by the Civil

Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

77. Defendants worked together to detain Ms. Henry well over the amount of time necessary

to complete the tasks associated with the alleged traffic infraction: investigate a

malfunctioning license plate light and issue a warning ticket. However, Defendants

abandoned the lawful traffic enforcement purpose to the stop and embarked on another

investigation without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

78. Defendants did not uncover or ascertain any articulable facts that would lead to

reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity to justify any search.

79. Defendants unlawfully and unreasonably seized and detained Ms. Henry far beyond the

reasonable duration of a minor traffic stop.

80. The unlawful seizure of Ms. Henry led to an intrusive, humiliating, and dehumanizing

road-side strip search that was conducted without probable cause or exigent

circumstances. Ms. Henry was made to remove her shirt and pull down her pants and

underwear to her ankles while on the side of a public roadway in plain view of the public

and officers on the scene.

81. Defendant Songer escalated the unconstitutional search of Ms. Henry with an extremely

intrusive and outrageous squat and cough rectal inspection, again on the side of a public

roadway in plain view of the public and officers on the scene.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10

10
 82. The unlawful strip search was done in violation of Ms. Henry’s right to be free from

unreasonable searches under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

83. Ms. Henry’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable and invasive strip searches

absent probable cause or exigent circumstances under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments was clearly established at the time of the defendants’ wrongful conduct.

The defendants violated Ms. Henry’s clearly established rights.

84. The conduct of the defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or reckless, and

was of such an outrageous nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount

commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein.

85. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the defendants, Ms. Henry

suffered damages and is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Unlawful Search and Seizure
Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights as Guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
Municipal and Supervisory Liability
(Defendant White County, Tennessee)

86. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates, in their entirety, each and every

paragraph contained in this Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

87. Defendant White County permitted, encouraged, tolerated, and knowingly acquiesced to

an official policy, practice, and/or custom that violated the constitutional rights of the

public at large, including Tosha N. Henry.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11

11
88. White County violated Ms. Henry’s right to be free from unreasonable, illegal searches

and seizures in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution by:

a. Having a policy, custom, and practice of failing to train and properly supervise its

deputies regarding proper search and seizure;

b. Maintaining a custom whereby law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct

strip searches in absence of the combination of exigent circumstances and

probable cause;

c. Maintaining a custom whereby law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct

strip searches of individuals not in police custody and within view of public roads;

d. Failing to enforce or enact a policy preventing indecent strip searching in public

places;

e. Failing to train or supervise personnel on when, where, and how a strip search

may be conducted outside the county jail;

89. White County’s custom of prolonging traffic stop longer than reasonable necessary and

road-side strip searches, along with their failure to train employees regarding policies and

procedures related to searches and seizures contributed to an environment of deliberate

indifference allowing officers to violate Ms. Henry’s rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments.

90. The presence of multiple deputies from the White County Sheriff’s Office on the scene

and there being other instances of road-side strip searches demonstrates that stripping

citizens not in custody and visually inspecting the most private areas of their bodies on

the side of a public road is a widely accepted custom.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12

12
91. White County was deliberately indifferent to Ms. Henry’s clearly established right to be

free from unlawful searches and seizures.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing policies, practices, and customs of

White County, Ms. Henry suffered damages and is entitled to relief.

TENNESSEE STATE LAW CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT III
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(All Defendants)

93. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates, in their entirety, each and every

paragraph contained in this Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

94. The acts and conduct of Defendants, as described hereinabove, were committed in an

intentional and reckless manner.

95. The defendants’ conduct in strip searching Ms. Henry, who was not in police custody,

within the view of public roads and anyone passing by is outrageous, intolerable and

offensive to generally accepted standards of decency and morality.

96. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ intentional, reckless, and outrageous

conduct, Ms. Henry has suffered severe emotional distress and is entitled to damages.

COUNT IV
T.C.A. § 8-8-302 et. seq.

97. The Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates, in their entirety, each and every

paragraph contained in this Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 13

13
98. Plaintiff avers that White County, Tennessee is directly liable for all wrongs, injuries,

damages, and expenses incurred and sustained by Plaintiff pursuant to T.C.A. § 8-8-302

et. seq. as at all times material hereto Defendants Young, Slatton, and Songer were acting

by virtue of and under color of their office as deputy or jailer employed by White County

and appointed by the White County Sheriff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Tosha N. Henry prays as follows:

1. That proper process issue to Defendants and that they be required to answer under oath in

the time required by law;

2. That judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants, both jointly

and severally, on all causes of action asserted herein;

3. That declaratory judgment be rendered that the customs with force of policy of White

County, Tennessee violated the rights of Plaintiff;

4. That declaratory judgment be rendered that the acts and conduct complained of herein by

Defendants Young, Slatton, and Songer was unconstitutional;

5. That injunctive relief be rendered precluding Defendants from engaging in the conduct

complained of herein in the future and requiring White County, Tennessee to provide

proper policy, training, and supervision of its employees and officers in regards to

searches and seizures;

6. That Plaintiff be awarded those damages to which it may appear that she is entitled based

on proof submitted in this case, including nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages,

where allowed by law;

Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14

14
Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15
Case 2:20-cv-00063 Document 1-1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 16