Law360 (September 16, 2026, 9:33 PM EDT) -- A Third Circuit panel on Wednesday ruled that police cannot conduct warrantless strip searches outside of jails or prisons absent consent or an emergency, but found that Pennsylvania officers who unconstitutionally searched a man enjoy qualified immunity from his civil rights claims because the limitation was not clearly established at the time.

U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in the court's opinion that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine allows warrantless searches — but not intimate ones. Strip searches are an extreme intrusion on privacy, he wrote, and can be humiliating and frightening.

"Strip searches expose to strangers the most intimate parts of the body, which are kept covered for modesty and called 'private parts,'" Judge Bibas wrote.

Judge Bibas pointed out a circuit split on the issue: The First, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh circuits have allowed officers to strip-search people after arrest based on reasonable suspicion, he wrote. He said the Third Circuit would side with the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth circuits, which require warrants supported by probable cause.

The ruling comes in plaintiff Kyle Beatty's appeal from summary judgment seeking to revive federal civil rights claims against two police officers who strip-searched him in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

According to the opinion, officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin spotted Beatty and his girlfriend driving in an area known for drug trafficking and followed them to a gas station. When they headed into the store, Gardner examined the car, which belonged to Beatty's girlfriend.

Gardner smelled marijuana through an open window and saw a spent joint in the ashtray and flakes of marijuana on the floor. He went into the store and searched Beatty, the opinion said.

Beatty and Gardner left the store together, and the officer then threatened to have their car towed if Beatty's girlfriend did not consent to a search of the vehicle. She consented at first, but became uncooperative, the opinion said.

Beatty told her to revoke her consent and the officers handcuffed him and put him face-down on the hood of the car. Irvin then searched Beatty's "waist, pockets, groin, and ankles and removed his wallet, but found no contraband," the opinion said.

They put him into the back of a patrol car as they waited for a tow truck to arrive, and then took him to the police station "solely to strip-search him, but they found nothing," the opinion said.

Beatty lodged a civil rights lawsuit against both officers, alleging the stop, arrest and all three searches were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and retaliatory under the First Amendment, the opinion said. He also alleged state-law claims for assault, battery, false arrest and false imprisonment.

A district court judge granted summary judgment to the officers on the federal claims, saying the officers' actions before the strip search were reasonable, and that the strip search was protected by qualified immunity.

Beatty appealed to the Third Circuit, which upheld the decision Wednesday.

However, the court explained at length that the warrantless strip search of Beatty was a constitutional violation that is rarely warranted.

"They had probable cause to arrest him, and it was reasonable to search him in the course of that arrest," Judge Bibas wrote. "But they went too far by strip-searching him."

Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon.

U.S. Circuit Judges Stephanos Bibas, Cindy Chung and Thomas Ambro sat for the Third Circuit.

Beatty is represented by Joshua Cochran of Schemery Zicolello.

Gardner is represented by Shawna Laughlin of William J. Ferren & Associates.

Irvin is represented by Stephen Hartley and Austin White of McCormick Law Firm.

The case is Kyle Beatty v. Clinton Gardner et al., case number 25-2860, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

--Editing by Kelly Duncan.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.