Doe v. Gray

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’-police officials and case manager with Ind. Dept. of Child Services, in plaintiffs’-Doe (transgender male) and A.B. (Doe’s significant other female) section 1983 action, alleging that defendant-detective violated Doe’s 14th Amendment right to privacy in his sexual preference or gender identity, when detective disclosed to A.B. during investigation that Doe was transgender male and had female genitalia, under circumstances where A.B. claimed that she was unaware of said facts. Record showed that at time of said disclosure, detective was investigating claim made by A.B.’s 17-year-old son that for past month, he had been kicked out of home that he had shared with Doe and A.B. without being given any money and with A.B. providing food at place he was staying on only one occasion. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment claim, where there is no clearly established right to privacy in one’s sexual preference or gender identity during criminal or child welfare investigation. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiffs could not proceed on 4th Amendment false arrest claim, where defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiffs on state charges of neglect of dependent and nonsupport of dependent child, that were based on information obtained by detective during interview of A.B.’s child, where child claimed that: (1) Doe kicked him out of house, told him not to return and told him to stay at third-party’s home; and (2) neither Doe nor A.B. had given him any money over past month, and A.B. provided food at third-party’s house on only one occasion. Fact that at some point during this period A.B. told child that he could return to house under certain conditions did not defeat existence of probable cause.