Ninth Circuit: Police Body Camera Hospital Recording Case Appealed

• Two Tempe police officers recorded a woman's nude genitalia for three hours in a hospital bed in 2022.
• The woman, Noor Jehangir, was arrested for shoplifting and being treated for a drug overdose.
• A district court dismissed Jehangir's lawsuit in November 2025, granting the officers qualified immunity.
• During the Ninth Circuit appeal, judges questioned the officers' intent and the ambiguity of the Tempe Police body camera policy.
• The case examines the scope of Fourth Amendment protections for arrestees' bodily privacy in medical settings.

This appeal carries significant weight for defining the boundaries of police body camera recordings, particularly in medical settings where individuals may be vulnerable and exposed.

Noor Jehangir initiated legal action against the City of Tempe following an incident in 2022 where two Tempe police officers recorded her nude genitalia for approximately three hours while she was receiving medical treatment in a hospital bed. Jehangir had been arrested on misdemeanor shoplifting charges and was being treated for a drug overdose at the time. Her lawsuit, filed in November 2024, contended that the officers lacked a legitimate law enforcement justification for such extensive recording in a sensitive medical environment.

According to the City of Tempe, the officers involved, Daniel East and Marra Guajardo, positioned their body cameras to maintain continuous footage. Officer East reportedly placed his camera down to allow him to turn his back, thereby attempting to respect Jehangir's privacy. Officer Guajardo subsequently followed this practice, enabling her to enter and exit the room without interrupting the recording. Despite these efforts, the cameras were positioned at angles that directly captured Jehangir's genitalia, which became repeatedly exposed as she moved on the bed. The city also stated that officers made efforts to cover Jehangir with a sheet multiple times.

The case was initially heard by U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa, who dismissed the lawsuit in November 2025. Judge Humetewa granted qualified immunity to the officers, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there is no dispute of material fact. This ruling prompted Jehangir to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

During the recent Ninth Circuit hearing in Phoenix, Jehangir's attorney, Robert Campos, argued that the officers' actions constituted a significant violation of his client's Fourth Amendment rights. Campos asserted that while a general expectation of privacy might be diminished in a hospital setting, it is fundamentally different for an officer to deliberately aim a camera at a person's private parts, creating a permanent public record. He further contended that there was no valid reason to position the cameras in a manner that would maximize the invasion of privacy, suggesting the officers were fully aware of the camera angles and placed them intentionally. Campos also highlighted that the officers' conduct allegedly contravened the Tempe Police body camera policy, which discourages recording in medical facilities and of exposed genitalia.

Conversely, Sarah Anchors, representing the City of Tempe, maintained that the recording was unavoidable given the circumstances. She emphasized that the officers had attempted to preserve Jehangir's privacy by repeatedly covering her with a sheet and that the hospital staff, not the officers, had undressed her. Anchors explained that the public exam room was a "very small cubicle area," leaving no other free surfaces to place the cameras, and any alternative angle would likely still have captured Jehangir naked from the waist down. She also pointed out that Officer East's initial camera placement was an attempt to avoid directly observing Jehangir himself.

The Tempe Police body camera policy itself came under scrutiny during the proceedings. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz characterized the policy as "gobbledygook," noting its conflicting directives: it discourages recording in medical facilities but simultaneously mandates officers to record from the point of arrest through detention. Judge Hurwitz questioned how a reasonable officer could discern the correct course of action under such ambiguous guidelines, highlighting the challenge for officers navigating the Tempe Police body camera policy.

The appellate judges' questioning revealed their differing perspectives on the case. U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget S. Bade, a Trump appointee, appeared unconvinced that the officers had violated Jehangir's rights, distinguishing the situation from previous cases involving clear voyeuristic intent. She challenged Campos's assertion that this case was "more horrible" than others, pointing out that Jehangir was taken to the hospital for her safety, undressed by medical staff, and that officers made efforts to protect her privacy. Judge Bade also defended the male officer's action of removing his camera, stating it was done to allow him to turn his back.

Judge Hurwitz, an Obama appointee, pressed the City of Tempe's attorney, Anchors, on whether officers should have sought a different camera angle, even while acknowledging the constraints of the small room. He also directly questioned Campos on whether he contended the officers intended to film Jehangir's genitalia, to which Campos responded, "At this point, I don’t know." The judges' deliberations underscore the complex interplay between law enforcement duties, individual Fourth Amendment arrestee bodily privacy rights, and the practical challenges of police bodycam usage in sensitive environments.

This appeal carries significant weight for defining the boundaries of police body camera recordings, particularly in medical settings where individuals may be vulnerable and exposed. The Ninth Circuit's eventual ruling will provide crucial guidance on the application of qualified immunity for police bodycam actions and the interpretation of police department policies. It will also help clarify the extent of hospital patient privacy police must uphold, potentially influencing how law enforcement agencies across the country review and refine their own body camera policies to mitigate future litigation risks and ensure compliance with constitutional protections.

Lawyers advising law enforcement agencies should monitor this Ninth Circuit appeal for precedent on the scope of Fourth Amendment protections regarding police body camera recordings in sensitive medical settings, particularly concerning exposed private parts. Compliance officers should review and clarify internal body camera policies to avoid ambiguity for officers and mitigate potential litigation risks related to privacy violations and qualified immunity defenses.

Source: Original reporting via CN