made an outright sexual comment or contact with the plaintiff. See e.g., United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267-71, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 1226-28, 137 L.Ed.2d 432, 442-46 (1997) (involving the sexual assault by a state judge); McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191, 1197 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 819, 117 S.Ct. 72, 136 L.Ed.2d 32 (1996) (discussing abusive sexual conduct in a state facility); Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 450-52 (5th Cir.1994) (finding liberty interest in bodily integrity in a case involving sexual abuse of school children by a teacher); Sepulveda v. Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1415-16 (9th Cir.1992) (establishing right to bodily privacy case where parolee observed while providing urine sample); Haberthur, 119 F.3d at 723 (<HOLDING>). Only one case could be found that contained
holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause holding that dchra requires plaintiff to establish that he has been subjected to unwelcome harassment in the workplace recognizing that an alleged deprivation of the right to be free from prosecution without probable cause might be judged under the fourth amendment holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers recognizing the right to be free from unwelcome sexual fondling touching or other egregious contact where a police officer had fondled a womans breasts