32. Pretrial detention.

U.S. District Court SEARCHES

Helton v. U.S., 191 F.Supp,2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002). Female arrestees brought an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that United States Marshals conducted unlawful searches and invasions of their privacy. The district court held that the alleged strip search of arrestees satisfied the elements of a tort intrusion upon seclusion. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment precludes police or prison officials from conducting a strip search of an individual arrested for misdemeanors or other minor offenses, unless there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband or weapons. The five women plaintiffs had been arrested for unlawful entry in connection with an "anti-fur" demonstration at a department store. According to their complaint, they were compelled "to remove clothing and submit to a strip and squat search" while six men arrested with them were not subjected to such searches. (United States Marshals Service)

U.S. Appeals Court DISCIPLINE PUNISHMENT SEGREGATION

Higgins v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a civil right action alleging due process violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed the complaint and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The district court held that issues of fact existed as to the reason for the detainee's segregation, and that the detainee's retaliation allegations sufficiently stated a claim. The appeals court was unable to determine from the record whether the detainee was placed in lockdown segregation for preventive purposes or for punishment. (Indiana)

U.S. Appeals Court CONDITIONS LENGTH FAILURE TO PROTECT CROWDING

Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against a county sheriff and two jail employees, alleging confinement in unconstitutional conditions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the detainee did not suffer more than a de minimis physical injury from his jail confinement and therefore could not make the required showing for the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). But the appeals court held that the detainee was entitled to seek nominal and punitive damages under the Fourteenth Amendment. The detainee had admitted during a deposition that the back and leg pain he allegedly suffered from sitting and sleeping on benches and the floor of a temporary cell was not serious. The detainee had been temporarily confined on three separate occasions. In one instance he was confined in a temporary holding cell equipped with benches, toilets and sinks. Inmates eat three meals per day in the cell, and are not provided with cots, blankets or pillows. At one time the detainee was housed for 51 hours with approximately 50 other men in a cell measuring 404 square feet. He was transferred to another cell where he spent another 74 hours confined with an average of 18 prisoners in a cell that measured 174 square feet. The detainee described conditions in the cells as "a human carpet." (Clark County Detention Center, Nevada)

U.S. Appeals Court SUICIDE INTAKE SCREENING

Pardue Ex Rel. Christian v. Ashe, 36 Fed.Appx. 199 (6th Cir. 2002). The next friend and next of kin to all arrestee who committed suicide while being held in a comity jail on a domestic assault charge, brought a [section] 1983 action alleging that the county failed to recognize the arrestee's suicidal tendencies. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the arrestee did not have a constitutional right to be screened correctly for suicidal tendencies, and that he did not show a strong likelihood that he was going to attempt suicide such that the failure to take precautions amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The appeals court also held that there was no evidence that the county had a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to pretrial detainees who were in similar situations to the arrestee. The arrestee had been admitted to a county jail and was placed in a temporary holding cell near the intake desk. Sometime during the night the arrestee hanged himself and his body was discovered the following morning. The appeals court held that "this single incident is not sufficient to impose liability on Wilson County because it does not establish a pattern of unconstitutional conduct." (Wilson County Criminal Justice Complex, Tennessee)

U.S. District Court FAILURE TO PROTECT SUICIDE

Rapier v. Kankakee County, Ill., 203 F.Supp.2d 978 (C.D.Ill. 2002). The wife of a detainee who committed suicide while in jail filed a [section] 1983 suit individually, and as the special administrator of the detainee's estate. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the county was not liable for alleged deliberate indifference toward the prevention of suicide by detainees. The court found that the county's policy of placing potentially suicidal detainees in a special needs cell, along with its policy to require cheeks of these inmates every 15 minutes, was an effective way to prevent suicides. The court also found that the county's failure to adequately deal with the problem of understaffing at the jail was not the cause of the detainee's suicide, because an officer saw or spoke to the detainee 15 to 20 minutes prior to the time he was found hanging in his cell. The sheriff has stated that seven staff members were working at the jail at the time of the suicide, the jail's census was lower than usual at the time, and that he did not think that having additional staff would have made a tremendous difference. (Kankakee County Detention Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court FAILURE TO PROTECT MEDICAL CARE

Smith v. Lejeune, 203 F.Supp.2d 1260 (D.Wyo. 2002). Following the death of her husband who had been detained at a county detention facility, a wife brought an action against a physician, nurses and others, alleging deliberate indifference in violation of [section] 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the physician had trained nurses regarding alcohol withdrawal, and the nurses did not have the requisite state of mind, knowledge and disregard of possible risks to sustain a deliberate indifference claim. According to the court, the physician did not fail to train the nurses, where he provided the nurses with protocols and policies to deal with alcohol and alcohol withdrawal, and conducted monthly meetings during which the policies were discussed. The nurses had not identified any signs that the detainee was suffering for alcohol withdrawal, and the detainee had denied any history of suffering from alcohol withdrawal. The detainee had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, and a breath alcohol test identified a level of .317. (Laramie County Detention Facility, Wyoming)

U.S. Appeals Court USE OF FORCE RESTRAINTS

Williams v. City of Las Vegas, 34 Fed.Appx. 297 (9th Cir. 2002). An arrestee brought a suit against a city and correctional officer alleging the use of excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the officer's use of force and restraints when the arrestee refused to cooperate during the booking process was not excessive under either the Eighth Amendment standard for prisoners, nor the Fourteenth Amendment standard for pretrial detainees. The court noted that all of the officer's conduct associated with this claim had been videotaped from three different positions by surveillance cameras. According to the court, the use of waist and leg restraints on the inmate in his jail cell did not violate the Eighth Amendment, where the inmate had refused to stand still during a frisk search and displayed erratic and seemingly uncooperative behavior. (Las Vegas Department of Detention, Nevada)