Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr.U.S. District Court SEARCHES PRIVACY Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr., 284 F.Supp.2d 811 (N.D.Ohio 2003). Correctional officers brought a [section] 1983 action against a corrections department, challenging personnel strip search policies and alleging breach of a settlement agreement in a prior case. The district court dismissed the action. The court found that some of the officers had standing to bring the action, but that the officers' union lacked standing to pursue damages for its members' injuries, although it retained standing to seek declaratory relief declaratory relief n. a judge's determination (called a "declaratory judgment") of the parties' rights under a contract or a statute often requested (prayed) for information in a lawsuit over a contract. . The court held that the imposition of a reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. standard for the strip searches balanced the officers' Fourth Amendment interests with the government's interest in keeping contraband out of prisons. Under the reasonable suspicion standard, strip searches of prison employees must be articulable ar·tic·u·la·ble adj. That can be articulated: vague, barely articulable thoughts. , particularized par·tic·u·lar·ize v. par·tic·u·lar·ized, par·tic·u·lar·iz·ing, par·tic·u·lar·iz·es v.tr. 1. To mention, describe, or treat individually; itemize or specify. 2. , and individualized in·di·vid·u·al·ize tr.v. in·di·vid·u·al·ized, in·di·vid·u·al·iz·ing, in·di·vid·u·al·iz·es 1. To give individuality to. 2. To consider or treat individually; particularize. 3. , and officials must base strip searches on specific, objective facts and rational inferences based on those facts in light of their experience. The court ruled that the searches did not violate Equal Protection rights or the Due Process Clause. The court held that the searches violated the Fourth Amendment, where officers were chosen at random for searches, but that correctional officials were entitled to qualified immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine in United States law providing immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law. Qualified immunity was created by the U.S. . The court noted that employees' legitimate expectations of privacy were diminished in a prison setting, and that employees were on notice that they were subject to searches. (Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion