Searches.

U.S. District Court

STRIP SEARCH

Doan v. Watson, 168 F.Supp.2d 932 (S.D.Ind. 2001). Former inmates filed a ?? 1983 suit against a former and current sheriff, individually and in their official capacities, alleging unconstitutional strip search policies. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the former inmates, finding that the jail policy of stripping inmates and requiring them to undergo a delousing procedure was an unreasonable search. According to the court, the policy authorized a blanket strip search without justification. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not require the former inmates to produce evidence of physical injury to pursue their claims. The inmates had been arrested for misdemeanor offenses and were subjected to intake searches before entering the general jail population. (Floyd County Jail, Indiana)

U.S. District Court

STRIP SEARCH

Lee v. Perez. 175 F.Supp.2d 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). An arrestee brought an action against a correctional officer, alleging he had been unconstitutionally strip searched. The district court entered a jury verdict in favor of the officer and the arrestee moved for reconsideration. The district court granted the motion on, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the officer relied on permissible factors in making his decision to perform a body cavity search on the arrestee. According to the court, the officer testified that he had not considered the nature of the two misdemeanors with which the arrestee had been charged and could not identify any characteristic of the arrestee that led to his conclusion that the arrestee might have been carrying contraband. The arrestee had spent the night in a police holding cell and was arraigned in court the next morning. Bail was set at $250 but the arrestee was not allowed to post bail at the police station using money that had been i n his possession at the time of his arrest. He was transported to the local jail where he was processed in. The intake process included a "personal hygiene check/visual body search" which consisted of having the arrestee remove his clothes, followed by a visual inspection of his body. The officer contended that this hygiene check was not the same as a strip search because it did not require the inmate to open his mouth or bend over and spread his buttocks. (Orange County Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court

STRIP SEARCH

Roberts v. Rhode Island 175 F.Supp.2d 176 (D.R.I. 2000). A detainee brought an action against corrections officials challenging the constitutionality of policies that require all males committed to the state prison to be subjected to a strip search and visual body cavity search. The district court held that the policies were constitutionally deficient as applied to the detainee, who was searched while detained pursuant to an outstanding body attachment issued by a state family court. The court noted that the policies contained no language concerning what factors might give rise to reasonable suspicion that would permit a constitutional search, and that the policies were universally applied to all pre-arraignment detainees without any prior determination that there is a reasonable suspicion that the detainee may be carrying weapons or contraband. The detainee was searched upon initial admission to the facility and was searched again before being transported to court for arraignment. (Intake Services Center at the Adult Correctional Institution, Rhode Island)

U.S. District Court

STRIP SEARCH

Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56(2nd Cir. 2001). A misdemeanor detainee in a local correctional facility sued a county and various individuals, challenging the policy of requiring strip searches of all detainees regardless of the nature of the crime for which they were detained. The district court granted summary judgment for the detainee and awarded $1 in nominal damages. The appeals court affirmed in part and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the county's strip search policy violated the Fourth Amendment and it a illegality was clearly established in 1995, but the detainee was not entitled to a new trial on the question of damages. The court noted that the searching officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the search of the detainee, and that even if other officers had information that may have justified the search, the information was not relayed to the searching officer. (Nassau County Correctional Center, New York)

U.S. District Court

PAROLEES

U.S. v. Replogle, 176 F.Supp.2d 960 (D.Neb. 2001). In a prosecution for drug possession, the defendant moved to suppress evidence found in his house. The district court denied the motion, finding that while the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his house and the search was not voluntary, the warrantless search was valid because it was conducted pursuant to a valid probation order. The court noted that the defendant's probation officer was authorized to conduct warrantless searches and the probation order stated that the probationer "shall consent" to such searches. The probation officer knew that the defendant had violated a condition of his probation and a judge had advised the officer that she could visit the probationer and conduct a search. (U.S. District Court, Nebraska)