Searches.

41. Searches

U.S. Appeals Court    Dye v. Lomen, 40 Fed.Appx. 993 (7th Cir. 2002).
                      A state prisoner brought [section] 1983 claims
  STRIP SEARCH        against correctional employees, alleging they
                      used excessive force against him during two
                      entries into his cell, that they refused to
                      provide him with toilet paper for several days,
                      and that they strip-searched him in front of a
                      female employee. The district court granted
                      summary judgment in favor of the correctional
                      employees and the appeals court affirmed. The
                      appeals court held that correctional officials
                      did not use excessive force when they physically
                      and mechanically restrained the prisoner and used
                      a stun gun against him during two cell entries.
                      The appeals court found that the failure to
                      provide the prisoner with toilet paper for
                      several days did not violate the prisoner's
                      rights, absent proof that the officials deprived
                      him of toilet paper to unnecessarily and wantonly
                      inflict pain upon the prisoner. The appeals court
                      held that strip-searching the male prisoner in
                      front of female employees did not constitute
                      cruel and unusual punishment. (Kettle Moraine
                      Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court   Farid v. Goord, 200 F.Supp.2d 220 (W.D.N.Y.
                      2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action
  RETALIATION         against correctional officers and prison
                      officials, alleging free speech and procedural
                      due process violations under the First and
                      Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted
                      summary judgment, in part, for the defendants.
                      The court held that the inmate, who had
                      circulated a petition, engaged in protected
                      conduct even though the prison had a grievance
                      process that could have been used. The petition
                      concerned allegations that an officer failed to
                      allow inmates adequate time to finish their
                      breakfast. The court noted that no regulation
                      barring petitions was in effect at the time. The
                      court denied summary judgment on the issue of
                      whether the inmate's right to petition the
                      government and right to free speech were violated
                      by officers when they determined, independent of
                      the facility's media review committee, that a
                      copy of the petition the inmate had sent to the
                      prison superintendent was unauthorized, and that
                      two satirical articles written by the prisoner,
                      one of which was published by local news media,
                      were detrimental to the order of the facility.
                      The court denied qualified immunity to officers
                      on the inmate's retaliation claim, finding that
                      the inmate's right not to suffer retaliation for
                      engaging in protected First Amendment activities
                      was clearly established at the time of the
                      alleged retaliation. The inmate alleged that the
                      officers retaliated with searches of his cell and
                      work area, and with disciplinary charges for
                      authoring and possessing certain articles.
                      (Attica Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court    Saulsberry v. Arpaio, 41 Fed.Appx. 953 (9th Cir.
                      2002). A detainee brought an action against a
  DRUG TEST           county sheriff alleging violation of his Fourth
                      and Eighth Amendment rights. The district court
                      entered judgment for the sheriff and the appeals
                      court affirmed. The appeals court held that a
                      physician working for the sheriff's office
                      ordered catheterization and drug screening for
                      the detainee solely for medical purposes, not for
                      any administrative or investigative reasons, and
                      therefore the tests did not violate the Fourth
                      Amendment. (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,
                      Arizona)

U.S. District Court   Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391 (D.Md. 2002).
                      A female detainee who was arrested on an
  SAME-SEX SEARCH     outstanding warrant associated with a civil
                      matter and detained at a jail brought an action
  STRIP SEARCH        against county and state officials. The district
                      court granted summary judgment for the
                      defendants. The court held that arresting and
                      booking officers were deliberately indifferent to
                      the detainee's serious medical needs when they
                      allegedly removed a neck brace and seized
                      medication, ignoring her complaints of pain and
                      muscle spasm. The detainee sometimes limped and
                      walked with a cane, but the court found that the
                      detainee's alleged pain did not rise to the level
                      of a serious medical need. The court granted
                      qualified immunity to the officers, finding that
                      there was no indication that the officers
                      actually knew of, and ignored, a serious need for
                      medical care. The court also found that the
                      officers were not deliberately indifferent by
                      failing to dispense medication in response to the
                      detainee's complaints of pain, where the officers
                      were not permitted to dispense medication and
                      they notified the detention facility's medical
                      staff of a nonemergency situation, who did not
                      respond during the six hours the detainee was
                      confined.

                      The court held that the detainee's allegation
                      that she was brutally handcuffed did not present
                      a constitutional violation, particularly in the
                      absence of any explanation of how the handcuffing
                      led to any injury.

                      The court held that if a strip search was
                      conducted by an officer of the same sex during
                      the processing of the detainee, it did not rise
                      to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation,
                      where the search was conducted in private and
                      there was no physical contact between the
                      detention officer and the detainee. (Montgomery
                      County Detention Center, Maryland)

U.S. Appeals Court    U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2002).
                      A defendant convicted of possession of child
  PAROLEES            pornography appealed his conviction, challenging
                      a warrantless parole search. The district court
                      held that the parole search was supported by
                      reasonable suspicion and that seizure of the
                      defendant's computer was justified under the
                      plain-view doctrine. The court noted that
                      probable cause is not required for a parole
                      search that is conducted under a valid parole
                      agreement and that the defendant had agreed to
                      allow searches of his residence, diminishing his
                      expectation of privacy. (Utah Department of
                      Corrections)