AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Strip Searches
A man claimed that two officers violated his rights by subjecting him to a visual body cavity search incident to his arrest. A federal appeals court ruled that visual body cavity searches must be justified by “specific, articulable facts” supporting reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is secreting contraband inside the body cavity to be searched. This requirement was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity by sufficient persuasive authority which made it clear to New York state police officers at the time. Disputed facts, however, precluded a finding of reasonable suspicion on a motion for summary judgment, so the appeals court remanded for a trial on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim against one officer. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to present evidence indicating that the second officer was aware that the first one was conducting, or was going to conduct, the visual body cavity search. Sloley v. VanBramer, #16-4213, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 36733 (2nd Cir.).
An assistant principal's decision to
strip search a 12-year-old 7th grade student may have been reasonable at its
inception because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the search
would have turned up evidence that the student was violating marijuana drug
laws. But he was not entitled to qualified immunity for the manner in which he
carried out the search. By forcing the minor student to strip naked in front of
his peers, the assistant principal exposed the student to an unnecessary level
of intrusion that rendered the search excessive in scope and, therefore,
unconstitutional, under the Fourth Amendment, because the assistant principal's
decision to have the student fully remove all of his underclothing in front of
his peers bore "no rational relationship" to the purpose of the
search. D. H. v. McDowell, #14-14960, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13810, 26 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 581 (11th Cir.).
A man was arrested and
taken into custody for trespass because he was standing by himself inside a
fenced-in playground that had no trespassing signs at all entrances. A federal
appeals court overturned judgment for the defendant officers, finding that a
state statute that provided ten broad grounds for making a custodial arrest
applied to misdemeanors but not to infractions, which came under a statute
specifying three narrower grounds for custodial arrests for infractions. The
court ruled that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff, followed by a
trial on damages. The court upheld, however, a jury's rejection of an unlawful
search claim, as the error on the false arrest standard did not taint the
determination that no strip search had occurred. Edgerly v. City and County of
San Francisco, #11-15655, 599 F .3d 946 (9th Cir.).
Arrestees charged with nonviolent,
non-drug-related misdemeanors were strip searched without a showing of
reasonable suspicion of possession of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The
searches were alleged in a lawsuit by demonstrators subjected to strip searches
after being arrested for trespassing during protests in D.C. connected with the
2002 International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings. Before the strip
searches, they were placed in a court holding facility where they went through
metal detectors and pat down searches. A federal appeals court held that the
right not to be subjected to strip searches under these circumstances was not
clearly established in 2002, so a defendant U.S. Marshal was entitled to
qualified immunity from liability. . Bame v. Dillard, #09-5330, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 6207 (D.C. Cir.).
Two women protested against the war in Iraq at a
2004 Republican campaign rally for President Bush. They were arrested for
trespass and subjected to strip and body cavity searches at the county jail.
They sued federal, state, and county law enforcement officers, claiming
violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. A jury awarded them
$750,000 on the unreasonable search claims, but the trial judge found that
excessive, and a second jury, after a new trial, awarded $55,804 in damages. On
appeal, the court found that, under the totality of the circumstances, there
had been probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiffs for resisting a
federal agent providing protection for the President. The appeals court also
agreed that the amount awarded by the first jury on the search claim had been
excessive, but found that the trial court had erroneously ordered the
plaintiffs to either accept a 90% reduction to $75,000 or undergo a new trial
on damages. The trial court used prior cases, including a 1978 strip search
award for $75,000 for comparison, but made no adjustment for inflation. After a
new reduced amount is calculated, making such an adjustment for inflation, the
plaintiffs may either accept that amount or undergo a third trial on damages.
They were entitled to attorneys' fees for a percentage of the time spent on the
first trial and for all of the work done on the second trial. McCabe v. Parker,
#09-1185, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13327 (8th Cir.).
The City of Denver reached a $175,000 settlement
in a wrongful arrest lawsuit brought in federal court by a woman mistakenly
arrested for purported violation of a protective order that was supposed to
protect her against her estranged boyfriend. The order barred him from coming
within 100 yards of her, but was not reciprocal. She was arrested for violating
the order when she complained to police that her boyfriend used his truck to
stop her from exiting the parking lot at a police station, resulting in her
spending the night in custody. The settlement agreement also provides for
additional training for officers on how to enforce protective orders. Shroff v.
Spellman, #1:-7-cv-01466, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Colo. June 29, 2010).
Prior to the settlement agreement, a federal appeals court rejected
an argument from the arresting officer that he was entitled to qualified
immunity and had arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also claimed that her right to privacy was violated. She had to pump breast
milk while in custody because she was breast feeding and the arresting officer
allegedly required her to do so in a manner that exposed her breasts to a
female police cadet. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err
in finding that this constituted an illegal strip search under the
circumstances. Shroff v. Spellman, #09-1084, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12066 (10th
Cir).
Police officers arrested a man for trespassing
within the gated area of a housing cooperative, and took him to a local police
station where they searched him for contraband, finding nothing, and then
released him after giving him a trespassing citation. He was never prosecuted.
The arrestee sued for false arrest and unreasonable search and seizure. While
finding that probable cause existed for the trespassing arrest, a federal
appeals court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that he underwent an unreasonable strip
search at the station (following a pat-down search at the scene of the arrest),
making him remove his shoes and socks, pull his pants down to his ankles, and
bend over and cough, as well as looking inside his boxer shorts. An arrestee
charged with minor offenses, the court stated, may be strip searched only if
there is reasonable suspicion that he is carrying or concealing contraband or a
weapon, unless the arrestee is being introduced into a general jail population,
which was not the case here. The officers did not testify that they had
reasonable suspicion that the arrestee had contraband or a weapon, although
they also disputed whether they had actually carried out a strip search. In
light of this, qualified immunity was not available as a defense nor was
summary judgment on the unreasonable search claim otherwise available. Edgerly
v. San Francisco, #05-15080, 599 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2010).
The highest court in New York has ruled that under state law police cannot use general search warrants that are issued for a specific location to search "all persons present" unless there is probable cause to believe that a particular person is involved in a crime. The ruling, which was unanimous, appears to end what reportedly was a frequent practice in the state. The court ruled in a case involving a search warrant used in a drug raid on a home, and found that the mandate in the warrant to search "all persons present" did not suffice to justify the strip search of a man found on the premises. The court ordered the dismissal of drug charges that were lodged against him following the search. The court also commented that even if the warrant had sufficed to give the police probable cause to search the man, the strip search, under these circumstances, was so intrusive that it violated both the U.S. and New York Constitutions. People v. Mothersell, #43, 2010 N.Y. Lexis 59.
The
search by school personnel of a13-year-old female student's underwear, seeking
prescription strength and over the counter pain medication barred by school
rules without advance permission, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as
the facts presented did not provide reasonable suspicion justifying extending a
permissible search of the student's belongings and person to one in which she was
made to pull out her underwear. Despite this, school officials were entitled to
qualified immunity since there was not, at the time, clearly established law on
the issue. "We would not suggest that entitlement to qualified immunity is
the guaranteed product of disuniform views of the law in the other federal, or
state, courts, and the fact that a single judge, or even a group of judges,
disagrees about the contours of a right does not automatically render the law
unclear if we have been clear. That said, however, the cases viewing school
strip searches differently from the way we see them are numerous enough, with
well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt that we were
sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law." Safford Unified Sch.
Dist. No. 1. v. Redding, #08-479, 2009 U.S. Lexis 4735.
Police who entered a condemned building without a
warrant to place illegal occupants staging a protest under arrest were entitled
to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims, as their
actions did not violate these rights. Further proceedings were needed, however,
on claims related to strip searches conducted. Cross v. Mokwa, No. 07-3110, 547
F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2008).
Police officer had probable cause to stop a vehicle
for violation of an excessive noise statute for playing loud music. When a
second officer arrived on the scene, subjecting the motorist to a dog sniff of
his car was not a Fourth Amendment violation, since it did not unduly prolong
the length of the stop while the citation for noise was being written. Further
proceedings were required, however, as to the reasonableness of the searches of
the motorist's car and person after the dog allegedly alerted to the driver's
seat. This search, the court stated, was not justified as a search incident to
arrest, and the motorist's claim that the officer conducted a digital body
cavity search of his anus, if true, would indicate an unreasonable search.
Pillow v. City of Lawrenceburg, Tenn., No. 07-6464, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22737
(Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Police officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity on female arrestee's claim that they violated her Fourth Amendment
rights by subjecting her to a strip search after her misdemeanor arrest in the
absence of any individualized suspicion that she possessed contraband, and
allegedly broadcast the search throughout the station. Hartline v. Gallo, No.
06-5309, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21056 (2nd Cir.).
In a prior decision, Campbell v. Miller, 06-1981,
499 F.3d 1 (7th Cir. Ind., 2007), an appeals court ruled that no reasonable
jury could find that a strip search and visual inspection of an arrestee's anal
cavity, conducted in a backyard within the sight of others for no identified
reason complied with the Fourth Amendment. The appeals court found that the
officer who conducted the search was liable to the arrestee, while the city
that employed him was not, as it did not have a policy that caused the manner
in which the search had been conducted. In a hearing on damages on remand, the
trial court ruled that the plaintiff was barred from seeking to recover
punitive damages because a conclusive ruling on the issue had been reached at
trial, and the arrestee had failed to challenge that portion of the court's
rulings during the appeal. Campbell v. Miller, #1:03-cv-180, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 501 (S.D. Ind.).
Federal appeals court rules that no reasonable
jury could find that a strip search, including an inspection of an arrestee's
anal cavity, conducted in public in the open backyard of a home where the
arrest was made, complied with the Fourth Amendment, when there was "no
identifiable reason" for carrying out the strip search in that manner.
Further proceedings were therefore ordered on claims against the officers. Summary
judgment for defendant city was upheld however, since there was no evidence
that the place and manner in which the strip search was conducted was caused by
any official municipal policy or custom. Campbell v. Miller, No. 06-1981, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 20547 (7th Cir.).
A reasonable police officer would not have
understood at the time of the incident (April of 2001) that a strip search of
the arrestee in his motel room, based on a suspicion that he was concealing
drugs, violated his constitutional rights. The officer was therefore entitled
to qualified immunity, and a federal appeals court overturns an award of $1 in
nominal damages to the plaintiff (already reduced to that amount by the trial
court from a jury award of $35,000). In a suit against a city and police
officers for alleged civil rights violations arising from a strip search of
plaintiff in his motel room, denial of qualified immunity for defendant-officer
is reversed where a reasonable officer in defendant's position would not have
understood that the strip search of plaintiff in his motel room would violate
his constitutional rights. The strip search was not conducted in public view,
and the court found that standards for privacy and hygiene "clearly were
met" since the officers were the same sex as the arrestee, and the officer
wore a sanitary latex glove while conducting it. Richmond v. City of Brooklyn
Ctr., No. 05-3770, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14710 (8th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds jury's award of $5
in nominal damages and $25,000 in punitive damages to arrestee on his claim
that a strip search performed by police officers was unreasonable. While the
officers claimed that the strip search was required in order to stop the
arrestee from destroying drugs found on his person after a lawful arrest, no
reasonable jury could conclude that this justification was reasonable. Two
routine searches of the arrestee's person did not reveal any weapons or
contraband and a narcotics dog did not demonstrate any interest in the
arrestee. Wilson v. Aquino, No. 05-7053, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12285 (2nd Cir.).
Claim that U.S. Marshals at D.C. Superior Court
were subjecting all female arrestees to strip searches and/or visual body
cavity searches without any individualized reasonable suspicion that they were
concealing contraband or weapons, but that similarly situated male arrestees
were not strip searched, if true, stated a claim for violation of the Fourth
and Fifth Amendment. Further, it would have been clear to a reasonable officer
that such a policy was unconstitutional. Johnson v. D.C., Civil Action
No. 02-2364, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82930 (D.D.C.). [N/R]
There was not reasonable suspicion sufficient to
justify a strip search of a female high school student on the basis of
statements by a fellow student that she had heard the student tell others that
she had hid drugs in her underpants. There was no indication that the informant
student provided reliable information in the past, and no attempt to
corroborate the tip. While the student searched had engaged in past misconduct,
none of it had involved drug use. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, No. 04-4783, 448 F.3d 591
(2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Female high school students subject to a strip
search conducted by the school's dean, who was looking for $60 allegedly stolen
from a fellow student, stated a viable federal civil rights claim when the dean
did not have information sufficient to provide individualized reasonable
suspicion needed to conduct such searches. A section of the Illinois School
Code, addressing the issue of searches of students, did not provide a private
right of action for damages for the students under state law. Carlson v. Bremen
High School District 228, No. 05 C 6194, 423 F. Supp. 2d 823 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
[N/R]
In a lawsuit concerning the strip-searching of an
adult and seven children during a warrant-based search of an apartment for
drugs, trial judge's reply to jury's question about municipal liability was not
erroneous. Jury's verdict for defendant city upheld on appeal. Quiles v.
Kilson, No. 05-1026, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22741 (1st Cir.). [2005 LR Dec]
Officers who subjected a female shopper to a body
cavity search after she activated a security sensor while leaving a store were
entitled to qualified immunity, when the evidence showed that she told a male
officer she had no objection to being searched, or to waiting for a female
officer to arrive to conduct the search. Even if there was a question as to
whether the shopper's consent was actually voluntarily, based on alleged prior
statements by store personnel before the officers arrived, the officers acted
reasonably and on the basis of information indicating the shopper's consent.
McNeal v. Roberts, #04-30660, 129 Fed. Appx. 110 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Unwritten custom of allowing city police
investigators "unfettered discretion" in conducting their
administrative investigations into alleged police misconduct resulted in
unconstitutional strip searches of police officers during investigation of
motorist's claim that the officers stole from him during a traffic stop.
Monistere v. City of Memphis, No. 03-5412, 115 Fed. Appx. 845 (6th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Lawsuit asserting claims under Kansas state
statute concerning legitimate procedures for strip and body cavity searches was
governed by three-year statute of limitations applicable to statutory claims,
rather than one-year statute of limitations governing privacy claims or
two-year statute of limitations applicable to federal civil rights claims in
the state. The arrestee's lawsuit, therefore, was not time barred and was
reinstated. McCormick v. City of Lawrence, No. 90,853, 104 P.3d 991 (Kan.
2005). [N/R]
Strip searches of more than twenty male and
female students by schoolteachers, seeking to recover stolen money, carried
out, in part, at the direction of a police officer, were unconstitutional, but
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability because the law
on the issue was not clearly established in May of 2000. Beard v. Whitmore Lake
Sch. Dist., No. 03-1904, 402 F.3d 598 (6th Cir.2005). [2005 LR Jun]
Conducting an investigatory strip search to
attempt to discover drugs on persons already arrested for a different offense
violated the arrestees' civil rights, federal appeals court rules, in the
absence of reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs. Officer was entitled to
qualified immunity on carrying out strip searches at all, but not on the
clearly unreasonable manner in which he was alleged to have carried them out.
Evans v. Stephens, No. 02-1642, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8071 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR
Jun]
Officers could not have reasonably believed that
supervising officers were not violating arrestee's civil rights during
execution of no-knock search warrant on home in allegedly conducting invasive
body cavity searches of two women in front of male officers and visual body
cavity searches of three men, or by allegedly physically assaulting persons
present during the search without provocation. Defendants were not, therefore,
entitled to qualified immunity. Officer who allegedly misled the magistrate
into issuing the warrant by omitting material facts was also not entitled to
qualified immunity. Bolden v. Village of Monticello, No. 04 CIV.1372, 344 F.
Supp. 2d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Search warrant for a residence which authorized a
search of "all persons" present for drugs was not adequately
supported by detailed information to support probable cause to believe that all
occupants of the premises were involved in criminal activity. Officers who
carried out the search pursuant to the warrant, and who strip-searched or
pat-searched four adults and two minors in the home, were entitled to qualified
immunity because the law on the issue was not clearly established at the time
of the search. Owens Ex Rel. Owens v. Lott, No. 03-1194, 372 F.3d 267 (4th Cir.
2004). [2004 LR Nov]
Female police officer's warrantless strip search
of a female resident of a children's home was justified by her reasonable
suspicion that she possessed narcotics, and even if she were mistaken in
believing that she could conduct such a search under the circumstances, she was
entitled to qualified immunity. Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, No. 02-6443,
2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16301 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
An arrestee who was subjected to a body cavity
search for drugs after being arrested for a misdemeanor charge of marijuana
possession and then released was not entitled to an injunction against the
city's practice of conducting such searches. The trial court had not certified
a class action in the case, and unless the same series of events were to occur
to the plaintiff again, there was no present controversy between him and the
city concerning its handling of future arrests. The plaintiff could pursue his claim
for money damages, and if the trial court ruled that the practice involved was
unconstitutional, the appeals court stated, the city would have to
"cease" the practice "whether or not a formal injunction
issues." Campbell v. Miller, #03-3018, 373 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Strip searches of patrons during execution of search
warrant for drug transactions at nightclub were unlawful when carried out
without individualized reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs or probable
cause, and sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting the
searches. Federal appeals court upholds award of $100 in nominal damages and
$15,000 in punitive damages for each plaintiff. Williams v. Kaufman County, No.
02-10500, 352 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
Police officer who allegedly subjected two
African-American college students to a strip search after stopping them for
speeding was entitled to qualified immunity for conducting the searches without
reasonable suspicion that they were concealing contraband or weapons, for his
alleged verbal abuse of them, and for the "humiliating" way in which
the strip searches were allegedly conducted. Evans v. City of Zebulon, No.
02-16424, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 23479 (11th Cir.). [2004 LR Jan]
Nightclub patrons strip-searched and detained for
three hours because they were present during execution of search warrant on
premises for evidence of crack cocaine transactions were properly awarded $100
in actual damages and $15,000 in punitive damages each. Sheriff was not
entitled to qualified immunity for conducting searches without particularized
reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Williams v. Kaufman County, No.
02-10500, 343 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
State social worker violated Fourth Amendment
rights in conducting a visual body cavity search of a female minor based on
accusations of sexual abuse without demonstrating probable cause and obtaining
a court order, getting parental consent, or showing emergency circumstances,
but she was entitled to qualified immunity because the violation was not
clearly established in July of 1999. Mother of child did consent to
investigative home visit and therefore had no individual claim for Fourth
Amendment violations. Roe v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
Services, #01-50711, 299 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Strip search of woman arrested on a
misdemeanor charge was sufficient, under District of Columbia law, to support a
claim against U.S. Marshals for intrusion upon seclusion, a form of invasion of
privacy, even if their actions did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-2680 does not waive the
sovereign immunity of the United States for constitutional claims. Helton v.
United States, 191 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
Update: Judge declines to impose $129,750 damage
award suggested by advisory jury in lawsuit brought over
"humiliating" strip search of beautician conducted at airport by U.S.
Customs agents after drug dog alerted to her. Kaniff v. U.S., No. 99C-3882
(U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. March 8, 2002). [2002 LR Apr]
A beautician on her way home from a vacation camping
trip was awarded $129,750 in damages by a jury for an allegedly
"humiliating" strip search conducted at an airport by U.S. Customs
agents after a drug dog alerted to her. The plaintiff was required to strip,
bend over and spread open her vagina and buttocks as the agents looked for
drugs which were not found, and then agreed to be x-rayed at a local hospital.
Kaniff v. U.S. No. 99C-3882 (U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill.), reported in The
National Law Journal, p. B3 (Sept. 17, 2001). [N/R]
343:110 Eight 8th-graders strip searched by
officer during search for missing money were entitled to $5,500 each in
damages; search was "invasive and degrading" and not based on
individualized suspicion that any of them had taken the money. Bell v.
Marseilles Elementary School, No. 00-C-2553, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill.,
reported in Chicago Tribune, p. 14 (May 3, 2001).
340:62 Officer's alleged penetration of
arrestee's vagina with his finger, squeezing of her hips and kneading of her
buttocks with his ungloved hand while he searched her in her open nightgown in
the street before putting her in the squad car violated clearly established
Fourth Amendment rights when there was no justification for the search, and she
was being arrested for a misdemeanor 2-day old noise ordinance violation.
Amaechi v. West, No. 00-1129, 237 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2001).
342:94 Officer was not liable for arresting
female motorist on the basis of a recalled warrant, when the officer was
unaware it was recalled; search requiring motorist to expose and rearrange her
undergarments before using bathroom at station, however, was unreasonable when
neither the crime involved in the arrest or any other circumstances created any
suspicion that arrestee could be concealing contraband. Mason v. Village of
Babylon, 124 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
337:13 City was liable for strip search of female
arrestee in custody for violation of municipal code provision prohibiting
possession of an unlicensed dog, since neither the arresting officer nor the
matron who conducted the search suspected that she possessed weapons or other
contraband. Huck v. City of Newburgh, 712 N.Y.S.2d 149 (A.D. 2000).
337:14 Strip search of minor female, not named in
search warrant, during search of trailer for marijuana, would not be reasonable
absence particularized suspicion that she was concealing drugs on her person;
deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Sims v. Forehand,
112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
329:77 Female motorist who exposed her breasts
and nipples outside her vehicle to a female and a male officer in order to show
that she was not the suspect wanted in an arrest warrant (who had a tattoo on
her breast) could not recover damages from the officers when she herself
spontaneously engaged in the exposure and the officers did not order or demand
that she expose herself in this manner then and there; officers were entitled
to qualified immunity. Nelson v. McMullen, No. 98-6454, 207 F.3d 1202 (10th
Cir. 2000).
331:111 Passenger strip searched after his arrest
when drugs were found in car trunk was entitled to $25,000 in damages when
strip was not based on reasonable suspicion; jury's initial award of $125,000
for emotional distress was excessive. Kelleher v. N.Y. State Trooper Fearon, 90
F.Supp. 2d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
333:142 Strip search of entire fifth grade
elementary school class in an attempt to find $26 collected for a class trip
which was allegedly missing was "disproportionate" to the harm of
missing the money and therefore an unreasonable search; police officer and
teacher, however, were entitled to qualified immunity for conducting search in
1996, when the law on the subject was not "clearly established."
Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education, 94 F.Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Ga. 1999).
320:125 Jury awards $5,019,600 to woman strip
searched by N.Y.C. jail guards after her arrest on minor charges; search was
allegedly conducted as part of ten-month policy of searching all, regardless of
reasonable suspicion of possession of weapons, drugs, or other contraband;
class action lawsuit pending on behalf of 63,000 others. Ciraolo v. N.Y.C.,
U.S. Dist. Court, S.D.N.Y., May 6, 1999, reported in The New York Times, p.
A25, National Edition (May 12, 1999).
292:62 Strip search of female arrestee in
detention cell was justified by her arrest for discarding drug contraband and
the discovery of rolling papers in her purse; search was carried out
professionally by officer of the same sex; subjective motivation of male
officer in ordering strip search was irrelevant for purposes of qualified
immunity defense when search itself was objectively reasonable Swain v.
Spinney, 932 F.Supp. 25 (D.Mass 1996).
297:142 Deputy sheriff's defense that he was
"only following orders" in ordering strip search of female detainee
awaiting notification of court date on misdemeanor charges rejected by federal
court; deputy was also not entitled to qualified immunity, since requirement
that such arrestees not be strip searched absent "reasonable
suspicion" of possession of weapons or contraband was clearly established.
Dugas v. Jefferson County, 931 F.Supp. 1315 (E.D. Tex. 1996).
265:14 Florida state statute requiring written
authorization of supervising officer for strip searches applies to "all
strip searches," court rules, reinstating suit by arrestee against sheriff
Welch v. Rice, 636 So.2d 172 (Fla App. 1994).
268:62 Officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for strip-searching misdemeanor traffic arrestee who refused to
identify himself at first; arrestee's failure to provide identification and
possession of $1,000 in cash were grounds to believe that he was possibly
involved in more serious criminal conduct than misdemeanor traffic offense
Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77 (2nd Cir. 1994).
270:94 Sheriff was not entitled to qualified
immunity for strip search of woman arrested for traffic violations; failure to
produce a driver's license or other picture id did not give rise to objectively
reasonable suspicion that arrestee was in possession of contraband Kelly v.
Foti, 870 F.Supp. 126 (E.D. La 1994).
Women traffic/misdemeanor arrestees illegally
strip searched without reasonable belief that they possessed weapons or
contraband to receive $601 million settlement from city Doe v. Calumet City,
Chicago Sun-Times p. 4 (Sept 11, 1993).
Federal appeals court upholds reasonableness of
strip search of non-felony juvenile detainee in custody based on reasonable
suspicion that juvenile was concealing a weapon or contraband Justice v. City
of Peacetree City, 961 F.2d 188 (11th Cir. 1992).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
for strip search of 17 year-old female truck passenger, conducted after
investigatory stop revealed that suspected drug dealer was not in the truck,
removing grounds for further detention of truck occupants Timberlake v. Benton,
786 F.Supp. 676 (M.D. Tenn 1992).
Strip and body cavity searches of detainees can
not be conducted merely on the basis of reasonable suspicion of possession of
ordinary stolen property Fuller v. MG Jewelry, 590 F.2d 1437 (9th Cir. 1991).
City liable for officers' repeated strip searches
of female traffic/misdemeanor arrestees without reasonable belief that they had
weapons or contraband; city adopted policy prohibiting such searches but failed
to supply it to those who did searches or conduct training to explain policy
Doe v. Calumet City, 754 F.Supp. 1211 (N.D.Ill. 1990).
Female officer's visual observation of female
detainee's urination violated clearly established constitutional rights in the
absence of particularized suspicion of possession of contraband or that
detainee might harm herself DiLoreto v. Borough of Oaklyn, 744 F.Supp. 610
(D.N.J. 1990).
Strip search of man arrested for suspended
vehicle registration violated Fourth Amendment in absence of reasonable
suspicion of possession of weapon, controlled substance or evidence of crime;
officers and municipality were immune from liability for emotional distress to
the extent officers acted within state law in conducting strip search Ernst v.
Borough of Fort Lee, 739 F.Supp. 220 (D.N.J. 1990).
New trial ordered to determine whether city
allowed strip searches where passing individuals could "peep" inside
Iskander v. Village of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1982).
Woman unconstitutionally strip-searched awarded
$30,000 Tikalsky v. City of Chicago, 687 F.2d 175 (7th Cir. 1982).
Not all detainees may be strip-searched DeMier v.
Gondles, 676 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1982).
Visual body cavity search of female arrestee was
constitutional Dufrin v. Spreen, 712 F.2d 1084 (6th Cir. 1983).
Strip search of all pretrial detainees improper
according to 4th Circuit Court; county attorney and other officials liable for
not following earlier court opinions in the matter Smith v. Montgomery Co, Md,
573 F.Supp. 604 (D.Md 1983).
Strip-search of traffic violator improper; no
liability to officer for personnel error in regarding warrant Hill v. Bogans,
735 F.2d 391 (10th Cir. 1984).
Arrest incident called "second-rate soap
opera" Bovey v. City of Lafayette, Ind, 586 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D.Ind 1984).
Police department policy requiring visual body
cavity search for all pretrial detainees arrested for felonies is
unconstitutional Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Department, 667 F.Supp. 697 (CD
Cal 1987).
Appeals Court upholds liability for strip search
of disarmed male pretrial detainee (who was deputy sheriff). conducted before
female officer Abshire v. Walls, 830 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1987).
Defendants not entitled to qualified immunity for
strip searching man arrested for nonpayment of parking tickets Walsh v. Franco,
849 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1988).
Strip search of woman arrested for failure to
license her dog was unreasonable, but strip search policy not invalid Watt v.
City of Richardson Police Dept, 849 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1988).
Observation of arrestee while she used bathroom
and changed sanitary napkin was unreasonable Wilkes v. Borough of Clayton, 696
F.Supp. 144 (D. NJ 1988).
" See
also: Administrative Liability: General; Attorney's Fees: Against Government; Governmental Liability: Sheriffs/Constables