AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Strip Search: Prisoners
Monthly Law Journal Article: Routine
Strip Searches to Combat Contraband, 2010
(4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Cross Gender Strip Searches of Prisoners -- Part One, 2010 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Cross Gender Strip Searches of Prisoners -- Part Two, 2010 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Federal Appeals Court Reexamines Cross-Gender Strip Searches, 2011 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Articles: An Update on Jail Strip Searches of General Population Detainees, 2013 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
inmate claimed that four correctional officers violated his constitutional
rights during a visual body cavity search when he returned to a correctional
facility from a school. He said that he was told to remove his clothes,
lift his genitals, and bend over and spread his buttocks. He further complained
that the search took place in front of other prisoners and in the view
of a security camera, so that female correctional officers observed the
search via video. He also claimed that one of the officers subjected his
to a racial slur by calling him a "monkey." A federal appeals
court found the plaintiff failed to establish that any of this conduct
violated his clearly established constitutional rights. Story v. Foote,
#13-2834, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5719 (8th.).
A prisoner claimed that it amounted to an unjustified and humiliating strip search in violation of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments when he was allegedly forced to wear a see-through jumpsuit that exposed his genitals and buttocks while being transported from a county jail to a state prison. A federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim that the jail's requirement that he wear this garment during transport had no legitimate correctional purpose, but was only used to humiliate him and inflict psychological pain. As a convicted prisoner, however, he could not proceed on his claim that the requirement of the garment constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The prisoner's allegedly failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not bar the lawsuit, as his transfer to state prison made it impossible for him to exhaust the jail's grievance procedures, so there were no available remedies for him to exhaust. King v. McCarty, #13-1769, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 5008 (7th Cir.).
A woman was arrested and charged with driving on a license suspended for failure to pay a traffic ticket, She paid her ticket and fines, but while waiting to be released later that same day from the city jail, was ordered to undress and shower in the presence of a corrections officer and two other female detainees. She was also subjected to a visual body cavity search, being instructed to bend at the waist and spread her buttocks. While bent over, despite the fact that there was no indication that she had lice, the officer sprayed her all over her naked body, including into her anus, with a delousing solution. A federal appeals court ruled that the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation in that the jail, rather than using less invasive procedures, required pretrial detainees who were being processed into the facility to undress in the presence of other detainees and to have their naked genitals sprayed with delousing solution from a pressurized metal canister. It could have, for instance, allowed such detainees to apply the solution themselves. The appeals court rejected the trial court's ruling that the issue raised in the case was precluded from being raised by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cnty. of Burlington, #10-945, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), upholding the constitutionality of a blanket policy of strip searching incoming pretrial detainees absent individualized suspicion that each detainee was concealing contraband. Williams v. City of Cleveland, #13-4162, 771 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2014).
A lawsuit by two plaintiffs challenged both strip searches and delousing procedures at a West Virginia Regional Jail. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants on the strip search claims, since the law on the subject was not yet clearly established when one of the two plaintiffs was strip searched, and the strip search of the second was lawful under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, #10-945, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012), ruling that deference should be given to jail officials unless substantial evidence showed their response to a situation to be exaggerated and that concerns about gang members provided a reasonable basis to justify a visual inspection for signs of gang affilioation during intake. Summary judgment was also granted on claims relating to the jail's delousing procedures which violated no clearly established law. Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail, #13-7655, (4th Cir.).
Arrestees taken into custody between specified dates on charges not involving felony violence, drugs, or weapons were certified as a class to challenge their strip search prior to or with their presentment to a court, The court found that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, #10-945, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012), since it was issued approximately four years after the end of the class period ended, did not show that the law on jail strip searches was clearly established at the time at issue. Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was therefore upheld. West v. Murphy, #13-2014, 771 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2014).
A man arrested for DUI admitted that he had recently smoked marijuana and he was then subjected to a visual inspection body cavity search at a detention center. In his lawsuit over the search, defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of the strip search, there was no clearly established law in the Eighth Circuit, and a reasonable officer would have had a "solid belief" that strip searching an arrestee was constitutional if there was reasonable suspicion that the detainee possessed contraband. Jacobson v. McCormick, #12-3530, 763 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2014).
In a lawsuit claiming a violation of the Fourth Amendment because of strip searches of female detainees in D.C. facilities while awaiting presentment hearings in court, and claiming a violation of equal protection because male detainees were allegedly not similarly strip searched, the District of Columbia could not be held liable because the former Superior Court Marshal was not a D.C. official but an appointed federal official and was not a policymaker for the district. The Marshal was entitled to qualified immunity as the Fourth Amendment right he was accused of violating was not clearly established at the time. As to the equal protection claim, there was no evidence that he purposefully directed that male and female detainees should be searched differently. Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia, #11-5115, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 23060 (D.C. Cir.).
An ex-prisoner from Illinois claimed that, during his incarceration, he was subjected to a number of improper strip searches designed to humiliate him and that this was done in retaliation for his filing of grievances complaining about earlier searches. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury by putting the burden of proof on the wrong party, telling them that, to prevail on his retaliation claim, the prisoner had to prove that his filing of the prior grievances "were the sole cause of the particular strip search." The court stated that "The jury should have been instructed that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that retaliation was a motivating factor in the strip search, but that, even if he proved this, the defendants could still prevail if they persuaded the jury that it was more likely than not that the strip search would have taken place even if there had been no retaliatory motive."Mays v. Springborn, #11-2218, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11762 (7th Cir.).
A prison guard allegedly spent five to seven seconds fondling a clothed pretrial detainee's genitals during a pat down search, as well as another two or three seconds doing so during a subsequent strip search, despite the detainee's verbal protests. Reversing summary judgment for the defendant guard in the detainee's lawsuit, a federal appeals court stated that "an unwanted touching of a person's private parts, intended to humiliate the victim or gratify the assailant's sexual desires, can violate a prisoner's constitutional rights whether or not the 'force' exerted by the assailant is significant." The trial court's mention of "de minimus injury" inappropriately invoked excessive force cases. Washington v. Hively, #12–1657, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 17426 (7th Cir.).
Subjecting an arrestee taken into custody on civil contempt charges to a strip search at a county jail did not violate his constitutional rights. County jail and county correctional facility rules could mandate such searches for persons entering the general population and did not have to limit strip searches to persons reasonably suspected of possessing drugs, weapons, or other contraband. Security interests in preventing smuggling at the time of prisoner intake is as strong as the interest in preventing it during contact visits. Jails need not show a past history of smuggling problems to justify such searches, and the strip searches helped deter smuggling. Applying the search policy to all arrestees also helped promote equal treatment. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, #10-945, 2012 U.S. Lexis 2712.
A woman arrested for a misdemeanor of hindering apprehension of her husband was strip searched at the county jail pursuant to a policy of strip searching all arrestees entering the facility for felonies, or for Class A or B misdemeanors. A federal appeals court, acting en banc, declined a county's request that it overrule its prior precedent requiring reasonable suspicion of possession of a weapon or contraband before a detainee is strip searched. The defendant county failed to object to jury instructions including the reasonable suspicion requirement, and the court could not say that these instructions constituted plain error. The court upheld a judgment for the plaintiff of $55,000 for mental anguish, $5,000 in punitive damages, $157,394.60 in attorneys' fees, and $37,153.95 in costs. Jimenez v. Wood County #09-40892, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 20748 (5th Cir. en banc.).
A male prisoner's lawsuit claiming that a strip search violated his Eighth Amendment rights should have survived summary judgment when he asserted that guards stripped searched him in order to humiliate him, that female civilian spectators and female staff members were present during the search, and that the spectators were allowed to jeer at him and engage in "sexual ridicule." May v. Trancoso, #09-3196, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5275 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
In Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Dep't, #07-16640, 583 F.3d 673 (9th Cir., 2009), a three-judge federal appeals panel ruled that a pretrial detainee failed to show that there was any discriminatory intent towards male detainees in subjecting him to a partial strip search and pat down of his groin area by a female cadet officer despite the nearby availability of male detention officers. The detainee was clad only in pink boxer shorts made of very thin material. The search was held to be reasonably related to legitimate objectives and there was no showing of deliberate indifference to any pain the search might have caused because of its cross-gender aspect. Under these circumstances, the court also found, the search did not constitute "punishment." And it held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, rehearing the case en banc, by a 6-5 vote overturned this ruling in part, finding that the scope of the intrusion in conducting this non-emergency cross-gender strip search of the detainee's genital area "far exceeded" the scope of searches previously allowed by the court, and that the search was unreasonable as a matter of law. The court majority also focused on the presence of onlookers and the fact that one of them videotaped the searches. The court still rejected equal protection claims based on the fact that such non-emergency cross-gender strip searches were allegedly only conducted on males and not on female detainees and prisoners. It stated that such an equal protection claim could have been further pursued, but that essential elements of such a claim were not fully developed. The dissenting judges would not have characterized the search that occurred as a strip search at all, calling it a pat-down search in light of the fact that the detainee kept on his boxer shorts. Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept., #07-16640, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 86 (9th Cir. en banc.).
An arrestee charged with civil contempt claimed that he was improperly subjected to strip and visual body cavity searches by officers at a jail prior to taking a supervised shower. The appeals court ruled that the procedures followed were reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment because of the strong interest in preventing the smuggling of contraband into the jail at the time of intake. Subjecting all arrestees to such searches promoted "equal treatment." Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, #09-3603, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19548 (3rd Cir.).
A $1.1 million settlement agreement has been reached in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of almost 500 detainees who allegedly were subjected to unlawful strip searches in a Massachusetts county jail. The strip searches were allegedly conducted without any basis to believe that the detainees were in possession of drugs, contraband, or weapons. Each class member will receive up to $3,500. The lawsuit was initially filed by a man strip searched after he was arrested for failing to appear in court on a traffic violation. He was strip searched again the following morning before going to court, where his case was dismissed. Garvey v. MacDonald, #07-30049, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Mass. July 15, 2010).
Even if a prisoner was, as he claimed, routinely subjected to strip searches when entering and exiting a cell in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU), his rights were not violated, since prison officials could conduct visual body cavity searches in a reasonable manner, and there was no evidence of anything unreasonable about these searches. Millhouse v. Arbasak, #09-2709, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6875 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A federal appeals court held that an alleged strip search of a male prisoner by a female guard in the absence of exigent circumstances represented an arguable Fourth Amendment claim, so that a lawsuit based on such allegations should not have been dismissed. The court also found, however, that excessive force was not used against the prisoner. Hamer v. Jones, #09-20431, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2688 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A class action lawsuit claimed that a county sheriff and his staff at the jail subjected persons detained there to needlessly humiliating strip searches, including body cavity searches. The trial court ruled that the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, since the lawsuit concerned the manner with which the searches were carried out, rather than the fact of these searches, further noting that the defendants were raising the contention that they were entitled to some form of immunity for the first time even though the lawsuit had been pending for three years. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the class of prisoners on liability, but before the trial on the issue of damages could proceed, the defendants appealed. The appeals court held that denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law was not immediately appealable, and further, was frivolous. Mercado v. Dart, #09-3092, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8788 (7th Cir.).
New York City has reached a $33 million settlement in a lawsuit concerning strip searches allegedly conducted on approximately 100,000 pretrial detainees arraigned on misdemeanors and lesser offenses even though there was no reasonable suspicion to believe they were concealing drugs, weapons of other contraband. These strip searches required groups of detainees to fully undress in front of each other and in front of multiple guards, lift their genitals or breasts, spread their buttocks, cough while squatting, and allow guards to inspect their private body cavities. McBean v. City of New York, #02-Civ.-05426 (S.D.N.Y.). The settlement was reached March 17, 2010, and has been preliminarily approved by the court. Documents concerning the case, including the stipulation of settlement, may be viewed or downloaded at http://nycstripsearch.com/More_Information/Court_Documents.aspx
Current and former detainees in a county jail claimed that the county had an unconstitutional policy of stripsearching every detainee without reasonable suspicion and regardless of the offense they were charged with. A $2.5 million settlement was reached in their class action lawsuit, but the trial judge awarded the detainees counsel less than the requested amount of attorneys' fees from the settlement. A federal appeals court approved this result, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that use of counsel's normal hourly rates for their time adequately compensated them, rather than awarding a percentage of the settlement, or using a multiplier on the normal hourly rate. While $650,000 in attorneys' fees (26% of the settlement) was requested, the court approved attorneys' fees and costs of $460, 796.50 (of which $344,795 were fees). McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, #07-5580, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2922 (2nd Cir.).
A federal appeals court has upheld a San Francisco policy requiring that all arrestees to be placed in the general population of the jail for custodial housing be subjected to a strip search. The court found that, in balancing the intrusion on personal rights represented by the searches and the need for the searches to combat an existing contraband problem in the jail, the balance weighed in favor of the jail's institutional needs. Bull v. San Francisco, #05-17080, 2010 U.S. App.Lexis 2684 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he was singled out for a strip search by a correctional officer when returning to his facility with other members of a work crew because he chose the number four when asked to pick a number between one and ten. The officer then informed him that he had "won" the strip search "raffle," and he was strip searched in a bathroom two feet from the urinals and compelled to stand on a dirty floor in bare feet. Bureau of Prisons' policy authorizes such searches of work crews returning to a facility from an outside assignment, in order to prevent the introduction of contraband, and the selection of the prisoner for this search, even if allegedly motivated for a "non-penological" reason, was not rendered unreasonable by that selection method. Nunez v. Duncan, #04-36146, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 517 (9th Cir.).
In a class action involving as many as 500,000 individual searches, a federal jury found that county jail employees violated the law in the manner in which they conducted strip searches of detainees. The lawsuit claimed that strip searches of male prisoners were conducted in groups standing naked side by side, did not require reasonable suspicion that contraband would be found, and included jail personnel using derogatory language or making "sex noises" in a degrading fashion while detainees bent over. A separate jury will determine the damages to be awarded to class members. Young v. Cook County, #06-552, (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill., August 14, 2009). Some of the documents in the case are available online at the website of the plaintiffs' attorneys.
A woman's claim that she was illegally subjected to a strip search at a county detention facility could go forward when she was never placed in the general population, even briefly, and there was no indication of a reasonable suspicion that she was in possession of weapons, drugs, or contraband. A federal appeals court rejected the defendants' argument that it was not clearly established, at the time of the incident in question, that a strip search, under these circumstances, was unlawful. Myers v. James, #09-7001, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15848 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a purported risk to his health posed by his diet and the failure to provide him with requested dietary supplements. The prisoner claimed both that his vegan diet provided was nutritionally inadequate, and that, as a follower of the African Hebrew Israelite religion, he should have been given supplements considered to be "religious necessities": including blackstrap molasses, sesame seeds, kelp, brewer’s yeast, parsley, fenugreek, wheat germ, and soybeans. The prisoner failed to refute the prison's assertion that providing the supplements would have involved security risks. The appeals court ruled, however, that the prisoner's claims concerning strip searches should have been allowed to go to a jury, since there was evidence from which it could be found that the searches were conducted with the intent to harass. Mays v. Springborn, #05-3630, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15749 (7th Cir.).
In a lawsuit brought by a civilly committed person detained as a sexually dangerous person, a federal appeals court held that treatment facility personnel did not act unreasonably by conducting visual body cavity searches of all patients after a cell phone case was found in a common area, resulting in suspicion of the presence of a contraband cell phone. The searches were carried out in private, and were strictly visual, and institutional security was the justification. Serna v. Goodno; #05-3441, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11767 (8th Cir.).
The City of Philadelphia will pay $5.9 million in settlement of a class-action lawsuit over thousands of strip searches at the city's six detention facilities. According to the lawsuit, all new detainees were strip searched, including persons detained overnight on minor charges because of lack of bail. Searches allegedly usually included visual body cavity searches. Court documents concerning the settlement can be accessed at the website at: http://www.philadelphiastripsearch.com Boone v. City of Philadelphia, #05-CV-1851 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Pa.).
A sheriff department's practice of conducting group strip searches of detainees at the county detention facility violated the Fourth Amendment. While the department, in seeking to justify the practice, made general assertions concerning the argument that limited space and staffing required group as opposed to individual strip searches, there was no apparent effort made to carry out individualized searches or to take measures to preserve individual privacy during the strip searches. There was also no evidence presented that the group searches were more likely than individualized strip searches to find contraband. The court also found that a policy of strip searching or subjecting to a visual body cavity search all persons found entitled to release from custody "could not be reconciled" with the Fourth Amendment. Individual defendants, however, were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Lopez v. Youngblood, #1:07cv0474, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28508 (E.D. Cal.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that there was any discriminatory intent towards male detainees in subjecting him to a partial strip search and pat down of his groin area by a female cadet officer despite the nearby availability of male detention officers. The search was reasonably related to legitimate objectives and there was no showing of deliberate indifference to any pain the search might have caused because of its cross-gender aspect. Under these circumstances, the court also found, the search did not constitute "punishment." Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept., #07-16640, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10939 (9th Cir.).
A jail's clothing exchange procedure for newly admitted inmates did not constitute a strip search violating the Fourth Amendment and conducted without reasonable suspicion. The plaintiff inmates did not allege that they were subjected to visual or manual body cavity searches during the clothing exchange. They were merely required to remove all their clothing while watched by an officer, in order to prepare to take a shower and then put on jail clothes. The court noted that such clothing exchanges are common practices in jails and prisons, as is the need for officers to be always "vigilant." The procedure did not violate detainee privacy or constitute a "strip search" The plaintiffs, further, admitted that methods were available for them to prevent viewing of their private parts if they wanted to do so. Kelsey v. Wright, #07-0893, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10985 (2nd Cir.).
Because there was no clearly established law that a strip search of a female prisoner by male officers necessarily violates the Eighth Amendment, defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought over one such search. Graham v. Van Dycke, #08-3193, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6819 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A woman failed to show that she suffered from severe emotional distress as a result of cross-gender strip searches during her weekend incarcerations. While she allegedly cried all night after the first weekend, she went to work the following day and suffered no lost wages. While she saw a counselor who diagnosed her as suffering from acute stress disorder, she did not attend the regular counseling or seek any other medical attention. She also claimed to have refrained from intimate relations with her husband for several months, but led a mostly normal life aside from that. The court found that she failed to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since a reasonable jury could not find, on the basis of her allegations, that her emotional distress was too severe for a reasonable person to endure. Bryan v. Fultz, #1:08cv365, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10224 (E.D. Va.).
Strip search procedures in county jails violated constitutional requirements when arrestees who were accused of non-indictable offenses were allegedly strip searched without any articulated reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs, contraband, or weapons. This was true even when, in one jail, the searches were called a "visual observation," or when, in a second jail, the written policy on such searches complied, facially, with the state of New Jersey's rules for strip searches. Such searches at both jails required taking off all clothes, observation of the detainee's nude body, and a shower under supervision. Searches of this kind, without reasonable suspicion, were unconstitutional under these circumstances. The court denied injunctive relief, however, since the arrestees failed to show that they were likely to be strip searched in this manner in the future. Florence v. County of Burlington, Civil Action No. 05-3619, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7923 (D.N.J.).
A complaint alleging that group strip searches of male pre-trial detainees at a county jail were carried out in a way designed to humiliate them and were prolonged longer than necessary stated a possible claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The detainees claimed that more than 45 male inmates at a time were ordered to strip and squat three or four times, that they were kept together naked for a long period of time, and that the room was "foul" as a result of body odor. Streeter v. Sheriff of Cook County, No. 08 C 732, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86516 (N.D. Ill.).
While the court did not adopt a per se rule that a charge of a crime of violence was sufficient to create an individualized reasonable suspicion justifying an arrestee's strip search, a U.S. Marshall was justified in strip searching, prior to a court appearance, an arrestee charged with trying to kill a government witness by shooting him in the head, torso, and leg. This charge, combined with the arrestee's history of violence, and the open environment of the courthouse created a reasonable fear that he would attempt to conceal a weapon, and justified the strip search. Harriston v. Mead, 05 CV 2058, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79001 (E.D.N.Y.).
Pre-trial detainees subjected to blanket strip searches as part of a booking process before they were placed into the general jail population for the first time did not present a viable claim for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, despite the lack of a requirement that there be an individualized finding of reasonable suspicion that each of them was concealing weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The appeals court found that, in imposing a requirement of reasonable suspicion under such circumstances, its prior decisions "relied on, but misconstrued," the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish, #77-1829, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The appeals court stated that the U.S. Supreme Court has never "imposed such a requirement" for strip searching arrestees bound for the general jail population for security and safety purposes. Powell v. Barrett, No. 0516734, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18907 (11th Cir.).
The prisoner's claim that he was subjected to a strip search in a public manner in front of other prisoners in the room who were allowed to watch was sufficient to state a possible claim that it was conducted in an abusive or harassing manner with the intent to inflict psychological pain and humiliate him. The court declined, therefore, to dismiss the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, while dismissing a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. Thompson v. Milyard, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02132, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69454 (D. Colo.).
Alleged blanket policy of strip searching all persons arrested and classified for housing in the general jail population violated the detainees' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when the policy did not require reasonable suspicion of possession of weapons, drugs, or contraband or take individualized factors into account. The defendants' evidence concerning the discovery of contraband during the strip searches did not provide any indication of the charges of the individuals searched or of the reason why they were searched. Without such information, the court could not find any reasonable relationship between the criteria triggering the searches and the interest in carrying out the searches. The law on the subject was also clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 05-17080, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18026 (9th Cir.).
Policies applied at county correctional facility regarding strip searches were constitutional, and required the approval of such searches by supervisory personnel based on specific articulable facts justifying reasonable suspicion of possession by the individual of contraband or a weapon. In this instance, however, in which a suspected drug courier was strip searched, there were disputed issues of fact as to whether there was such reasonable suspicion that she possessed drugs, as the suspicion was based on an anonymous tip that a drug courier riding a bicycle would approach a specific intersection, and a police log indicated that officers were advised to be looking for a man on a bike, not a woman. Further proceedings, therefore, were ordered against a commanding officer and a city officer who allegedly recommended the strip search. Smith v. County of Riverside, No. 06-56848, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15805 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
The use of male officers to remove a suicidal prisoner from her cell and remove her clothing was based on staffing exigencies. The clothing was removed so that it could not be used by the inmate to injure herself. The court granted all defendants summary judgment, also ruling that the prisoner's removal from her cell and placement in administrative segregation did not violate her rights, since her past suicidal threats and current conduct justified these actions. Graham v. Van Dycke, No. 05-3397, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53253 (D. Kan.).
Trial court acted erroneously in dismissing the entirety of a Texas prisoner's lawsuit alleging that his rights were violated during a strip and cavity search conducted by an officer. The male prisoner claimed that the search took place within the view of a female prison guard and other prisoners, and that, during the search, the officer never accused him of possession of contraband. If these allegations were true, his Fourth Amendment rights would have been violated. The prisoner was barred from recovering compensatory damages for emotional or mental injuries under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) because he did not claim he had suffered any physical injury, but this would not bar him from recovering punitive or nominal damages. Hutchins v. McDaniels, No. 06-41733, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29755 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that he was subjected to an order to strip in a public hallway, a strip search, and a disciplinary proceeding, all as part of a campaign of harassment in retaliation for his exercise of his right of access to the courts could not recover compensatory damages when he failed to allege a physical injury as required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). His vague claim on appeal that he suffered a wrist injury through unspecified events at some unspecified time was inadequate to alter the result. Further, the prisoner failed to show a constitutional violation as there were no facts showing an intent to retaliate for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Samford v. Staples, No. 06-20717, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26851 (5th Cir.).
Arrestees could pursue their claims that a state detention facility engaged in unconstitutional strip searches of incoming detainees, but claims against city for transporting arrestees to the facility while knowing of these searches were dismissed. Jones v. Murphy, No. 05-1287, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1220 (D. Md.).
Correctional officials were entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by juvenile detainee allegedly subjected to strip searches under policy allowing such searches without reasonable suspicion of possession of contraband, as the law on the subject was not clearly established in the context of a juvenile facility. Doe v. Preston, Civil Action No. 03-11804, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6871 (D. Mass.). [N/R]
Federal trial court finds that actions taken by the county in response to an unconstitutional practice which developed at the county jail of strip searching all misdemeanor detainees without requiring reasonable suspicion of possession of contraband amounted to the county's "acquiescence" in the practice for purposes of municipal liability. Tardiff v. Knox County, No. CIV.02-251, 425 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Me. 2006). [N/R]
Requiring a female juvenile to remove her outer clothing when entering a juvenile detention facility after arrest for a curfew violation did not constitute a full strip search and was not unreasonable, given the state's role as a "substitute parent" for such juveniles in its custody. Further, in 1999, at the time of the search, the case law on the subject was not "clearly established. Smook v. Minnehaha County, No. 05-1363, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20382 (8th Cir.). [2006 JP Oct]
City was not liable for alleged violation of a female arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights in allegedly subjecting her to a strip search when its official policy required that there be reasonable suspicion that an arrestee was a threat to jail security before such a search was conducted. Beasley v. City of Sugar Land, #05-0579, 410 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D. Tex. 2006). [N/R]
A misdemeanor charge of being under the influence of a drug, standing alone, was insufficient to justify the strip search and visual body cavity search of a woman at a county jail who never entered the jail's general population. Individualized reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs, other contraband, or weapons was required before conducting such a search, but officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law on the subject was not clearly established at the time of the search. Way v. County of Ventura, No. 04-55457, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9878 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jun]
Factual issues as to whether visual body cavity searches were needed on all incoming detainees at county jail, and whether the urethral swabbing of all detainees violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights precluded summary judgment for defendant correctional officials. Thompson v. County of Cook, No. 03C7172, 412 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
Federal trial court preliminarily approves $12 million settlement of class action lawsuit challenging D.C. Department of Corrections policy of conducting suspicionless strip searches of detainees who were ruled releasable after court appearances. Court also finds that attorneys' fee award of one-third of the settlement fund, or $4 million, was reasonable. Bynum v. D.C., No. CIV.A.02-956, 412 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2006). [N/R]
A county jail's policy of strip searching all arrestees detained on warrants for failure to appear in court on misdemeanor or traffic charges violated the Fourth Amendment, as did its policy of strip searching all such arrestees when they were sent back to the jail for processing after being ordered released by a court. Calvin v. Sheriff of Will County, No. 03C3086, 405 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
The alleged actions of a New York correctional officer during a strip search of an inmate for drugs in shining a flashlight into the inmate's anus and running his middle finger between the inmate's buttocks in a "wiping" manner which caused the inmate to urinate on himself, as well as allegedly rubbing his genital area up against the inmate's buttocks did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The incident, the court found, was an "isolated" one, did not cause the prisoner any physical injury. The court concluded that, regardless of the officer's motivation, the incident was not "objectively, sufficiently serious" enough to give rise to a constitutional claim. Morrison v. Cortright, No. 04-CV-6209, 397 F. Supp. 2d 424 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Woman's strip search at county jail, although carried out under a policy of strip searching all detainees who are to be put in the general population, did not violate her rights, since there was reasonable suspicion that she was concealing weapons or contraband based on her having been charged with a violent crime. Reasonable suspicion, an appeals court rules, is determined on an objective basis, even if those actually carrying out the search did not subjectively suspect the detainee of possessing weapons or contraband. Hicks v. Moore, No. 03-13868, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18831 (11th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
Unclothed body cavity search of male prisoner during cell transfer in segregated housing violated his rights if it was "needlessly intrusive," based on presence of female officer, which the prisoner found "degrading and humiliating. Officer who conducted the search, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability because there was, at the time of the search, January 2, 2001, no clearly established right of the prisoner to be free from the exposure of his body to officers of the opposite gender. Lay v. Porker, No. CV02-01680, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's admitted refusal to take his braids out during visual search provided justification for physical strip search, as it increased suspicion that he might be hiding contraband in his braids or elsewhere on his body. Cherry v. Frank, #04-1214, 125 Fed. Appx. 63 (7th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Aug]
Corrections officer did not violate male prisoner's constitutional right to privacy in his genitals by carrying out a "routine" strip search during the intake process, even with the presence of two female nurses. Medical personnel routinely examine patients of the opposite sex and this practice does not violate their rights. Jackson v. Wiley, 352 F. Supp.2d 666 (E.D. Va. 2004), affirmed per curiam, 103 Fed. Appx. 505, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15198 (4th Cir).[2005 JB May]
Alleged policy of county juvenile detention facility of strip-searching all those admitted there, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion of possession of weapons or contraband could not be justified on the basis of a state statutory duty to report child abuse or neglect, and would constitute an unreasonable search of non-felony detainees without such reasonable suspicion. Court also holds that a strip search of one such juvenile detainee taken into custody for a curfew violation did not become sufficiently "non-intrusive" merely because she was permitted to keep her underwear on. Smook v. Minnehaha County, No. Civ. 00-4202, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (D.S.D. 2004). [N/R]
Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security. The prisoner's "conclusory" assertion that the glove used to conduct the search was "dirty" was insufficient to show that the search was conducted in an unsanitary manner in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Green v. Hallam, No. 03-2562, 105 Fed. Appx. 858 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Female prisoner's claim that male jailer walked by and saw her bare breasts while female officers were searching her in a shower room did not establish a violation of her constitutional rights. Mills v. City of Barbourville, No. 02-6404, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23753 (6th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Feb]
Prison employees were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for strip search of prisoners conducted in an outside area, which may have inadvertently been viewed by prison visitors leaving the facility. Sabree v. Conley, No. 02-P-1267, 815 N.E.2d 280 (Mass. App. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
Even if female prisoner's constitutional rights were violated when she was allegedly strip searched by male guards at city jail "without good cause," she did not claim that the city had a policy or custom of allowing "baseless cross-gender strip searches," so that the city could not be held liable. Further, the Constitution does not require jails that house female detainees either to staff more than one jailer at a time or to staff a female jailer. The appeals court also found that even if the prisoner alleged a constitutional violation arising out of the misuse of the jail's video system, she failed to show any basis for holding the city liable on the basis of any of its customs or policies. Soto v. City of Haltom, No. 03-10650, 106 Fed. Appx. 903 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Administrative directive of the Connecticut Department of Corrections mandating strip and visual body cavity searches on prisoners when they are initially placed in restrictive housing, protective custody, or close custody was reasonable and was not carried out in an unreasonable manner in the case of the plaintiff prisoner, who had previously resisted being escorted to segregation. Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.2d 322 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that strip searches performed on young girls following their entry into custody in juvenile detention centers were constitutional on the basis of the special need to protect them and other children in the facility, but that "repetitive" strip searches conducted while the juveniles remained in custody are violative of the Fourth Amendment unless there is reasonable suspicion that the juvenile possesses contraband. N.G. v. State of Connecticut, No. 02-9274, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18834 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Strip search following which prisoner was required to stand naked in a bathroom stall for twenty minutes until he could produce a urine sample for random drug testing was not cruel and unusual punishment. Search was for the legitimate purpose of preventing the contamination of the urine samples, and correctional officer conducting the search did not act in any improper manner. Whitman v. Nesic, #03-2728, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 9631 (7th Cir.). [2004 JB Jul]
Federal appeals court upholds certification of class action lawsuits in two jailhouse strip search cases. Tardiff v. Knox County, No. 04-1065, 04-1165 (1st Cir.). [2004 JB Jun]
Misdemeanor detainee, who was awarded $1 in nominal damages in lawsuit challenging blanket policy of strip searching all detainees at county jail regardless of the nature of their charges, did not have any basis to seek injunction against such searches, since he could not show that he had a likelihood of being rearrested and sent to the same facility again and subjected to a similar search. Shain v. Ellison, #02-9262, 356 F.3d 211 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB May]
Male prisoner's strip search in the presence of a female sergeant was not a violation of his Eighth Amendment or privacy rights, even assuming that the sergeant laughed at his nakedness. The search, conducted in response to allegations of smoking marijuana, was reasonably related to legitimate security concerns, and verbal insults of an inmate were not violations of his constitutional rights. Roden v. Sowders, No. 02-6427, 84 Fed. Appx. 611 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that correctional officers grabbed his genitals during pat down searches and then subjected him to "slow, exaggerated and humiliating" strip searches were sufficient to state a claim for assault under New Hampshire state law. Silva v. Warden, No. 2003-196, 839 A.2d 4 (N.H. 2003). [N/R]
Federal trial court certifies class action challenging county's alleged policy of conducting strip searches of all pre-arraignment jail detainees without reasonable suspicion of possession of weapons or contraband. Nilsen v. York County, 219 F.R.D. 19 (D. Me. 2003). [N/R]
Inadequate definition of "strip search" in prisoner's civil rights lawsuit required a new trial following jury verdict for county jail officials on claims that he was unconstitutionally strip searched while being processed in after two arrests on misdemeanor charges. Jury instructions defined a strip search as necessarily including a look inside the prisoner's mouth and armpits. Wood v. Hancock County Sheriff's Dept., No. 03-1564, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 26459 (1st Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Feb]
Prison's conducting of visual body cavity searches of sequestered, dangerous prisoners after they left a recreation area was justified by legitimate security concerns and therefore did not violate prisoners' rights. Practice of using only male staff members to conduct search of male prisoners, and taking precautions to avoid unnecessary viewing of prisoners by others not directly involved in the searches adequately protected prisoners' privacy rights. Skundor v. McBride, 280 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D.W.Va. 2003). [N/R]
Court grants permanent injunction against county jail's policy of strip-searching all newly arrived pretrial detainees without individualized reasonable suspicion that they possessed contraband. Dodge v. County of Orange, 282 F. Supp. 2d 41 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Equally divided federal appeals court upholds, by 4-4 vote, that Rhode Island prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity for conducting allegedly illegal blanket strip and visual body cavity searches of misdemeanant arrestees without particularized suspicion at a maximum-security prison. Judges disagree as to whether it was clearly established, at the time of the searches in 2000. Savard v. Rhode Island, No. 02-1568, 338 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
Federal trial court certifies class action of D.C. past and present detainees who were allegedly subjected to suspicionless strip searches upon returning from court hearings declaring them releasable. The defendants' alleged lack of knowledge as to the origin of the department's policy of conducting suspicionless trip searches did not entitle them to a protective order against a request for depositions of the officials "most qualified to testify on" when and why the department "began the practice." Bynum v. D.C., 217 F.R.D. 43 (D.D.C. 2003). [N/R]
County jail's "clothing exchange" procedure, which resulted in officers viewing prisoners in a state of undress as they changed from street clothes into jail uniforms, did not violate pre-trial detainee's Fourth Amendment rights. Federal appeals court upholds the reasonableness of the procedure even in the absence of a particular suspicion that the detainee had weapons or contraband. Stanley v. Henson, #02-2806, 337 F.3d 961, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 14962 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Inmates stated a valid claim against jail for violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on an alleged policy of conducting strip searches upon prisoners who returned to the jail after receiving release orders. The prisoners were returned to the jail after a court ordered their release to await the results of a search for additional criminal charges against them. Bynum v. District of Columbia, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
Strip search of male prisoner in the presence of female correctional officers could constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment if female officers were, as prisoner alleged, "invited spectators" and the search was carried out in a manner designed to humiliate and demean him. Federal appeals court rules that provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring claims for mental or emotional injuries without a showing of physical injury did not apply, in this case, to bar claims for nominal or punitive damages. Calhoun v. Detella, #98-2894, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Sheriff's policy of conducting strip searches of all detainees arriving at county jail was "clearly" unconstitutional, and trial court indicates its opinion that reasonable suspicion of possession of contraband or weapons was required to conduct such searches on those suspected of felonies, as well as misdemeanors, but sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for such a search on detainee arrested for a felony, since it was not clearly established, in 1999, that this was a violation of the detainee's rights. Murcia v. County of Orange, 226 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for conducting warrantless strip searches of five minors at juvenile home suspected of possession of drugs. Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, 225 F. Supp. 2d 754 (W.D. Ken. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
Misdemeanor arrestees were entitled to a preliminary injunction and class certification in their lawsuit challenging alleged county practice of routinely strip searching pre-trial detainees even in the absence of reasonable suspicion that they possessed weapons or other contraband. Even though the number of strip searches had decreased "dramatically" since the litigation began, an injunction might help prevent a return to the "old ways" after the lawsuit was completed. Dodge v. County of Orange, 209 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner was entitled to a new trial on his claim that a correctional officer violated his rights, since the evidence presented in the original trial was insufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the officer relied on permissible facts in deciding to perform a body cavity search. Lee v. Perez, 175 F. Supp. 2d 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
County's concerns about jail security did not justify its prior policy of searching all city arrestee's without any individual or class-wide findings of reasonable suspicion, and its amended policy, under which all city felony arrestees and arrestees held on default warrants were strip-searched without any regard for any individual characteristics violated the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the city could be held liable for the strip-searches of female arrestees at the county jail under the county's unconstitutional blanket strip search policy, based on the city's policy of sending only female arrestees to the county jail. Ford v. City of Boston, 154 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2001). [N/R]
Individual plaintiff who opted out of class action over county policy on strip and visual body cavity searches stated a possible claim for a violation of the Massachusetts state constitution Declaration of Rights, Article XIV. Ford v. City of Boston, 154 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D. Mass. 2001). [N/R]
Sexual offenders' claim that they were subjected to visual body cavity searches as retaliation for laughing at officers and harassed for their status as sex offenders did not warrant injunctive relief. Prisoners' claim for damages was barred by a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibiting claims for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury. Seaver v. Manduco, 178 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D. Mass. 2002). [2002 JB May]
A prisoner's willful refusal to cooperate with the court's orders for the discovery of information was a sufficient basis for the dismissal with prejudice of his lawsuit over allegedly illegal strip searches performed by correctional personnel, but an assessment of attorneys' fees against him would have "no practical effect" as he was "in poverty" and serving a sentence of 25 years to life. Davidson v. Dean, 204 F.R.D. 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Policy of county jail which subjected all incoming prisoners to strip searches and delousing procedure without any suspicion of possession of contraband or weapons was unreasonable and county jail officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibiting awards for mental distress without evidence of physical injury did not apply when plaintiffs were former, as opposed to current, prisoners. Doan v. Watson, 168 F. Supp. 2d 932 (S.D. Ind. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
County policy requiring strip search of all detainees sent to county jail violated clearly established law when it did not require reasonable suspicion that an individual possessed contraband or weapons. Shain v. Ellison, #00-7061, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22525 (2nd Cir.). [2002 JB Jan]
299:174 $6.8 million settlement in lawsuit over strip searching of female prisoners returning to county jail to retrieve their possessions after court proceedings during which they were ordered released. Gary v. Sheahan, No. 96C7294, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill., reported in Chicago Tribune, July 11, 2001.
297:141 Alleged city policy of strip searching all detainees placed in a cell awaiting court action was improper, in the absence of suspicion of possession of weapons or contraband. Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 141 F. Supp. 2d 304 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
293:78 Rhode Island policies providing for strip and visual body cavity searches of all males committed to the state prison were unreasonable, in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion that prisoners possessed weapons or contraband. Roberts v. Rhode Island, No. 00- 1752, 239 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2001).
293:77 Female DUI detainee was properly strip- searched twice, once by female deputy upon booking, based on her possession of a handgun when arrested, and once by a male nurses assistant at the jail infirmary, based on a medical need to perform an examination of cranial and pubic hair to combat lice problems in the facility. Skurstenis v. Jones, No. 00-10122, 236 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2000).
290:29 Woman arrested for misdemeanor who was subjected to strip and body cavity searches without any reasonable suspicion that she possessed weapons or contraband was properly awarded $19,465 in compensatory damages, but city could not be held liable for the $5 million in punitive damages that the jury awarded. Ciraolo v. City of N.Y., #99-7550, 216 F.3d 236 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 484 (2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: On remand to the trial court, it also awarded the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs of $19,116.45, reflecting the costs and attorneys' fees incurred before the defendants made a pre-trial offer of judgment of $25,000 plus reasonable attorneys fees. This offer was made formally under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Because the plaintiff did not accept it, and was ultimately awarded a smaller amount of damages ($19,645) after appeal, their right to recover additional attorneys' fees and costs following that rejection were cut off. Further, the defendants were awarded $8,038.40 for necessary costs they incurred after the rejection of their offer. Ciraolo v. City of New York, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14940 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
290:30 City was liable for strip search of female arrestee in custody for violation of municipal code provision prohibiting possession of an unlicensed dog, since there was no reasonable suspicion that she possessed weapons or other contraband. Huck v. City of Newburgh, 712 N.Y.S.2d 149 (A.D. 2000).
282:94 Strip searches of Wisconsin prisoner returning to segregation following disciplinary hearings were supported by legitimate institutional security concerns; prisoner did not have an expectation of privacy interest in his body which would support a Fourth Amendment claim, and there was no evidence that the manner in which the searches were carried out constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. Al Ghashiyah v. McCaughtry, #98-3020, 602 N.W.2d 307 (Wis. App. 1999).
277:13 Federal trial court rules that prohibition of blanket policy of strip searching all arrestees as they entered county jail regardless of their alleged offense or any reasonable suspicion that they had weapons or contraband violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights; court expresses concern about jail's security problems, but finds that current appeals court caselaw precludes blanket strip searches despite this issue. Shain v. Ellison, 53 F. Supp. 2d 564 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
280:62 Correctional officials were not liable to female prisoners who were strip searched by female officers with male officers and staff members present during emergency evacuation of women's correctional facility because of flooding of nearby creek; no clearly established law against viewing of unclothed female prisoners by male officers who did not conduct searches or touch prisoners. Carlin v. Manu, No. 98-372-HU, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Or. 1999).
281:76 Initial strip search of non-felony female DUI detainee in county jail by female officer was unconstitutional in the absence of reasonable suspicion of concealment of contraband, but Alabama sheriff and his employees were entitled to qualified immunity from liability; examination and touching of detainee's pelvic region as she was left alone with then unidentified male medical clinic employee in a purported search for lice just before she was released could not be justified in any way, however. Skurstenis v. Jones, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (N.D. Ala. 1999).
270:93 Allegation that male prisoner was subjected to repeated strip and body cavity searches by female officer under non-emergency conditions while male officers were available to conduct the search, and that purpose of searches was solely to "harass" and intimidate him stated non- frivolous claim for Fourth Amendment violation. Moore v. Carwell, #97-40840, 168 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999).
271:110 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 allegedly strip searched pursuant to the policy. 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).
272:126 Federal jury awards $750,000 in damages to male-to-female transsexual placed with male prisoners after her arrest and then strip searched to determine her gender. Schneider v. San Francisco, No. 97-2203, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Calif. April 16, 1999), reported in The National Law Journal, p. B5 (May 3, 1999).
245:76 Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from claim that having female guards present during strip search of male Muslim prisoner, and other incidents in which female guards observed male prisoner naked, violated First Amendment right to religious freedom. Canedy v. Boardman, 91 F.3d 30 (7th Cir. 1996).
246:93 Strip searches of inmates following contact with visitors did not violate their rights; occasional alleged "degrading" remarks by officers conducting the search and the presence of other prisoners, also being searched, did not alter the result. Fernandez v. Rapone, 926 F.Supp. 255 (D. Mass. 1996).
229:11 Roadblock stop of car entering correctional facility, sniffing of vehicle and occupants by narcotics-detecting dog, and strip search of female visitor to whom dog alerted were all reasonable, federal appeals court rules. Romo v. Champion, 46 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 1995).
235:108 While prison officials had reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify body cavity search of female visitor, based on informant's statements that a "young" "unrelated female" visitor to inmate was smuggling in drugs, they could not detain the visitor for the search in the absence of probable cause, but instead had to allow her the option of departing and foregoing visit; defendants in visitor's lawsuit were not entitled to qualified immunity in light of factual disputes. Spear v. Sowders, 71 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 1995). [Cross-references: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith) Immunity; Visitation].
235:107 Prisoner's assertion that he was subjected to a body cavity search in front of 100 people, including female correctional officers, secretaries, and case managers prompts federal appeals court to overturn dismissal of his suit charging that his privacy rights were violated. Hayes v. Marriott, 70 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Privacy].
220:60 Officer's alleged relaying, to warden, of anonymous tip that visitor was smuggling drugs into prison did not, when uncorroborated, constitute reasonable suspicion for ordering strip search of visitor; warden liable for violation of Fourth Amendment rights, federal appeals court holds. Daugherty v. Campbell, 33 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 1994).
220:61 "Vague" tip to prison officials that prisoner was receiving drugs from an "unrelated female" visitor did not justify strip search and visual and manual body cavity searches of visitor; prison officials not entitled to qualified immunity for search. Spear v. Sowders, 33 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 1994).
223:109 Prison employees not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting strip search of prison visitor based on uncorroborated tip from unidentified source concerning drug smuggling. Varrone v. Bilotti, 867 F.Supp. 1145 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
223:108 "Brief" presence of female correctional officer during strip search of male prisoner being transferred because of information about impending prisoner disturbance did not violate prisoner's privacy rights; decision to strip search him again before placing him in segregation at receiving facility was not unreasonable; transfer and segregation were justified by belief that he was an "instigator" of feared disturbance. Jones v. Harrison, 864 F.Supp. 166 (D. Kan. 1994).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner's claim that clerical employees and other bystanders watched visual body cavity searches of inmates. Canell v. Beyers, 840 F.Supp. 1378 (D. Ore. 1993).
Strip search of allegedly intoxicated female motorist in protective custody violated Fourth Amendment when conducted without particularized individual suspicion of possession of contraband or weapons. Kidd v. Gowen, 829 F.Supp. 16 (D.N.H. 1993).
Federal jury awards $1.45 million to four women subjected to strip and body cavity searches at county jail after their arrests for demonstrating at a school board meeting. Morales v. Tully, CV F-93-5001-SSH, Fed. Dist. Ct. (E.D. Calif. Nov. 15, 1993), reported in The National Law Journal, p. 11 (Dec. 13, 1993).
Sheriff could not claim qualified immunity for policy of strip searching all detainees as they entered the jail, including four women arrested for minor traffic violations. Chapman v. Nichols, 989 F.2d 393 (10th Cir. 1993).
Strip search of female motorist arrested for driving under the influence of drugs in order to prevent contraband from entering the jail was reasonable. Cottrell v. Kaysville City, Utah, 801 F.Supp. 572 (D. Utah 1992).
Presence of female guards during a strip search of a male prisoner following a disturbance did not violate his constitutional right to privacy. Letcher v. Turner, 968 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner could assert Fourth Amendment privacy claim against being strip searched in front of female correctional officers, but trial court failed to adequately instruct jury that search could be justified by rational relationship to legitimate penological interest. Cornwell v. Dahlberg, 963 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1992).
Policy of visual strip searches of detainees arrested for traffic or other minor offenses was clearly unconstitutional; sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity defense to civil rights lawsuit. Draper v. Walsh, 790 F.Supp. 1553 (W.D. Okla. 1991). Prison officials were justified in requiring strip search of inmate's wife before allowing visitation, where other visitors had complained that she wore jeans with a hole in the crotch and engaged in "inappropriate sexual behavior" during visits with her husband. Boren v. Deland, 958 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1992).
Visual body cavity search of female visitor without reasonable suspicion of possession of contraband violated "clearly established law"; prison warden was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Daugherty v. Campbell, 935 F.2d 780 (6th Cir. 1991).
Visual body cavity search of inmate being transferred to segregation unit did not violate prisoner's rights. Sanders v. Heitzkey, 757 F.Supp. 981 (E.D. Wisc. 1991).
State prison regulation giving inmates visitation rights established due process rights which were violated by conducting visitors to strip and body cavity searches without probable cause. Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111 (6th Cir. 1991).
Prison visitor could not be strip searched after her visit was over; "prison visitor" exception to search warrant requirement does not apply to search of a person who has completed her visit. Marriott v. Smith, 931 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1991).
Strip searches of male inmate being placed in temporary administrative segregation was not unconstitutional, nor did presence of female officer or alleged racial/sexual remark constitute rights violations. Merritt-Bey v. Salts, 747 F. supp. 536 (E.D. Mo. 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. DiLereto v. Borough of Oaklyn, 744 F.Supp. 610 (D.N.J. 1990).
Prisoner's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by a visual rectal search conducted in a hallway upon returning from court, despite the fact that he had been handcuffed and under escort while away. Geder v. Lane, 745 F.Supp. 538 (C.D. Ill. 1990).
Woman allegedly stripped naked, beaten, and pushed into toilet in cell after arrest for drunken driving awarded $332,000; man allegedly beaten in same jail awarded $1.1 million. Bryant v. Haverkost, Vista Cal. Sueprior Court, reported in San Diego, Cal. Tribune, p. B-1 (Sept. 27, 1990).
Federal court was without jurisdiction to enjoin use of mace solely to compel strip searches of inmates; violation of Wisconsin prison regulations would not show constitutional violation. Colon v. Schneider, 899 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1990).
City policy of visual body cavity searches of all felony arrestees was unconstitutional. Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Department, 887 F.2d 920 (9th cir. 1989).
Routine strip searches of prisoners in maximum security area did not violate constitutional rights, absent allegation of unreasonable or abusive manner. Langton v. Commissioner of Correction, 533 N.E.2d 1375 (Mass. 1989).
Policy requiring visual strip and body cavity searches of prisoners in administrative segregation when leaving cells was constitutional. Rickman v. Avaniti, 854 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1988).
Observation of arrestee while she used bathroom and changed sanitary napkin was reasonable. Wilkes v. Borough of Clayton, 696 F.Supp. 144 (D. N.J. 1988).
Detainee awarded $1 in damages and $4,651 in attorneys' fees for unlawful strip search. Polk v. Montgomery Co., 689 F.Supp. 556 (D. Md. 1988).
Jail's policy of conducting blanket strip/body cavity searches on each arrestee brought to jail ruled constitutional. O'Brien v. Borough of Woodbury Heights, 679 F.Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1988).
list of subjects Back
to Legal Publications Menu