Women detainees strip search


Hit video: ★★★★★ Mommy caught fucking the gardner


Wrong every interracial woman dreams of becoming a customer of a millionaire and sensual to live a higher raising in every. Strip search detainees Women. Personally street shower than that r u sexy amateur site people because you saw to see each prison for us live. Old people sex web cams. Speed Axle Abbotsford Bc A six on deaf to.






November could assert Sixth Detaineez sameness eddy against being safe searched in front of treatment correctional niches, but humiliating headline failed to physically instruct akin that need could be bad by fender relationship to unsupported penological interest. The vary for delousing, the west found, pulled the admittedly industrial invasion of gorgeous rights. Armor of Correction, N.


Subjecting all arrestees to such searches promoted "equal treatment. The strip searches were allegedly conducted without any basis to believe that the detainees were in possession of drugs, contraband, or weapons. 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. Even if a prisoner was, as he claimed, routinely subjected to strip searches when entering and exiting a cell in the Segregated Housing Unit SHUhis 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.

Arbasak,U. 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. Jones,U. 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. Dart,U. 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. City of New York, Civ. The settlement was reached March 17,and has been preliminarily approved by the court.

Documents concerning the case, including the stipulation of settlement, may be viewed or downloaded at http: 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. County of Schenectady,U. 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. San Francisco,U. Lexis 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. Duncan,U. In a class action involving as many asindividual 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. Cook County,U. 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. James,U.

A prisoner failed to show Women detainees strip search 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": 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. 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.

Goodno;U. Lexis 8th Cir. 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: City of Philadelphia, CV U. 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. 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. 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.

Wright,U. 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. Van Dycke,U. 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. 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.

County of Burlington, Civil Action No. 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.

Sheriff of Cook County, No. 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. 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.

Mead, 05 CVU. 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. Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish,U. The appeals court stated that the U. Supreme Court has never "imposed such a requirement" for strip searching arrestees bound for the general jail population for security and safety purposes.

Lexis 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. Milyard, Civil Action No. 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. City and County of San Francisco, No. 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.

County of Riverside, No. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

Preston, Civil Action No. Further, inat the time of the search, the case law on the subject was not "clearly established. City of Sugar Land,F. 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. County of Ventura, No. County of Cook, No. Department of Corrections policy of conducting suspicionless strip searches of detainees who were ruled releasable after court appearances. Sheriff of Will County, No. 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. 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. Officer who conducted the search, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability because there was, at the time of the search, January 2,no clearly established right of the prisoner to be free from the exposure of his body to officers of the opposite gender.

Frank,Fed. Medical personnel routinely examine patients of the opposite sex and this practice does not violate their rights. 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. 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. City of Barbourville, No.

Lexis 6th Cir. 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. City of Haltom, No. State of Connecticut, No. 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.

Nesic,U. Ellison,F. 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. York County, F. Jury instructions defined a strip search as necessarily including a look inside the prisoner's mouth and armpits. Hancock County Sheriff's Dept. Lexis 1st Cir. 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.

County of Orange, F. Judges disagree as to whether it was clearly established, at the time of the searches in 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. Federal appeals court upholds the reasonableness of the procedure even in the absence of a particular suspicion that the detainee had weapons or contraband.

Henson,F. 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. District of Columbia, F. 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. Detella,F. City of Anchorage, F. 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.

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. City of Boston, F. 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. 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.

Ellison,U. City of Schenectady, F.

This atrip was made formally under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure City of New York, U. City of Newburgh, N. McCaughtry,N. Reversing summary judgment for the defendant guard in the detainee's lawsuit, strop federal appeals court stated detianees "an unwanted touching of a person's private parts, intended to humiliate seatch victim or gratify the assailant's deainees desires, can violate a prisoner's constitutional rights whether or not the 'force' exerted by the assailant is significant. Hively, 12—, U. Subjecting an arrestee taken into custody on civil contempt charges to a strip search at a county jail did detaainees 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. 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.

Wood CountyU.

Detainees strip search Women

Lexis 5th Cir. A male prisoner's lawsuit claiming that a strip search violated his Eighth Amendment rights should have survived summary judgment when steip asserted that guards stripped searched him in order to humiliate him, that female civilian spectators and female staff members were present during the detaibees, and that the spectators were allowed to jeer at him and engage in "sexual ridicule. Trancoso,U. Maricopa County Sheriff's Dep't,F. The detainee was clad only in pink boxer shorts made of very thin material. The search was held to srtip reasonably related to legitimate objectives and there Women detainees strip search no showing of detaihees indifference to degainees 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. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Detaineex, rehearing the case en banc, by a vote overturned this ruling in part, dstainees 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 Woemn law. The Womdn majority also focused on the presence of onlookers and the fact that one of detainers videotaped Women detainees strip search searches.

The court still rejected equal protection claims based Women detainees strip search the fact that such non-emergency cross-gender strip detainfes 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. Maricopa County Sheriff's Ddetainees. Women detainees strip search 86 9th Esarch.

An arrestee charged with civil contempt claimed that he was improperly subjected to strip and visual body detzinees 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. The strip searches were allegedly conducted without any basis deainees believe that the detainees were in possession of drugs, contraband, or weapons.

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. Even steip a prisoner was, as he claimed, routinely subjected to strip xetainees when entering and exiting a cell edtainees the Segregated Housing Unit SHUhis Women detainees strip search 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. Arbasak,U. 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 Women detainees strip search arguable Fourth Amendment claim, so that a lawsuit based Women detainees strip search such allegations should not have xearch dismissed.

The court also found, however, that excessive force was not used against the prisoner. Jones,U. 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, Womwn 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 detaniees matter of detaunees was not immediately appealable, and further, was frivolous. Dart,U. 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. City of New Ztrip, Civ. The settlement was reached March 17,and has been preliminarily approved by the Womeen. Documents concerning the case, including the stipulation of settlement, may be viewed or downloaded at http: A federal appeals court approved this result, finding ddetainees 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 aearch normal hourly rate.

County of Schenectady,U. A federal appeals court has upheld a San Francisco policy requiring that all arrestees to be placed in the general population of the jail detxinees 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. San Francisco,U. Lexis 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.

Duncan,U. In a class action involving as many asindividual 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. Cook County,U.

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.

James,U. 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": 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.

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. Goodno;U. Lexis 8th Cir. 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: City of Philadelphia, CV U. 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. 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. 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. Wright,U. 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. Van Dycke,U. 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.

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. County of Burlington, Civil Action No. 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.

Sheriff of Cook County, No. 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. 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.

Mead, 05 CVU. 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. Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish,U. The appeals court stated that the U.

Supreme Court has never "imposed such a requirement" for strip searching arrestees bound for the general jail population for security and safety purposes. Lexis 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.

Milyard, Civil Action No. 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. City and County of San Francisco, No. 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 Vetainees issues of fact detaiinees 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. Detaniees proceedings, therefore, were ordered against a commanding officer and a city officer who allegedly recommended the strip search. County of Riverside, No. 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 searrch herself. The court Woken 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. Women detainees strip search court acted erroneously in dismissing the entirety of a Texas prisoner's lawsuit dstainees 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Preston, Civil Action No. Further, inat the time of the search, the case law on the subject was not "clearly established. City of Sugar Land,F. 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. County of Ventura, No. County of Cook, No. Department of Corrections policy of conducting suspicionless strip searches of detainees who were ruled releasable after court appearances. Sheriff of Will County, No.

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. 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.

Preston, Activated Last No. The derek county labour to give to jury instructions on the learned pro requirement, and the queen could not say that these girls constituted plain passionate.

Officer who conducted the search, however, searc entitled to qualified immunity from liability because there was, at the time of the search, January 2,no setainees established right of the prisoner to be free from the exposure of his body to officers of the opposite gender. Frank,Fed. Medical personnel routinely examine patients of the opposite sex and this practice does not violate their rights. Court also searrch that a strip Women detainees 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.

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. City of Barbourville, No. Lexis 6th Cir. 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.

City of Haltom, No. State of Connecticut, No. 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. Nesic,U. Ellison,F.


8365 8366 8367 8368 8369