No. 10-945
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
ALBERT W. FLORENCE, PETITIONER
v.
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR SISTER BERNIE GALVIN ET AL.
AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
J. CHRISTOPHER MILLS
J. Christopher Mills, LLC
2008 Lincoln Street
Columbia SC 29201
803-748-9533
CHARLES J. LADUCA
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP
507 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 789-3960
BARRETT S. LITT
Counsel of Record
Paul J. Estuar
Litt, Estuar & Kitson, LLP
1055 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
[email protected]
213.863.4527
MARK E. MERIN
Law Office of Mark E Merin
2001 P St
#100
Sacramento, CA 95814-5213
(916) 443-6911
CURRY & TAYLOR  202-393-4141
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail
to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every
individual arrested for any minor offense no matter
what the circumstances.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................ i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................iv
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ............................. 1
ARGUMENT................................................................................ 2
I
Courts Have Recognized For Decades That
Strip Searches Are By Their Nature
Humiliating and Degrading ........................................... 2
II.
Individual Strip Search Stories..................................... 5
A. Sister Bernie Galvin (San Francisco,
California) ......................................................................... 6
B. Betty Welch (San Bernardino County,
California) ......................................................................... 7
C. Laura Goode (Rock Hill, South Carolina) .................... 9
D. Michael Fanning (Nassau County, New York) ......... 10
E. Mary Doe (Dauphin County, Pennsylvania) ............. 11
F. Jack Kelly (New Orleans, Louisiana) ........................... 3
G. Debra Maloy (Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania)................................................................. 14
H. Judith Haney (Miami-Dade County, Florida) ........... 14
iii
I. Vanessa Hunt (Contra Costa County,
California)....................................................................... 16
J. Theodore Medina (Kern County, California) ............ 17
K. Brian Vowell (San Francisco, California) .................. 18
L. Daniel Schaffer (Alameda County, California) ......... 19
M. Karen Masters (Jefferson County, Kentucky).......... 19
N. Mary Ann Tikalsky (Chicago, Illinois) ....................... 21
O. Andy Mean and Jeffery Pey (Alameda
County, California) ....................................................... 22
CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 23
iv
23
CONCLUSION
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
FEDERAL CASES
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (1979) ................................................................ 3
Blackburn v. Snow
771 F.2d 556 (1st Cir. 1985) ............................................. 2, 3
Boren v. Deland
958 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1992) ............................................... 4
Daniel Schaffer v. Alameda County et al.
Case No. 06-0310 MMC (N.D. Cal.) .................................. 19
Delandro v. County of Allegheny
Case No. 06-CV-0927 (W.D.Pa.) ....................................... 14
Doe v. Renfrow
631 F.2d 91 (7th Cir.1980) .................................................... 2
Hunter v. Auger
672 F.2d 668 (8th Cir.1982) .................................................. 3
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29083 (E.D.N.Y 2008) ................. 4
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases
Case No. 99-CV-2844 (DRH) (E.D.N.Y.) ........................ 10
Judith Haney et al. v. Miami-Dade County et al.
Case No. 04-20516-CIV-Jordan/Brown (S.D. Fla.) ........ 14
Karen Craft, et al. v. County of San Bernardino
Case No. EDCV05-0359 SGL (C.D. Cal.) .......................... 7
Kelly v. Foti
77 F.3d 819 (5th Cir. 1996) .................................................. 13
Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dep't.
901 F.2d 702 (9th Cir.1990) .................................................. 3
Kirkpatrick v. City of Los Angeles
803 F.2d 485 (9th Cir.1986) .................................................. 3
Lisa Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al.
Case No. 3:07-cv-01770-EMC (N.D. Cal.) ........................ 22
Lopez v. Youngblood
609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ................................ 5
The judgment of the court of appeals should be
reversed.
Mark E. Merin
Law Office of Mark E
Merin
2001 P St
#100
Sacramento, CA 958145213
(916) 443-6911
Barrett S. Litt
Paul J. Estuar
Litt, Estuar & Kitson,
LLP
1055 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.863.4527
J. Christopher Mills
J. Christopher Mills,
LLC
2008 Lincoln Street
Columbia SC 29201
803-748-9533
Charles J. LaDuca
Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP
507 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 789-3960
22
waist up; then she had to lower her slacks and
underwear, squat and bend from the waist several
times, and alternately face toward and away from the
matron. After the search, Miss Tikalsky was kept in the
women's detention center. Although she had money
with her, she did not know that she could post bond.
She remained in the detention area for four hours, until
a friend arrived and paid the $35 bond. On March 3,
1978, Miss Tikalsky was tried and acquitted on the
disorderly conduct charge.
O.
Andy Mean and Jeffery Pey (Alameda
County, California)17
Andy Mean and Jeffery Pey were arrested as
juveniles and were subjected to strip and visual body
cavity searches at Alameda County’s Juvenile Hall,
prior to appearing at a detention hearing and without
the county first having a reasonable suspicion that the
search would be productive of contraband or weapons.
They were also subjected to group strip searches where
they could see other juveniles being strip searched and,
in turn, could be seen by them as they was strip
searched return from family or other visits and
following return to the unit on other occasions before
and after detention hearings.
17
Lisa Suon, et al. v. Alameda County, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv01770-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
v
Mary Bull, et al. v. City and County of San
Francisco, et al.
Case No. C 03-1840 CRB (N.D. Cal.) ............................6, 18
Marybeth G. v. City of Chicago
723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.1983) .............................................2, 5
Masters v. Crouch
872 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir. 1989) ..............................................19
Reynolds v. County of Dauphin
Case No. 07-CV-1688 (M.D. Pa.) .......................................11
Roberts v. State of Rhode Island
239 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2001) ..................................................4
Thompson v. City of Los Angeles
885 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................4
Tikalsky v. City of Chicago
687 F.2d 175 (7th Cir. 1982) .................................................21
Wood v. Clemons
89 F.3d 922 (1st Cir. 1996) ....................................................3
OTHER STATUTES
SC Code 56-5-4530 .......................................................................9
RULES
Rule 37.6 ........................................................................................1
21
remove all of her clothing except her underpants and to
turn around, drop her underpants, bend over and
expose her rectum." After putting on a jail dress, Mrs.
Masters was lodged in a jail cell with other persons.
Later in the evening she was released on her own
recognizance and ordered to report to court at 9:00 a.m.
the next day. The following morning the presiding
judge acknowledged the recording error that led to the
issuance of the arrest warrant.
N.
Mary
Ann
16
Illinois)
Tikalsky
(Chicago,
On the morning of February 15, 1978, Mary Ann
Tikalsky rushed, coatless, out of the Greater Grand
Boulevard Mental Health Center, where she was
employed as a city social worker, and began berating
two Chicago policemen who were ticketing her car.
Miss Tikalsky's wrath had been stirred by two
circumstances: on the snowbound streets around her
office parking of any kind -- legal or illegal -- was hard
to find; and she thought the police department was
exhibiting more zeal writing parking tickets than it had
shown the week before investigating a robbery in
which she had been the victim. Miss Tikalsky's outburst
cost her dearly.
She was arrested for disorderly conduct and
taken to the Second District Police Station at 51st
Street and Wentworth Avenue. There a female
detention aide subjected her to a visual strip search.
First Miss Tikalsky had to bare her body from the
16
See narrative from opinion in Tikalsky v. City of Chicago, 687
F.2d 175, 177 (7th Cir. 1982).
20
insurance. As directed by the citation, Mrs. Masters
appeared before the Jefferson District Court at a
neighborhood government center on August 21 at 7:00
p.m., and pled not guilty. After a second appearance the
court directed her to appear before Division 102 of the
District Court at the downtown justice center on
October 23 at 9:00 a.m. A deputy sheriff in attendance
gave her a "reminder card" containing this information,
but her name did not appear on the card. By mistake,
the judge who presided at the second appearance
recorded the plaintiff's next appearance date as
October 16 rather than October 23.
On October 21, at about 3:00 p.m. Mrs. Masters
was arrested at her home for failure to appear in court
on October 16. She protested that her appearance date
was October 23, not October 16, and showed the officer
the reminder card. The officer confirmed the existence
of the arrest warrant and refused her request to call an
attorney. Officer Barrows took Mrs. Masters and her
two young children in a squad car to the home of Mrs.
Masters' mother, where the children were left.
At the corrections building, Mrs. Masters was
required to remove her shoes and empty her pockets
and "frisked" by a female attendant. While Mrs. Masters
was in a "holding room" a different female attendant
ordered her to open her blouse. This search occurred in
front of a window in the holding room, in plain view of
other persons. Approximately four hours after her
arrest, she was handcuffed to another woman and taken
to a room on the third floor of the Jefferson County jail.
At that point, still another female attendant subjected
the plaintiff to a strip search over her continued
protestations of mistake. The plaintiff was required "to
1
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE1
Amicus Curiae Sister Bernie Galvin, Betty
Welch, Laura Goode, Michael Fanning, Mary Doe2,
Debra Maloy, Judith Haney, Vanessa Hunt, Theodore
Medina, Brian Vowell, Daniel Schaffer, Andy Mean, and
Jeffery Pey are former jail detainees who, while in
custody awaiting the setting of and posting of bond, or
while awaiting trial, have been subjected to routine
strip and visual body cavity searches (hereafter
frequently referred simply as “searches” or “strip
searches”) as a matter of jail policy. The searches were
conducted without probable cause or reasonable
suspicion that the person searched was in the
possession of contraband, or any other substance that
would justify or necessitate the strip and/or body cavity
search, including where the charges on which they were
arrested did not suggest the potential presence of
drugs or weapons of any sort. As their experiences
attest, such strip searches typically include (a) a visual
inspection of the outside of the naked body by custody
personnel, (b) a visual inspection of the mouth and ears,
(c) a visual inspection of the anal cavity, and (d) for
female inmates a visual inspection of the vaginal cavity.
1
The parties’ letters of consent to the filing of this brief have been
lodged with the Clerk. Pursuant to Rule 37.6 of the Rules of this
Court, the amicus curiae states that no counsel for a party has
written this brief in whole or in part and that no person or entity
other than the amicus curiae or their counsel has made a monetary
contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
Amicus use the pseudonym Mary Doe because counsel have been
unable to contact the individual prior to the filing of the instant
brief.
2
The strip searches are typically conducted in groups
without privacy, i.e., in the presence of other inmates.
Amicus share their stories, and the stories of
other detainees with similar experiences, to provide a
human face to this most personally invasive of law
enforcement
practices.
These
stories
are
representative of experiences of thousands of detainees
repeated each year. They highlight the fact that such
strip searches – routinely visited on those frequently
never charged or convicted, or on those charged with
minor crimes not resulting in a custodial sentence – are
extremely
personally
intrusive,
humiliating,
frightening, and embarrassing. They strip one of any
semblance of human dignity or privacy.
ARGUMENT
I.
Courts Have Recognized For Decades That
Strip Searches Are By Their Nature
Humiliating and Degrading
Strip and visual body cavity searching entails
one of the most humiliating and degrading practices
available to law enforcement. See, e.g., Blackburn v.
Snow, 771 F.2d 556, 564 (1st Cir. 1985) (“body cavity
searches are ‘demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified,
humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing,
repulsive, signifying degradation and submission.’”
quoting Marybeth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263,
1273 (7th Cir.1983)); Doe v. Renfrow, 631 F.2d 91, 93
(7th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (strip search of a minor
student absent reasonable cause violates “any known
principle of human decency” and “exceed[s] the ‘bounds
L.
19
Daniel Schaffer (Alameda County,
California)14
Daniel Schaffer was arrested on August 13, 2005,
on a warrant for two traffic violations, driving on a
suspended license and driving in a high occupancy
vehicle lane. He was transported to Alameda County’s
Santa Rita Detention Facility where he was booked and
held in the intake, transfer and receiving section of the
jail, pending bail. He was then transferred to minimum
security housing on August 15, 2005, hours before bail
was posted. Before going into housing, Mr. Schaffer,
along with several other detainees, was taken to a
multi-purpose room where he was strip searched in a
group. In accordance with policy and practice, a Deputy
ordered all of the detainees (at least four (4) of them)
simultaneously remove each item of jail clothing and
place them on the floor in front of them until they stood
nude before the Deputy who then had them bend over
and spread their buttocks to permit the Deputy to view
their anal areas, turn, facing the deputy, and lift their
penis and scrotum for further inspection.
M.
Karen Masters (Jefferson County,
Kentucky)15
On July 31, 1986, Karen Masters, a resident of
Jefferson County, received two traffic tickets -- one for
operating an automobile with expired registration
plates, and the other for failure to maintain auto
14
Daniel Schaffer v. Alameda County et al., Case No. 06-0310
MMC (N.D. Cal.).
15
This narrative is taken directly from the opinion in Masters v.
Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248, 1249-50 (6th Cir. 1989).
18
another. Inadvertent contact was inevitable in the
limited space, however, including another arrestee
bumping his elbow against Mr. Medina’s back.
K.
Brian
Vowell
California)13
(San
Francisco,
Brian Vowell was arrested in San Francisco in
October, 2002 after a traffic stop for an invalid,
outstanding misdemeanor traffic warrant that the
county had failed to properly recall. Upon arrival at
county jail, and before being afforded an opportunity to
use the phone or to post bail, he was told he would have
to submit to a strip search. He was presented with a
“waiver of rights” consent form which he refused to
sign on the basis that it was a violation of his rights to
strip search him. He was then held in the jail’s
processing facility for several hours and told he could
not use the phone or contact a bail bondsman. He was
told that if he did not sign the form consenting to the
strip search it would be done forcibly and that he would
probably be criminally charged with resisting arrest.
Mr. Vowell refused again. Later, he submitted to the
strip search, still refusing to sign the consent. Five
minutes later, he was led into the room where the
phones were, called a friend, and posted $10,000 in cash
bail. He was then released on bail. Mr. Vowell was not
classified for housing in the general population. The
traffic warrant was dismissed.
13
Mary Bull, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.,
Case No. C 03-1840 CRB (N.D. Cal.).
3
of reason’ by two and a half country miles.”); Hunter v.
Auger, 672 F.2d 668, 674 (8th Cir.1982) (strip search is
“an embarrassing and humiliating experience,”
involving an “extensive intrusion on personal privacy”);
Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 702, 711
(9th Cir.1990) (visual body cavity searches are
“dehumanizing and humiliating”); Bell v. Wolfish, 441
U.S. 520 at 576-77 (1979) (Marshall, J., dissenting)
(“body cavity searches ··· represent one of the most
grievous offenses against personal dignity and common
decency”); In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29083 *8 (E.D.N.Y 2008)
(certifying damages class because of the predominant
injury to human dignity suffered by each plaintiff in the
same manner because of his or her humanity).
Across the country, in Circuits that have
considered the issue, the consensus reached is that
jailhouse strip searches are, by their very nature
humiliating and degrading.
“We have previously
recognized, ‘as have all courts that have considered the
issue, the severe if not gross interference with a
person's privacy that occurs when guards conduct a
visual inspection of body cavities.’” Blackburn v. Snow,
771 F.2d 556, 564 (1st Cir. 1985), citing Arruda v. Fair,
710 F.2d 886, 887 (1st Cir), cert. den., 464 U.S. 999, 104
S.Ct. 502, 78 L.Ed.2d 693 (1983). “[A] strip search can
hardly be characterized as a routine procedure or as a
minimally intrusive means of maintaining prison
security. Indeed, ‘a strip search, by its very nature,
constitutes an extreme intrusion upon personal privacy,
as well as an offense to the dignity of the individual.’ ”
Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1996); see
also Kirkpatrick v. City of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 485,
489-90 (9th Cir.1986) (“[T]he fact that a strip search is
4
conducted reasonably, without touching and outside the
view of all persons other than the party performing the
search, does not negate the fact that a strip search is a
significant intrusion on the person searched ...”); accord
Boren v. Deland, 958 F.2d 987, 988 N.1 (10th Cir. 1992).
“The feelings of humiliation and degradation associated
with forcibly exposing one’s nude body to strangers for
visual inspection is beyond dispute.” Thompson v. City
of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1446 (9th Cir. 1989).
Strip searches, as will be shown in the following
section of Individual Strip Search Stories, proceed in a
well-defined pattern and procedure that contain the
following basic elements which differ only slightly
among jurisdictions. The detainee is brought into an
area designated for strip searches such as a large room
or hallway. The detainee is often herded into the strip
search area in a group with other similarly situated
detainees. They are ordered to remove all clothing,
including their undergarments, and either hand them to
the officer for searching, or place them on the ground.
Though not always in the same order, the detainees are
typically asked to present their mouth and ears for
visual inspection, turn around once or twice to show
their naked bodies, and show officers the soles of their
feet. Roberts v. State of Rhode Island, 239 F.3d 107, 109
(1st Cir. 2001). Men are ordered to lift or manipulate
their genitals to show that nothing is hidden
underneath, and women are ordered to lift their breasts
to show that nothing is hidden underneath. Detainees
are then ordered to face away from the officer, bend
over and spread their butt cheeks open so officers may
visually inspect their anal cavity. Lopez v. Youngblood,
17
rooms at which time the handcuffs were removed. Ms.
Hunt was then ordered to strip down by a female
officer and given a bag for her clothes. She was
required to undergo the same type of strip search she
had just gone through at the Martinez facility – lift
breasts, turn around, bend over, spread cheeks, squat
and cough. She then waited, naked, in a room until the
officer returned with jail clothes and slip-on shoes.
Ms. Hunt was held in jail for a week, after which
time she was released with no charges pending and no
court appearance.
J.
Theodore Medina
California)12
(Kern
County,
Thedore Medina was arrested by the Kern
County Sheriff’s Department (“KCSD”) in June 2006 on
a charge of public intoxication, placed in custody after
arrest, and transported to jail. Upon arrival at the jail,
KCSD personnel subjected Mr. Medina to a strip and
visual body cavity search. During the search, he was
ordered to remove all of his clothing, and to bend and
squat exposing his anus. In spite of the fact that he is
disabled by spina bifida, he was forced to painfully bend
over while being insulted and humiliated by jokes being
made by Sheriff’s personnel. Mr. Medina was strip
searched in a room with approximately four or five
other arrestees. They were required to be barefoot on
the dirty cement floor. They had to stand side-by-side,
naked, and tried not to touch or bump against one
12
Marsial Lopez, Sandra Chavez, Theodore Medina, et al. v.
Sheriff Donny Youngblood, Case No. CV-F-07-0474 DLB (E.D.
Cal.)
I.
16
Vanessa Hunt (Contra Costa County,
California)11
In May 2003, Vanessa Hunt was taken into
custody following an arrest for an unknown violation of
law (reportedly misdemeanor vandalism) after she was
removed from her mother’s house by officers from the
Kensington Police Department. She was taken from
the police station to the Contra Costa County jail in
Martinez, California. Ms. Hunt was never charged,
never had to appear in court, and never arraigned.
Ms. Hunt was processed into the Contra Costa
jail and allowed to call a bail bondsman, but she had no
money to post bail. After sitting in a chair, handcuffed,
from about 1:00 a.m. to about 6:00 a.m. with several
other women, they were taken into a room one-by-one
by a female officer. In that room the officer ordered
Ms. Hunt to remove her clothes and hand them over.
The officer searched the clothes and ordered Ms. Hunt
to open her mouth, run her fingers through her hair, lift
her breasts, lift her arms, turn around, bend over and
spread her cheeks, and squat and cough.
Ms. Hunt and six other women were then
transported by bus to the West County Jail in
Richmond, California. There was never a time that she
was alone; there was always an officer nearby.
Handcuffed and shackled to the other five detainees,
Ms. Hunt was taken into a waiting room where she and
the others waited until the transporting officers found
officers to whom they could transfer the detainees. The
women were then separated and each put into separate
11
Rosalety Barnett, Vanessa Hunt v. Contra Costa County et al.,
Case No. C 04-04437 TEH (N.D. Cal.).
5
609 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2009).3 Women, in
addition, must spread their vaginal lips open for visual
inspection inside. Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723
F.2d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1983). It is only after
undergoing the aforementioned experience that
detainees are permitted to put their clothes back on.
II.
Individual Strip Search Stories
The descriptions below are of individuals who
have experienced strip/visual body cavity searches first
hand, either as class representatives, class members,
individual plaintiffs, or persons who have consulted
counsel. In most cases, but not all, the experiences
summarized here were presented to courts during
litigation. The names of the involved jurisdictions are
provided showing that these individuals represent a
cross-section of different geographic areas and jails, and
that the experiences of those subjected to strip and
visual body cavity searches are very similar wherever
such searches occur. In most instances, the experiences
related here have been presented in court documents,
and in some cases described in court opinions.
3
“Per [Kern County, California, Sheriff’’s Office] Search
Procedure, a strip search involves a ‘visual inspection of the
underclothing, female breasts, buttocks, or genitalia of such
person.’ KCSO, Detentions Bureau Policies and Procedures,
Search Procedures C-500, p. 2. A strip search includes a visual
body cavity search. A visual body cavity search includes a ‘visual
inspection of the anus and/or vaginal area; generally requiring the
subject to bend over and spread the cheeks of the buttocks, to
squat, and/or otherwise expose body cavity orifices.’” Id.
A.
6
Sister Bernie Galvin (San Francisco,
California)4
Sister Bernie Galvin, a Catholic nun, has been a
Sister of the Divine Providence for over 50 years. She
is a resident of the City of San Francisco and was
arrested in 2003, at an anti-war demonstration. She was
charged with trespassing as well as interfering with a
police officer in the performance of his duty. Sister
Galvin was transported to San Francisco County Jail
No. 9 where she was strip searched according to the
County’s policy at the time. All her clothes were taken
from her in exchange for a scanty paper hospital-like
gown and she was escorted to a cold waiting cell.
During the next two hours, her pleas for some cover to
keep warm, even another paper gown, were in vain.
When Sister Galvin was later ordered to accompany the
attendant for a strip-search, she refused to submit to
that, which she felt was clearly unnecessary and an
assault on her dignity. The charge person was called.
Her clear message to Sister Galvin left no doubt as to
her determination: '"Then you can simply stay in that
cell until you do as you are ordered!" Realizing the
futility of her protest and growing ever colder, Sister
Galvin caved in an hour or so later, and submitted to
the strip and visual body cavity search.
4
Mary Bull et al. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., Case
No. C 03-1840CRB (N.D. Cal.).
15
County Pre-Trial Detention Center, along with three
other women and three men, when they were arrested
for “failing to disburse” [sic] and taken across the street
to the Detention Center to be booked.
Haney and the other women arrested were
separated from the males and, one at a time, taken to a
separate area where each woman was made to fully
disrobe, place each of her items of clothing on a table,
bend over, expose her anus and vaginal area for
inspection by officers and then to squat and to “hop like
a bunny” three times before being permitted to put her
own clothes back on. When Haney was naked, the
officer noticed a naval piercing and ordered Haney to
remove it. When Haney was unable to remove the
navel ring, the officer obtained a wire cutter and
clipped it off. During the entire time Haney was
standing naked in an area with the door open and with
people passing by who could freely observe her. Over
the next several hours, Haney and others were
transported in paddy wagons to various locations finally
arriving at the Turner-Gilford-Knight Miami Detention
Center where she was again processed and held in
various holding tanks until she was released after
approximately 35 hours. All charges against Haney and
others arrested with her were later dismissed. At the
time, Haney was a 50 year old management employee
of Genetech Corporation. She felt extremely
humiliated and embarrassed by these experiences.
G.
14
Debra Maloy (Allegheny
Pennsylvania)9
Debra Maloy was arrested on non-felony counts
of making false reports to a law enforcement officer,
driving with a suspended license and careless driving.
After being subjected to an initial search, Ms. Maloy
was taken to a holding cell where she remained for
approximately seventeen hours. She was strip searched
the following day. During the course of the strip
search, Ms. Maloy was required to completely disrobe,
remove a cranial prosthesis she wears as a result of a
medical condition, move her breasts, squat, and
manipulate her genital areas, so that she could be
visually inspected by the guard. The search was
conducted by a female guard but male detainees, as
well as another female detainee who was being strip
searched next to Ms. Maloy, could all view her body
during the search. She was released on her own
recognizance six days after her arrest.
H.
Judith Haney (Miami-Dade County,
Florida)10
On or about November 21, 2003, Judith Haney
was sitting on the sidewalk across from the Miami-Dade
9
Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Case No. 06-CV-0927
(W.D.Pa.).
10
B.
County,
Judith Haney et al. v. Miami-Dade County et al., Case No. 0420516-CIV-Jordan/Brown
(S.D.
Fla.);
see
also
http://
www.prisoncommission.org /statements/
haney_judith.pdf. where Ms. Haney spoke before the Commission
on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons.
7
Betty Welch (San Bernardino County,
California)5
On or about July 11, 2005, Adelanto police
officers arrested Betty Welch on a warrant for failure
to appear in court on a DUI charge. The next day,
officers transported her to the West Valley Detention
Center in San Bernardino County where, upon
processing into the jail, she was strip and visual body
cavity searched in the presence and view of other
women inmates in a hallway, and in the view of County
Sheriff’s personnel not involved in or necessary to the
search.
Two weeks later, Ms. Welch was transported
from the jail to the San Bernardino Superior Court for
an appearance. Upon her departure from the jail, Ms.
Welch was strip and visual body cavity searched in a
jail hallway in the presence and view of other female
inmates, and Sheriff’s personnel not involved in or
necessary to the search. When she appeared before the
court, she was placed on probation and ordered
released from custody. She was returned to West
Valley Detention Center, where she was again
subjected to a strip and visual body cavity search, and
then released.
Ms. Welch’s strip and visual body cavity
searches took place in a hallway off the entrance into
the jail. She was always strip searched as part of a
group of female inmates, ranging from about seven to
30 or more. The procedure was that, while facing the
5
Karen Craft, et al. v. County of San Bernardino, Case No.
EDCV05-0359 SGL (C.D. Cal.).
8
deputies, the inmates had to remove all their clothing,
including their bras and panties, and shake them out;
face the wall, bend over, spread their buttocks, put a
finger inside their vaginas, squat, spread the lips of
their vaginas, and cough. The deputies forced inmates
to squat for painful amounts of time. Ms. Welch and
others were forced to stand, naked, so close to one
another that they were touching.
During one of the searches, as the inmates were
squatting and coughing, the deputies stated that some
of the women did not cough correctly. The deputies
ordered all the women to remain in the crouched
position, holding their buttocks and vaginal lips apart
for over a minute, and continuing to cough. Ms. Welch
has steel rods and plates in both of her legs and,
consequently, suffered considerable pain trying to keep
her balance. If female inmates were menstruating, they
had to remove their tampons and pads. Some women
began to menstruate on the floor. If they did not
spread their legs far enough apart, the deputies would
kick their ankles to make them spread farther.
Although only two female deputies conducted the
search, other deputies were present, as were trustees
who handed out pads and cleaned up the blood on the
floor. There was a large window in the hallway where
the searches were conducted. From the other side of
the window, male deputies and male inmates being
brought into the jail could view the searches of the
female inmates through a large window in the search
area, as could female inmates in the holding cells.
During the searches, the deputies treated the
whole affair as a joke laughing and calling Ms. Welch
and others “stinky bitches.” Once, an inmate was too
F.
13
Jack Kelly (New Orleans, Louisiana)8
A New Orleans police officer stopped Kelly, a
tourist in town for a convention, for making an illegal
left turn. Kelly explained that she inadvertently had
left her driver's license at her hotel, and the officer
called for backup to administer a DWI test, which Kelly
passed. The police brought Kelly to a holding facility
after arresting her for making the illegal turn and
driving without a license.
Kelly called her sister in Baton Rouge and
husband in Connecticut and asked them to post bond,
but they failed to do so promptly. After Kelly had been
at the holding facility between four and five hours,
police shackled and handcuffed her and took her to a
female detention facility, where they subjected her to a
strip and visual body cavity search. The police ordered
Kelly to strip, turn around, bend over, spread her
buttocks, and cough.
After Kelly dressed, police escorted her to
another room, where they told her to strip again and
sprayed disinfectant on her crotch, breasts, and head.
They then took Kelly to a shower area, where she
showered in view of other inmates, before locking her
in a cell. Kelly's family bonded her out approximately
eleven hours after the arrest.
8
This entire narrative comes from the opinion in Kelly v. Foti, 77
F.3d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1996).
12
Hopkins University, was arrested in Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania, for attending an outdoor party that did
not have a permit. Ms. Doe had never been arrested
before. When she appeared in court, she could not post
the $1,051 bail, and was taken to the Dauphin County
Jail, where she was forced to strip naked in a circle of
other female detainees for a strip search. (It is common
in jails throughout the country to strip search inmates
returning from court to jail in inmate groups, where the
inmates can all view each other while being strip
searched.) Ms. Doe informed officers that she was
menstruating, and was wearing a tampon. She asked
for privacy to take the tampon out. The officers refused
her request. The officers then forced Ms. Doe to
undergo a strip search, including a visual body cavity
search where she was ordered to squat and cough while
her vagina and anus were visually inspected. Her
tampon forcibly came out while she was bending and
coughing, she bled on her leg and on the floor for all to
see. The tampon lay on the floor, covered in blood.
During the ordeal, other detainees and officers
screamed and yelled at her, calling her names like
“dirty little pig”. Ms. Doe felt humiliated, crushed and
devastated. She cried inconsolably during the process,
and has had to seek psychiatric help since then to deal
with the trauma. The charges against Ms. Doe were
dismissed.
9
incoherent to lift her breasts as ordered. A deputy
ridiculed her saying that, if she couldn’t lift her own
breasts, then the woman next to her was going to have
to lift them. On one occasion, there were pregnant
women returning from a hospital run who were strip
searched with Ms. Welch. One woman appeared about
eight months pregnant. After she had opened and
touched her vagina as demanded by the deputy, the
deputy mockingly stated “let me see that again.” The
deputy made the pregnant women squat and cough,
which she had a very difficult time doing.
C.
Laura Goode
Carolina)
(Rock
Hill,
South
Laura Goode is a 30 year old woman who has
never been arrested before and was employed in the
mortgage department of Citigroup. She has severe
scarring on her chest from abuse inflicted when she was
six years old. She is very self conscious about her skin
disfigurement.
In October of 2009 she was returning her cousin
to her mother’s house about 10:30 at night. She
dropped him off and pulled away. She was followed by
a marked police car. She was pulled over for failing to
have a properly lit tag light. SC Code 56-5-4530
requires that rear tag be visible from 50 feet. She was
approached by the uniform traffic officer and informed
him that she did not have her license with her.
Although her license was valid, SC law requires that
she keep it accessible when driving. Narcotics agents
showed up and asked to search her car. She declined
and thought it was ridiculous to be asked to search a car
over a license plate light. She was then told to get out
10
of the car as she was being arrested. She called her
mom on the cell phone, who brought the license to the
scene to no avail. She was taken to the back of her car
and noticed both tag lights were working. She
challenged the officer on the basis of the stop.
At this point the narcotics agents took her to the
City of Rock Hill police department. The police drove
her car there and searched it while she was in custody.
They refused to allow her mother to take the car from
the arrest scene although her house was only a few
blocks away.
Ms. Goode was taken to the detention part of the
facility. She was given a property bag but was not
booked in or admitted to the jail. She was taken to a
separate room and was forced to undergo a full
disrobing by two female officers. She was asked to
bend over and a guard separated her butt cheeks and
made her cough. When nothing was found, she was
placed in a holding cell by herself. After a time an
officer came by, took her out of the holding area,
returned her property and gave her a ticket for failure
to have a license. The charges were dismissed by the
police.
D.
11
was transported to jail, and brought into the strip
search room with another arrestee.
With two
corrections officers present, Mr. Fanning and the other
arrestee were directed into adjoining stalls. The other
man was ordered to step out in front of his own stall
and strip searched where Mr. Fanning could see the
man’s naked rear side from head to toe. While one
officer gave instructions, the other officer stood behind
the other man during the strip search. During the
other man’s search, Mr. Fanning was ordered to
remove his clothing. After the search, Mr. Fanning was
ordered to exit his stall, and instructed to raise his
arms. While his arms were raised, an officer told him to
open his mouth, and the officer looked in his mouth.
Mr. Fanning was told to turn his head, and the officer
looked in his ears. The officer then told Mr. Fanning to
raise his testicles, which he did. He was told to turn
around and to lift up one foot at a time to expose the
bottom of his feet. Mr. Fanning was told to spread his
feet a bit, bend his knees and try to touch his toes to
bend over. Mr. Fanning was then told to stand up and
turn around. Throughout the process the officer’s tone
was abrupt and unfriendly. Mr. Fanning was then
walked to another room, while still naked, and told to
wait for a uniform. Eventually, Mr. Fanning received a
uniform and was able to dress.
Michael Fanning (Nassau County,
New York)6
E.
Mary
Doe
(Dauphin
Pennsylvania)7
County,
Michael Fanning is an obese, permanently
disabled male (310 pounds on a 5’7” frame). He was
arrested on July 29, 1997 for a non-felony offense. He
Mary Doe, then a 30-year old honor student (and
now biophysicist) attending graduate school at Johns
6
7
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, Case No. 99-CV-2844
(DRH) (E.D.N.Y.).
Mary Doe is a pseudonym. She is a plaintiff in Reynolds v.
County of Dauphin, Case No. 07-CV-1688 (M.D. Pa.).