Skursteinis v. Jones

• Decision Date: 28 December 2000
• Docket Number: Nos. 00-10122,s. 00-10122
• Citation: 236 F.3d 678
• Parties: (11th Cir. 2000) SANDY SKURSTENIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES JONES, Sheriff, WAYNE WATTS, Captain, individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees. SANDY SKURSTENIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES JONES, Sheriff, T.O. RICHEY, individually, Defendants-Appellants. & 00-11469 and 00-10603
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 678

236 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2000)

SANDY SKURSTENIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES JONES, Sheriff, WAYNE WATTS, Captain, individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

SANDY SKURSTENIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES JONES, Sheriff, T.O. RICHEY, individually, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 00-10122 & 00-11469 and 00-10603

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 28, 2000

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

D. C. Docket No. 98-02295-CV-AR-S

Before TJOFLAT and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and VINING^*, District Judge.

VINING, District Judge:

These consolidated appeals involve the constitutionality of two strip searches performed on a detainee who had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The first search, for weapons and contraband, occurred when the detainee was booked into the jail and was conducted by a female deputy; the second search, for lice, took place the following morning and was conducted by a male nurses assistant. The district court held that both searches were unconstitutional but that the sheriff and deputy sheriff were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the initial search; the district court further held that neither the sheriff nor the nurses assistant was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the second search. Concluding that both searches were constitutional, we affirm in part, albeit on different grounds, and reverse in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On the evening of May 8, 1998, a Shelby County, Alabama, deputy sheriff arrested Sandy Skurstenis for driving under the influence of alcohol. Her blood alcohol registered .18 on the deputy's portable Breathalyzer and registered .15 on an intoxilyzer test administered shortly thereafter. At the time of her arrest, Skurstenis had a .38 special handgun, for which she had an expired permit, in the floorboard of her car.

After her arrest, Skurstenis was taken to the Shelby County Jail, where, because of her blood alcohol level, she was to remain until around 11:00 a.m. the following morning.¹ After being booked into the jail, Skurstenis was taken to a restroom adjacent to the booking area by Deputy Stacy Blankenship, a female officer. Skurstenis was told to disrobe, to turn and face the wall, and to squat and cough. After doing this, she was given a jail uniform, was escorted by Deputy Jason Smitherman through an area where other female inmates were sleeping, and was placed in a solitary cell.

The next morning, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Skurstenis was instructed to go to the infirmary, where she encountered three other female inmates and one male, T. O. Richey, a nurses assistant,² employed by the Shelby Baptist Medical Center. Richey worked part-time at the jail pursuant to a contract between the sheriff's office and the medical center. When he was finished with the other inmates, Richey asked them to leave and then informed Skurstenis that pursuant to the jail's policy, he was required to run certain tests on her. After Skurstenis signed a consent form, Richey took some blood samples from her and then told her to pull her pants down so that he could check for lice. Richey ran his fingers through the hair on her head and also through her pubic hair. At no time did he touch her genitalia. When the examination was completed, Skurstenis left the infirmary and a short time thereafter was discharged from the jail and left with her husband, who had come to get her.

Skurstenis subsequently filed this action against Sheriff James Jones, Chief Jailer Captain Wayne Watts, Deputies Jason Smitherman and Stacy Blankenship, and T. O. Richey in their individual capacities, and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional violations³ and under state law for invasion of privacy, assault, and battery.⁴

In ruling on the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to Captain Watts and Deputy Smitherman on the basis that they had no real connection to the strip search that occurred when Skurstenis was booked into the jail and that her complaint, therefore, failed to state a claim against them. The district court further held that the initial strip search violated the Skurstenis's constitutional rights but that Sheriff Jones and Deputy Blankenship were entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, the district court held that the infirmary search violated Skurstenis's constitutional rights, that Sheriff Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity, that Richey had no standing to assert qualified immunity, and that, even if he did, he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.⁵ Recognizing that only the denials of qualified immunity would be appealable as a matter of right, the district court certified its order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), and this court granted permission for Skurstenis to appeal those portions of the district court's order which granted qualified immunity.

II. DISCUSSION

A district court's grant or denial of summary judgment is subject to de novo review by this court. Hamilton v. Allen- Bradley Co., 217 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2000).

In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979), the Supreme Court held that routine strip searching of pretrial detainees was not a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In articulating the balancing test applicable to such searches, the Court stated:

The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it occurred.

Id. at 559, 99 S. Ct. at 1884.

The Bell balancing test for reasonableness requires, at a minimum, that the facts upon which the intrusion is based be capable of measurement against an objective standard. Although one appellate court initially suggested that probable cause might be required to justify a strip search, Tinetti v. Wittke, 620 F.2d 160 (7th Cir. 1980) ("The searches were conducted despite the absence of probable cause to believe that the detainees were concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies."), the courts of appeal now recognize that "reasonable suspicion" may justify a strip search of a pretrial detainee. See, e.g., Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997); Warner v. Grand County, 57 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 1995); Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986) Stewart v. Lubbock County, Texas, 767 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1985); Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983). Indeed, in upholding the strip search of a juvenile, this court specifically held that law enforcement officers "may conduct a strip search of a juvenile in custody, even for a minor offense, based upon reasonable suspicion to believe that the juvenile is concealing weapons or contraband." Justice v. City of Peachtree City, 961 F.2d 188, 193 (11th Cir. 1992).

It is undisputed that Policy Number B-103 of the Shelby County Jail requires that each inmate be strip searched by a same sex jail staff member before being placed in a cell or detention room. This policy, which does not require any reasonable suspicion, does not comport with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. This court thus joins every other circuit which has had occasion to review a similar policy and holds such policy to be unconstitutional. See Chapman v. Nichols, 989 F.2d 393 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing cases from other circuits holding same).

Because of one significant factor, however, this holding does not mean that the initial strip search performed on Skurstenis was ipso facto unconstitutional. When she was arrested and taken into custody, Skurstenis had a .38 special handgun in her possession. Recognizing, as did the Bell court, that a detention center is a place "fraught with serious security dangers," Bell, 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S. Ct. at 1884, and, because of the deference that should be afforded in matters of institutional security, see, e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173 (1980), this court holds that possession of a weapon by a detainee provides the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to authorize a strip search.

Having concluded that the search was justified, the court must now consider the other Bell factors, viz., the manner in which the search was conducted and the place in which it was conducted. Skurstenis was taken to a bathroom and was observed only by Deputy Blankenship, a female officer; no body cavity search was undertaken. Under similar facts, this court concluded, "Without a doubt, the officers conducted the strip search in the least intrusive manner." Justice, 961 F.2d at 193. Consequently, this court concludes that Skurstenis's constitutional rights were not violated by the strip search performed when she was booked into the jail.

The court now turns to the strip search performed on Skurstenis by T. O. Richey, the morning after she was incarcerated. A sheriff in Alabama "has the legal custody and charge of the jail in his county and all prisoners committed thereto." Alabama Code 14-6-1 (1975). Thus, for purposes of Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978), the sheriff is the final decision maker with respect to jail policy.

The Alabama legislature has mandated that sheriffs "exercise every precaution to prevent the spread of disease among the inmates." Alabama Code 14-6-95. Pursuant to this mandate, the Shelby County jail instituted a policy of searching all inmates who have been admitted to the general jail population for communicable diseases at the earliest possible time during their incarceration. Because of the prevalence of head and body...