J.B. ex rel. Benjamin v. Fassnacht

• Decision Date: 15 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–3905.,14–3905.
• Citation: 801 F.3d 336
• Parties: J.B., a Minor, by Thomas BENJAMIN and Janet Benjamin, Parents and Natural Guardians v. James B. FASSNACHT, Pennsylvania State Police Officer, in his individual capacity; Brian Bray, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal, in his individual capacity; Lancaster County; David Mueller, Individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation; Carole Trostle, Individually and in her official capacity as Probation Officer at the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation; Drew Fredericks, Individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center; John Doe; Jane Doe, Individually and in their official capacity as Security Officers at the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center; Robert Kling, Individually and in his official capacity as Probation Officer at the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation, Daren Dubey, Individually and in his official capacity as Security Officer at the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center; Joseph Choi, Individually and in his official capacity as Security Officer at the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center Lancaster County; Joseph Choi ; Darren Dubey, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

801 F.3d 336

J.B., a Minor, by Thomas BENJAMIN and Janet Benjamin, Parents and Natural Guardians

v.James B. FASSNACHT, Pennsylvania State Police Officer, in his individual capacity; Brian Bray, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal, in his individual capacity; Lancaster County; David Mueller, Individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation; Carole Trostle, Individually and in her official capacity as Probation Officer at the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation; Drew Fredericks, Individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center; John Doe; Jane Doe, Individually and in their official capacity as Security Officers at the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center; Robert Kling, Individually and in his official capacity as Probation Officer at the Lancaster County Office of Juvenile Probation, Daren Dubey, Individually and in his official capacity as Security Officer at the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center; Joseph Choi, Individually and in his official capacity as Security Officer at the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center Lancaster County; Joseph Choi ; Darren Dubey, Appellants.

No. 14–3905.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued: July 9, 2015.

Opinion Filed: Sept. 15, 2015.

Charles R. Starnes, Esq., Brian H. Leinhauser, Esq., David J. MacMain, Esq., (Argued), The MacMain Law Group, LLC, Malvern, PA, Attorneys for Appellants.

Kevin C. Allen, Esq., (Argued), Crystle, Allen & Braught, LLC, Lancaster, PA, Attorneys for Appellees.

Before: FUENTES, NYGAARD, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington,¹ the Supreme Court held that all arrestees who are committed to the general population of a detention center may be subject to a close visual inspection while undressed. Today we are asked whether Florence applies to juvenile offenders admitted to the general population of a juvenile detention center. We hold that it does.

I. Background

At twelve years old, J.B. skillfully constructed a homemade flame thrower using PVC pipe, a lighter, and spray paint. He then activated this contraption in his backyard. The flame thrower shot flames 1–2 feet in length, attracting the attention of several neighborhood girls, ages 711, who were playing nearby. The girls told their babysitter about the flames, and the babysitter asked J.B. to stop playing with the flame thrower as it was unsafe. Later that day, the same girls went to J.B.'s front yard and began teasing him. This teasing resulted in hand-to-hand fighting between J.B. and at least two of the girls. During this conflict, J.B. brandished a homemade knife, approximately 5 inches long, which he held over one of the girl's heads, stating that he was stronger than her, “so [he could] kill [her] and over power [her].”² The girls also alleged that J.B. directly threatened to kill them. After J.B. threatened the girls and displayed the knife, they left his yard and told their babysitter what had transpired.

The father of two of the girls involved, called the state police that evening to report the incident. Trooper James Fassnacht received notice of this report and interviewed the father, all of the young girls, and J.B. J.B. admitted to threatening to break one of the girl's arms and to holding a homemade knife over another girl's head.³ Fassnacht informed J.B.'s father that charges of terroristic threats and summary harassment would be filed at a later date. Three weeks later, Fassnacht filed a juvenile allegation against J.B. with Lancaster County Juvenile Probation Intake Officer Carole Trostle. Trostle then informed Fassnacht that Lancaster County Juvenile Probation was ordering J.B.'s detention due to the seriousness of the charges.

J.B.'s parents surrendered J.B. to the Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. He was then transported to the Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center (“LYIC”). Upon arrival, J.B. was processed and subjected to a strip search pursuant to LYIC policy.⁴ This policy states that such searches are conducted to look for signs of “injuries, markings, skin conditions, signs of abuse, or further contraband.”⁵ Officers are instructed to wear rubber gloves, refrain from touching the detainee, and to bring the detainee “to the shower area and close the privacy curtain in order to obstruct the transporters' view.”⁶ During the strip search, J.B. stood behind a curtain so that only the officer conducting the search could observe him as he removed his clothing. J.B. removed his pants and underwear for approximately ninety seconds. In addition, J.B. was asked to turn around, drop his pants and underwear, bend over, spread his buttocks, and cough

. J.B. was detained from Friday, July 24 through Monday, July 27, 2009, when, after a hearing, he was released to his parents. In October 2009, a juvenile hearing was held and J.B. did not contest the charges of terroristic threats and summary harassment. Instead, he entered into a consent decree by which he agreed to write a letter of apology to his victims and abide by other probation requirements in exchange for the opportunity to have his record expunged.

In February 2012, Plaintiffs Thomas and Janet Benjamin brought suit on behalf of J.B., asserting various civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, false imprisonment, and violations of due process against various prison officials. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part. Of particular relevance, the District Court rejected Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs' unreasonable search claims failed pursuant to Florence. The District Court held that Florence does not apply to juveniles and thus it did not affect the legality of J.B.'s search. In so holding, the District Court reasoned that the facts of Florence addressed strip searches of adult inmates and made no reference to juvenile detainees. Accordingly, the District Court proceeded by analyzing J.B.'s search under a reasonable suspicion standard, as articulated in Bell v. Wolfish.⁷ Because the District Court found there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the detention facility officials possessed a reasonable suspicion to strip search J.B., it denied summary judgment on this claim. The District Court was particularly bothered by the three-week time lapse between the incident and J.B.'s detention. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the District Court then certified the question of whether Florence applies to all juveniles being committed to a juvenile detention facility.⁸

II. Discussion

A. Florence

In Florence, the petitioner was arrested on an outstanding bench warrant after a traffic stop. He was subjected to a strip search upon admission to jail where he was required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough

while squatting. The petitioner was released the next day after the charges against him were dismissed. Following this incident, petitioner sued the governmental entities that operated the jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, maintaining that people arrested for minor offenses “could not be required to remove their clothing and expose the most private areas of their bodies to close visual inspection as a routine part of the intake process.”⁹ The Supreme Court disagreed. At the outset, the Supreme Court held that “[c]orrectional officials have a legitimate interest, indeed a responsibility, to ensure that jails are not made less secure by reason of what new detainees may carry in on their bodies. Facility personnel, other inmates, and the new detainee himself or herself may be in danger if these threats are introduced into the jail population.”¹⁰

Referring to jail “in a broad sense to include prisons and other detention facilities,”¹¹ the Supreme Court held that “[c]orrectional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough search as a standard part of the intake process.”¹² The Court identified three main risks justifying a blanket strip search policy in such facilities: (1) the danger of introducing contagious infections and diseases; (2) the increasing number of gang members who go through the intake process; and (3) the detection of contraband, i.e., any unauthorized item, concealed by new detainees.¹³ The necessity of a strip search to detect contraband is clear. The Supreme Court clarified, however, that a strip search is also necessary to detect diseases and wounds

and identify potential gang members. With respect to diseases and wounds

, the Court explained that “[p]ersons just arrested may have wounds or other injuries requiring immediate medical attention. It may be difficult to identify and treat these problems until detainees remove their clothes for a visual inspection.”¹⁴ Similarly, identifying potential gang affiliations is critical before a detainee enters the general population, where “[f]ights among feuding gangs can be deadly, and the officers who must maintain order are put in harm's way.”¹⁵ Thus, a strip search allows corrections officers to inspect for certain tattoos and other signs of gang affiliation, which facilitates “[t]he identification and isolation of gang members before they are admitted.”¹⁶ As a result of these risks, the Court held that “[i]t is not surprising that correctional officials have sought to perform thorough searches at intake.... Jails are often crowded, unsanitary, and dangerous places. There is a substantial interest in preventing any new inmate ... from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted.”¹⁷

While conceding that correctional officials must be allowed to conduct an effective search during the intake process, the petitioner in Florence asserted that an invasive strip search was not necessary where the detainee had not...