Allegheny County Prison Emp. v. County of Allegh.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 03-1075. |
| Citation | 315 F.Supp.2d 728 |
| Parties | ALLEGHENY COUNTY PRISON EMPLOYEES INDEPENDENT UNION, and Charles Manderino, individually and on behalf of the Members of ACPEIU, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, Calvin A. Lightfoot, Warden and Allegheny County Jail, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Bryan Campbell, Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff.
Robert L. McTiernan, Charles P. McCullough, Allegheny County Law Department, Pittsburgh, PA, for defendant.
Pending before this court is a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union (the "Union") and Charles Manderino ("Manderino" and together with the Union collectively referred to as "plaintiffs") filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction: (1) to enjoin defendants County of Allegheny (the "County"), Calvin A. Lightfoot (the "Warden"), and Allegheny County Jail (the "jail" and together with the County and the Warden collectively referred to as "defendants") from searching Manderino and other prison guards who are members of the Union in accordance with the policies promulgated by the Warden and (2) to prevent any disciplinary proceedings against members of the Union who refused to be searched in accordance with the jail's policies. The second request for relief is moot in light of the significant revisions to the challenged policies and the court's prior order which precluded disciplinary action from being taken for violation of the prior versions of the policies. The only issue remaining is whether the enforcement of the current search policies shall be enjoined. Plaintiffs assert that the court should enter the preliminary injunction because searches performed in accordance with the policies promulgated by the Warden violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the searches are an unreasonable invasion of the Union members' rights and that the Union members are treated differently than other persons entering the jail. In response, defendants argue that searches are constitutional because plaintiffs have a lesser expectation of privacy when they are entering the jail and defendants have a legitimate, rational reason for the manner in which they conduct their searches.
After consideration of the parties' submissions, oral argument and evidence presented the court denies plaintiffs' motion for the entry of a preliminary injunction to enjoin searches under the policies in effect on the date of this order as promulgated by the Warden. The court does not find that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the applicable search policies violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, the court finds that in balancing the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, the potential irreparable harm to the defendants, and the public interest, the balance weighs in favor of denying the preliminary injunction.
On July 16, 2003, plaintiffs filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The following day, on July 17, 2003, the court held a hearing with regard to plaintiffs' temporary restraining order. That same day, after hearing evidence, the court granted plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court ordered on the record, inter alia, that non-intrusive patdown searches on a random, lottery basis that included removing shoes and belts, but not socks, were permissible and precluded disciplinary action from being taken for violations of the challenged policies.
On August 1, 2003, the parties requested and received oral clarification of the court's July 17, 2003 order. On August 22, 2003, the Warden revised the challenged policies. On October 2, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to address the revised policies. Additionally, in plaintiffs' amended complaint, plaintiffs allege a violation of equal protection and claim that the revised policies employ a method of selecting persons for searches that is not constitutional. On October 6, 2003, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.
On October 28, 2003, the court held a hearing with regard to plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Seven witnesses testified and the testimony of four witnesses who testified at the hearing on the temporary restraining order was incorporated by reference. The transcript from the October 28, 2003 hearing was ordered and the parties' request to file supplemental briefs regarding the issues raised during the preliminary injunction hearing was granted.
Background of Allegheny County Jail's policies with respect to randomly searching employees
The current search policies are set forth in Administrative Directive # 54 dated August 22, 2003 ("Ad. Dir. # 54, as revised"). The prior versions of those policies were set forth in Administrative Directive # 54, respectively dated May 15, 1997 and July 11, 2003. The version dated July 11, 2003, which was enforced on approximately July 11, 2003, emerged shortly after the Warden was searched pursuant to the May 15, 1997 version of the policy and was not asked to remove his socks. (7/17/03 Tr. at 55-57.) The current version dated August 22, 2003 was implemented around that date, and it replaced the July 11, 2003 version.1 The descriptions of the prior versions of Administrative Directive # 54 are helpful because they influenced the current version at issue.
The May 15, 1997 version of the policy required all employees entering through the employee entrance of the Allegheny County Jail to be searched for contraband. (Pls.' Compl. Ex. 1.) The procedure required the Shift Commander to determine a random number pattern, e.g. every third person or every fifth person, before a shift begins and to record the number pattern, which should vary, in a search log prior to commencing the searches. Id. As employees walked out of the elevator, the Shift Commander counted each person and directed employees pursuant to the number pattern to be searched. Id.
The May 15, 1997 version further provided that the search was to take place in a separate room and required employees to empty all items from their pockets, remove their shoes, and be subject to pat search, with females searching females and males searching males. Id. It also stated that a correctional officer will be present to observe the searches, and the staff member conducting the search was to retain a search log with the date and signatures of the persons searched. Id. Additionally, that version provided that any employees found to have contraband on their person or who refuse to be searched will not be permitted to report for duty and will be subject to appropriate action. Id.
While the parties agree that the May 15, 1997 procedures had been in effect for some time, they dispute the kind of patdown search to which employees were subject between May 15, 1997 and July 9, 2003. (7/17/03 Tr. at 64, 99-103.) Specifically, plaintiffs assert that not all employees subject to random searches prior to July 9, 2003 were required to remove their shoes or were subject to a patdown with the same level of thoroughness. (7/17/03 Tr. at 26, 99-103.) Based upon the factual evidence submitted, the court finds that the persons conducting searches prior to July 9, 2003 did not consistently abide by the policies then in effect or conduct searches with the same degree of thoroughness that the Warden testified was inherent in those policies and that he was subjected to when he was searched in early July 2003.
The July 11, 2003 version of the policies is very similar to the May 15, 1997 version in terms of its substance. The main difference is that the July 11, 2003 version required employees to remove their socks and belts in addition to their shoes during the random searches of employees. (Pls.' Compl. Ex. 2.) The July 11, 2003 version also mandated that the random employee searches be videotaped. Id. It also specified that violations of the policies may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. Id.
The version of Ad. Dir. # 54, as revised, dated August 22, 2003, which is in issue, revises and builds upon the prior versions and contains similar substance; however, it further details the patdown search procedures that are to be followed when conducting the random searches of employees. .) Ad. Dir. # 54, as revised, unlike the July 11, 2003 version, does not require employees to remove socks-only shoes, belts and outer garments; however, staff members performing the searches are to patdown thoroughly the outside of employees' clothes, ensuring that no contraband is hidden on the employee's person. The patdown includes a searcher running his or her hands (a male searcher for a male and a female searcher for a female) down the front of the employee, examining the employee's waistband, and patting the area of the employee's lower abdomen, and the groin area. (Pls.' Am. Compl. Ex. 1.) Additionally, the applicable search policy requires that employees remove all outer garments such as hat, coat or gloves and empty all items from their pockets prior to the search. Id. It also warns staff members performing searches to be "watchful" of "toupees, eyeglasses, watches, and medical alert bracelets, all of which can conceal contraband." Id. The applicable search policy also states that the searches are to be done in a respectful, non-offensive way and should not involve any kind of groping or massaging. Id.
The search procedures in issue — Ad. Dir. # 54, as revised, — are consistent with the type of patdown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Department of Public Safety
...must be viewed in the context of the individual's legitimate expectation of privacy. Allegheny County Prison Employees Indep. Union v. County of Allegheny, 315 F.Supp.2d 728, 737 (W.D.Pa.2004). The test for determining the legitimacy of an expectation of privacy involves both subjective and......
-
Allegheny County Prison Emp. v. County of Allegh.
...District Court EMPLOYEE VISITOR Allegheny County Prison Emp. v. County of Allegh., 315 F.Supp.2d 728 (W.D.Pa. 2004). Employees at a county jail brought a suit challenging its employee search policy, which involved random pat-down searches by same sex employees of all areas of the searched e......
-
Allegheny County Prison Emp. v. County of Allegh.
...District Court SEARCHES Allegheny County Prison Emp. v. County of Allegh., 315 F.Supp.2d 728 (W.D.Pa. 2004). Employees at a county jail brought a suit challenging its employee search policy, which involved random pat-down searches by same sex employees of all areas of the searched employee'......