Doe v. CALUMET CITY, ILL.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 87 C 3594.,87 C 3594.
• Citation: 754 F. Supp. 1211
• Parties: Jane DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

754 F. Supp. 1211

Jane DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants.

No. 87 C 3594.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

December 12, 1990.

Kenneth N. Flaxman, Elizabeth Dale, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Gregory E. Rogus, Alan J. Brinkmeier, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, District Judge.

Plaintiff class, comprising all women who have been arrested on a misdemeanor or ordinance violation in Calumet City, Illinois on or after April 16, 1982,¹ has sued Calumet City² under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") for alleged unconstitutional strip searches conducted by the Calumet City Police Department. Plaintiffs now move under Rule 56³ for summary judgment on the issue of liability. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted.

Facts

Between April 16, 1982 and the April 17, 1987 commencement of this suit, members of the Calumet City Police Department conducted a large number of strip searches of women who had been arrested for non-felony offenses.⁴ All those searches were conducted without any particularized belief that any of the arrestees possessed either a weapon or contraband. While Calumet City had no formal policy regarding strip searches, its police force routinely conducted such searches without any specific justification.

Calumet City's practice of conducting strip searches was in effect and continued well after its neighboring city, Chicago, had been found liable for its own similar practice.⁵ Indeed, effective September 21, 1979 the Illinois General Assembly responded to the disclosure of the Chicago Police Department's strip search policy by amending the Illinois statute governing "Rights on Arrest" to read (Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, ¶ 103-1(c)):

No person arrested for a traffic, regulatory or misdemeanor offense, except in cases involving weapons or a controlled substance, shall be strip searched unless there is reasonable belief that the individual is concealing a weapon or controlled substance.⁶

And that legislation was specifically referred to in the appeal growing out of the Chicago situation, Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1266 n. 1 (7th Cir.1983) (more of that case later). Despite the State's recognition of its municipalities' unlawful methods of searching arrestees (and despite our Court of Appeals' decision in Mary Beth G.), Calumet City changed its strip search practice only after this lawsuit was filed.

This action's own "Jane Doe" ("Doe") provides a typical illustration of Calumet City's strip search practice. Doe was arrested in December 1986 and charged with being underage in a tavern. Following her arrest, Doe was transported to the Calumet City police station where she was searched by dispatcher Popovich. Popovich conducted a pat-down search and then asked Doe to raise her blouse and lift her brassiere over her breasts and then down. Popovich then required Doe to drop her jeans and pull her underpants down. Popovich had no belief at the time of the search that Doe had a weapon or contraband on her person.

Doe's case was one of many. Indeed, the offered testimony by the 117 women arrestees describing 146 strip searches includes the following typical examples:

1. On November 2, 1982 class member 6628⁷ was arrested by a Calumet City police officer on a warrant for misdemeanor offenses relating to bad checks. At the police station she was required to remove her clothes.

2. On August 28, 1983 class member 6453 was arrested by a Calumet City police officer for "investigation" and eventually released without being charged. At the station she was required to remove her shirt, lift her brassiere over her breasts, lower her pants and underpants and squat.

3. On February 19, 1984 class member 6422 was arrested on a warrant. At the station she was required to remove her clothes, to squat three times and to spread the lips of her vagina.

4. On June 30, 1985 class member 5227 was arrested for deceptive practices. At the station, after she had removed her clothes a dispatcher lifted the arrestee's breasts.

5. On March 13, 1986 class member 6070 was arrested for being a minor in a tavern. At the station she was required to remove all her clothing.

6. On February 21, 1987 class member 6528 was arrested for driving with a suspended license. At the station she was required to remove her shirt and lower her pants and underpants.

In addition to being required to expose themselves, many women arrestees in Calumet City were subjected to offensive touching. Again the following examples will suffice:

1. On December 5, 1982 class member 6458 (17 years old) was arrested on a misdemeanor and required to remove all her clothing. Then a female member of the department lifted the arrestee's breasts and ran her fingers along the class member's genitals.

2. On April 13, 1983 class member 5075 was arrested on a misdemeanor, required to remove all her clothing and searched by a woman who, clad in rubber gloves, felt around the class member's vagina and anus.

3. On February 12, 1986 class member 6771, arrested on a misdemeanor, was required to remove all her clothing and instructed to squat and then to bend over. While bent over, the class member felt the female searcher insert her gloved fingers into the class member's vagina and anus.

4. On June 13, 1986 class member 5737, arrested on a misdemeanor, was required to remove her clothing and was subjected to a digital cavity search by a female member of the Calumet City Police Department.

At least two arrestees (class members 5206 and 6651) were required to sit on a toilet and spread their legs, and at least one (class member 5254) was searched in that fashion in the presence of a male officer. At least 27 women arrestees were searched by male officers, including the following examples:

1. On May 18, 1983 class member 6632's breasts were fondled by a male officer.

2. On June 27, 1983 a male officer conducted a digital cavity search of class member 5319.

3. On April 18, 1984, after a female searcher had class member 6470 remove her clothing and after the class member refused to squat, two male officers entered the room and ordered the class member to squat.

4. On August 30, 1984 a male officer strip searched class member 6697 and ordered her to squat.

5. On September 2, 1984 a male officer, clad in rubber gloves, ran his fingers along the genitals of class member 6789 and conducted a digital cavity search.

6. On September 4, 1984 a male officer fondled the breasts of class member 6789 and ran his fingers along her genitals.

7. On January 13, 1985 a male officer strip searched class member 5831.

8. On May 3, 1985 a male officer lifted the breasts of class member 5279 and felt around her anus.

9. On March 19, 1986 a male officer strip searched class member 5305.

10. On December 21, 1986 class member 5446, arrested for being a minor in a tavern, was searched by a male officer who required her to lift her shirt over her breasts.

11. On April 29, 1987 a male officer required class member 6448 (13 years of age) to strip to her underwear.

It is uncontroverted that the 146 strip searches described in the current submission, as exemplified by the just-completed sampling, took place.⁸ Although Calumet City asserts additional facts concerning only three of the arrestees that it admits were strip searched, nowhere does it argue or offer any evidence (1) that any searching officer had any antecedent basis for conducting any of the strip searches or (2) that the searches did not in fact occur.

Calumet City did not have a written policy that explicitly outlined the procedures for "strip searches" (in the established meaning of that term)⁹ until after this litigation began. Its pre-litigation written policies as to searches had been contained in three Police Department general orders:

1. General Order 76-3 (adopted in April 1976) and General Order 76-7 (adopted in June 1976) had required that all arrestees be searched but did not provide any explicit procedures for conducting searches incident to booking (P.Ex. 6-7).

2. In June 1984 the Police Department adopted General Order 84-4, giving some more specific guidance as to strip searches. Its relevant provisions were these:

1. Arrestees will immediately be searched when brought into the lockup booking area.

2. Searches will be conducted by department members of the same sex as the arrestee.

3. Arrestee will be scanned with a metal detecting device to ensure against concealment of a weapon not discovered on the pat down search.

* * * * * * 5. Arrestees will not be subjected to a strip search for any traffic or misdemeanor offense, unless specific factors are present which establish reasonable belief that a search will uncover a weapon or controlled substance. Strip searches will ordinarily be conducted in one of the lockup holding areas out of the view of persons not involved and then only after receiving approval from the Commanding Officer on duty. When a strip search is conducted, it must be so noted on the arrest ticket.

NOTE: Discretion and good judgment will be used when conducting a strip search. The arrestee will not be required to remain unclothed any longer than is absolutely necessary. No touching of the body cavities is permitted by department members.

If that policy had been implemented in the same spirit in which it appears to have been written, this lawsuit would have had a quite different scope — at least prospectively from the time of adoption of General Order 84-4. But somewhat unbelievably the Police Department provided no training as to General Order 84-4 — nor were the dispatchers, who routinely conducted searches, even made aware that the order existed. Lacking any definition of "strip search," the order was actually understood by high ranking officers of the Police Department to permit searches of breasts and the exterior of the vagina and...