Doe v. Duter, 76-C-65.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-C-65.,76-C-65. |
| Citation | 407 F. Supp. 922 |
| Parties | Jane DOE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rex DUTER et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Elizabeth Alexander, Corrections Legal Services Program, Madison, Wis., for plaintiff.
Gary L. Carlson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bronson La Follette, Atty. Gen., State of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., for defendants.
This opinion and order are directed to plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to participation by male staff members in bodily searches of females confined in the Wisconsin School for Girls, Oregon, Wisconsin. For the purpose of deciding this motion for a preliminary injunction, and only for this purpose, I find as fact those matters set forth below under the heading "Facts."
There are confined at the School females aged 12 through 17 who have been adjudged delinquent, as well as young males. The staff refers to those confined as "students" and I will use that term herein. The staff which supervises the female students includes males and females. When a staff determination is made that a bodily search of a female student is necessary, the search is conducted by a female staff member, except in circumstances to be described in a moment. A bodily search may consist of a pat-down of the female student while she remains clothed; this may involve the use of the staff member's hands to explore the student's clothing, including pockets, and to explore the surface of the student's body within her clothing. A bodily search may also include the removal of the female student's clothing. No searches of the cavities of the bodies of female students are conducted at the school. When a search is to be conducted, the female student is so informed and is given the opportunity to cooperate, including the opportunity to remove her clothing, when removal of clothing is required. If the female student refuses to cooperate in the conduct of the search, and if the female staff member is physically unable to conduct the search over the student's resistance, the female staff member seeks and obtains the assistance of as many other staff members as are reasonably necessary to permit the search to be conducted over the student's resistance. Whether these additional staff members are females or males depends upon which staff members are readily available at the time and place, and not infrequently they are male security guards. There are presently no female security guards at the school. When resistance is encountered initially by the female staff member, she proceeds to enlist assistance and to conduct the search as soon as the assistance can reasonably be obtained. That is, there is no conscious effort to determine whether it is necessary to proceed promptly with the search and, if not, to await a time at which there may be available enough female staff members to permit the search to be conducted exclusively by female staff members. When a bodily search of a female student is conducted forcibly over the student's resistance and when one or more staff members participate in the search, the male staff members' participation is limited to restraining the student's movements, and it is a female staff member who uses her hands to explore the student's clothing and the surface of her body.
OpinionThe preliminary injunction sought would prohibit the participation of male staff members in the bodily search of a female student "unless there is an immediate threat to life or health involved and no other staff are available to perform the search."1
I take judicial notice that although there will be many individual differences among people in the degree of their emotional and psychological reactions to the experience, a forcible search of one's clothing and of the surfaces of one's body by another person is offensive and humiliating, whether one is male or female and whether the person or persons conducting the search are male or female. Although there is no empirical evidence on the point in this record, I am also prepared to take judicial notice, for the purpose of this motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prahl v. Brosamle
...that an otherwise reasonable search or seizure may be rendered unreasonable by circumstances surrounding the event, citing Doe v. Duter, 407 F.Supp. 922 (W.D.Wis.1976). He argues that the filming and television broadcast of the search and seizure are such The circumstances of a body search,......
-
Wilson v Layne
...to its conclusion was its observation that, unlike the unnecessary male participation in body searches of schoolgirls in Doe v. Duter, 407 F. Supp. 922 (WD Wis. 1976), "[n]either the search of Dr. Prahl and his premises nor the film or its broadcast has been shown to include intimate, offen......
-
Torres v. WIS. DEPT. OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
...rev'd in part on other grounds, 621 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir.1980); Hardin v. Stynchcomb, 691 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir.1982); Doe v. Duter, 407 F.Supp. 922, 925 (W.D.Wis.1976). 2 This finding is bolstered by the defendant's use of the non-BFOQ'd rover in the housing units as described ...