Hunt v. Polk County, Iowa

• Decision Date: 12 November 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 80-382-C.
• Citation: 551 F. Supp. 339
• Parties: Lawrence HUNT, Plaintiff, v. POLK COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

551 F. Supp. 339

Lawrence HUNT, Plaintiff, v. POLK COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant.

Civ. No. 80-382-C.

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, C.D.

November 12, 1982.

Mark Bennett, Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff.

Dan L. Johnston, Polk County Atty., Thomas M. Werner, Asst. Polk County Atty., for defendant.

RULING AND ORDER

STUART, Chief Judge.

The Court has before it the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, filed July 1 and July 16, 1982, on the issue of whether plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated when employees of the Polk County Jail strip-searched him following his arrest on March 18, 1980. Although plaintiff's complaint originally included other claims, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of those claims on August 26, 1982. Thus, only the legality of the strip search and the damages, if any, that resulted from it remain as issues in this case.

I.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, briefs, and documentary evidence on file demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F.R. C.P. 56(c); Vette Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir. 1980). If the record so warrants, a grant of summary judgment fulfills the salutary purpose of avoiding useless and time-consuming trials. Butler v. M.F.A. Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir.1979).

In the present case, the parties have jointly stipulated all the facts that appear to be material to a determination of the constitutionality of plaintiff's strip search. The Court accordingly finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact which would bar summary judgment, and the Court may proceed to determine whether plaintiff or defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

II.

The joint stipulation of facts filed by the parties on July 1, 1982, states in pertinent part:

1. On March 18, 1980, at approximately 7:54 p.m., the Plaintiff was driving his automobile in Polk County, Iowa, when he was stopped and charged with speeding. A routine check of his driving record at that time indicated an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for the Plaintiff's arrest. The Plaintiff was subsequently arrested, pat searched by the arresting officer, and transported to the Polk County Jail in Des Moines, Iowa.

2. Upon arrival at the Polk County Jail, the Plaintiff was advised that he could post a bond of $135 in cash. Plaintiff did not have sufficient cash at that time to post bond, and was allowed to make a telephone call to friends, who agreed to personally come down to the Polk County Jail and post Plaintiff's bond.

3. After the Plaintiff's telephone conversation with his friends, he advised certain employees of the Polk County Jail that friends of his would be down that night to post bond for him.

4. Prior to July 1, 1980, the policy of the Polk County Sheriff's Department and the Polk County Jail was to strip search all individuals arrested and brought to the Polk County Jail for processing if those individuals were to be incarcerated or temporarily detained in the housing cells. The strip search policy of the Polk County Jail as it existed at that time, and a memorandum directing jail employees to enforce the same, are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

5. The strip search policy of the Polk County Jail was implemented to decrease and discourage the continual stream of contraband into the jail, and was deemed necessary for the security of the jail and the safety of jail employees and inmates. It is expressly stipulated that past strip searches of individuals processed at the Polk County Jail had resulted in the frequent confiscation of contraband.

6. That, after being processed at the jail, the Plaintiff was strip searched, since he was to be incarcerated pending his friends' arrival at the jail to post bond for him. The strip search included the removal of all of the Plaintiff's clothing, and required a visual inspection of the Plaintiff's body cavity.

7. The procedure followed by the Polk County Jail employees in conducting the strip search of the Plaintiff was in accordance with the attached policy of the Polk County Jail. It is expressly stipulated that:

a) The number of jail employees present at the strip search of the Plaintiff was not excessive or unreasonable;

b) the room where the strip search was conducted is a private room not visible to the jail staff or the public, and no one was present during the strip search save certain jail employees and the Plaintiff;

c) the strip search in question involved only a visual inspection of the Plaintiff's body cavity, and no fingers were inserted in any of the Plaintiff's body cavities;

d) the strip search of the Plaintiff was not arbitrary, and the Plaintiff was neither physically nor verbally harassed during the conduct of the strip search in question.

8. The authorities in the Polk County Jail had previously determined that strip searches of the type in question herein could not be conducted in a less obtrusive fashion such as with a metal detector, since such a device would not have been able to discover contraband such as drugs or weapons fashioned from non-metallic materials.

9. The strip search policy at the Polk County Jail prior to July 1, 1980, and at the time of the strip search at issue herein, was not in derogation of any provision of the Iowa Code relating to the maintenance and administration of state prison facilities.

10. Regarding the strip search policy of the Polk County Jail, the following quotations from the deposition of Chief Jailer Floyd Jones, taken on January 8, 1981, are relevant:

`Q. What was your policy prior to July 1, 1980?

A. That all individuals arrested and booked who were going to be housed or incarcerated in the housing area of the jail would be strip searched.

Q. That would include individuals who were arrested for minor traffic violations that were unable to post bond?

A. Yes, sir, everybody that was arrested that would be booked and housed inside the jail facilities.

Q. How long had that been the policy, to your recollection?

A. It was that way when I came in January 3rd of 1977.'

(Deposition of Floyd Jones taken on January 8, 1981; pages 5-6.)

11. Approximately two hours after the strip search in question, the Plaintiff's friends arrived at the Polk County Jail and posted bond for him and the Plaintiff was released from confinement.

The written strip search policies referred to in the stipulation are set out in the margin below.¹ These policies were discontinued on July 1, 1980, when a new Iowa law took effect which prohibits strip searches of persons arrested for scheduled violations or simple misdemeanors unless there is probable cause to believe the person is concealing a weapon or contraband. See Iowa Code § 804.30 (1981); Iowa Acts, 68th G.A., Ch. 1188, § 2 (1980) (bill approved May 23, 1980).

III.

It should be noted at the outset that plaintiff does not challenge the legality of all strip searches conducted by county jail officials. Rather, his constitutional challenge is limited to "the practice of strip and visual body cavity search of temporary pre-arraignment detainees charged with minor offenses." Plaintiff's brief at 3 (emphasis added). Moreover, plaintiff does not question the propriety of strip-searching such temporary detainees if there is at least a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that an individual detainee is concealing contraband or a weapon. See Hunter v. Auger, 672 F.2d 668, 674 (8th Cir.1982). Finally, there is no challenge to the manner in which the strip search of plaintiff was conducted.

Defendant concedes that pretrial detainees retain some Fourth Amendment rights upon commitment to a corrections facility, but argues that the challenged strip search policy was reasonable, even as applied to persons in plaintiff's position, and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The test of reasonableness under that amendment, as noted in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1884, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979),

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 is conducted.

As stated earlier, there is no challenge here to the manner or place in which the strip search of plaintiff was conducted. However, "a strip search, regardless how professionally and courteously conducted, is an embarrassing and humiliating experience" which involves an "extensive intrusion on personal privacy." Hunter v. Auger, supra, at 674. Therefore, the Court's task is to determine whether defendant's need for strip-searching all persons in plaintiff's position outweighed the invasion of personal rights that such a search entails.

As stated in the factual stipulation, the Polk County Jail strip search policy was implemented to reduce a continual flow of contraband into the jail which had created security risks and other institutional problems. Drugs were apparently a major concern. The seriousness of the problems associated with the entry of contraband into correctional facilities has been recognized in numerous cases and is not questioned by the Court or by plaintiff. What plaintiff does question is whether he and similarly situated persons posed a sufficient threat of introducing contraband into the jail to justify a policy that required all such persons to be subjected to a strip and body cavity search even when there was no reasonable basis for individual suspicion of concealment.

In support of its strip-search policy, defendant relies primarily on Bell v. Wolfish, supra, which upheld a rule requiring all inmates at federal...