Jones v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 05 March 2013
• Docket Number: Civil No. CCB-05-1287
• Parties: ERIC JONES, et al. v. SUSAN MURPHY, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

ERIC JONES, et al.

v.SUSAN MURPHY, et al.

Civil No. CCB-05-1287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Date March 5, 2013

MEMORANDUM

Now pending in this long-running civil rights litigation are the motions for summary judgment filed on behalf of Susan Murphy and William Jednorski, two former wardens of the Central Booking and Intake Center ("CBIC") in Baltimore City. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourth Amendment because they were subjected to a blanket policy of "suspicionless" strip searches before "presentment" to a judicial officer even though they had been arrested for minor offenses not involving weapons or contraband and were not being admitted to general population. The defendant wardens deny the existence of a blanket policy, deny they are subject to supervisory liability, and, at issue for purposes of this opinion, assert the defense of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, considering the unsettled state of the law following the Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), the motions for summary judgment will be granted.¹

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Dana West, Eric Jones, Gary Saunders, Anthony Haig, and Michael Washington were each arrested and brought to the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center ("Central Booking" or "CBIC") on charges or in cases not involving weapons, drugs, or felonyviolence at least one time between August 2002 and April 2005. Central Booking is an agency of the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, which is a division of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. It opened in 1995 and is the centralized location for booking and processing all arrestees in Baltimore City. (See ECF No. 378, Ex. 9.) Between 2002 and 2008, Central Booking processed an average of approximately 83,372 arrestees per year, or 228 per day. (See Nichols Decl., ECF No. 400-58, Ex. 251, ¶ 4.)

Central Booking is divided into two sections, the booking area and the housing area. The booking area is located on the second floor and consists of a central booking unit, a medical unit, a classification unit, a records unit, court commissioners' offices, video bail facilities, and a computerized Arrest Booking System. (See Murphy Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 12, at 28-29; ECF No. 378, Ex. 9.) It is separate from the housing area, a "maximum security facility" which makes up the third, fourth, and fifth floors and houses male pretrial detainees who have been committed by a court commissioner.² (Murphy Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 12, at 28-29; Smith Dep., ECF No. 400-36, Ex. 205, at 18-19.)

After passing through a metal detector and pat search at the facility's entrance, every arrestee brought to the booking area goes through a process that includes a brief medical exam, a more thorough search, intake at the booking window, and a fingerprint and photo identification. (See ECF No. 378, Ex. 9, at 16; Wilson Decl., ECF No. 439-1, Ex. 111, ¶ 2.) Arrestees do not enter a "general population" after the initial search during the booking process. (Murphy Dep., ECF No. 400-34, Ex. 202, at 58-59.) Rather, they are held on the booking floor in group holding cells containing up to 20-25 arrestees. (ECF No. 439-1, Ex. 111, ¶ 8.) Arrestees are not segregated within the group holding cells based on charge or criminal history (Id. at ¶ 10.) They are placed in these holding cells at any time after being searched in the search room, includingbefore going to the booking window, between the booking window and identification, and before or after medical evaluations. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Arrestees remain in group holding cells until presentment before a court commissioner, generally within 24 hours of their arrival at Central Booking. (Murphy Dep., ECF No. 400-34, Ex. 202, at 52.) Once an arrestee has appeared before a commissioner, he is either released or committed to the housing area on floors three, four, and five of Central Booking, i.e. general population. (See id. at 59; Smith Dep., ECF No. 400-36, Ex. 205, at 18.)

Despite the security procedures in place on the booking floor, contraband use and exchange among arrestees is a significant problem. Staff at Central Booking have observed arrestees attempting to bring a variety of contraband into the facility, including guns, knives, razors, drugs, cigarettes, money, and cell phones. (See, e.g., Diggs Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 32, at 22, 88-89; V. Irvine Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 38, at 60, 79, 84-87; L. Jones Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 60, at 24.) Staff who had conducted naked strip searches identified numerous items they discovered through such searches. For example, one employee found a knife, on one occasion, and drugs, on another, in the rectum of an offender. (V. Irvine Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 38, at 80-82.) Another employee found drugs on many occasions as well as lighters, money, cigarettes, and razor blades, in the vaginal area of women she searched. (B. Martin Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 61, at 28-29, 52, 61.) A third Central Booking staff member reported finding contraband - mostly drugs - on approximately half of the people he searched, including "in their buttocks, [and] under their testicles." (Reaves Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 34, at 19.)

At times, arrestees have been successful at smuggling contraband into Central Booking's group holding cells. One Central Booking employee reports confiscating cell phones from arrestees in the cells "numerous times." (Diggs Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 32, at 106.) Staff alsodescribe smelling marijuana coming from group holding cells on several occasions. (Id. at 108; V. Irvine Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 38, at 82). In one incident, an arrestee was injured by box cutters she had carried into the holding cell. (Stevenson Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 58, at 43.) Indeed, the plaintiffs themselves observed contraband use and exchange in the holding cells they shared with other arrestees. Plaintiff Aaron Ross testified that an arrestee in the group cell in which he was held pulled out a marijuana joint and matches and passed the joint around to others in the cell. (Ross Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 67, at 116.) Plaintiff Tonia Bowie stated that an arrestee in her holding cell shared drugs hidden in her bra with others in the cell. (Bowie Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 65, at 37-39.)³

The presence of drugs and other contraband at an intake facility like Central Booking creates substantial security concerns. Arrestees who use drugs could become so intoxicated that they might be difficult for staff to handle. (Cook Dep., ECF No. 439-4, Ex. 114, at 82.) Arrestees could overdose on drugs or give or sell them to others who might overdose. (Id. at 81.) In addition, arrestees who successfully sneak weapons into the facility could use them to harm other inmates or corrections officers. (Id. at 84.) The defendants have acknowledged, however, that security is less of a concern on the booking floor as compared to the housing area, and that strip searching was not really necessary to preserve security on the booking floor. (See Murphy Dep., ECF No. 400-34, Ex. 202, at 59-60; Jednorski Dep., ECF No. 400-33, Ex. 201, at 77.)

The representative plaintiffs in this case were arrested in Baltimore City without warrants on charges not involving drugs, weapons, or felony violence between August 2002 and April 2005. Each was brought to the CBIC booking floor, where he was forced to either strip naked or drop his underwear, squat, and cough as part of a search before being taken to a group holdingcell. (West Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 64, at 45; Haig Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 66, at 17-18; Saunders Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 68, at 24; Washington Dep., ECF No. 378, Ex. 69, at 57-60.) Plaintiff Anthony Haig describes also having to lift his genitalia and spread the cheeks of his buttocks before squatting in the presence of an officer and one other arrestee. (ECF No. 378, Ex. 66, at 17-18.)⁴ No contraband was found on any of the plaintiffs, nor did the defendants indicate any reason to believe the plaintiffs carried contraband into their holding cells.

According to data from Central Booking's Automated Booking System (ABS), the representative plaintiffs shared cells with numerous different arrestees while they were held at Central Booking. Dana West shared a group holding cell with at least 55 distinct arrestees upon being booked at CBIC in January 2005. Gary Saunders shared a group holding cell with 20 distinct arrestees in February 2005. Anthony Haig, Michael Washington, and Kevin Adams each shared a cell with 35, 36, and 36 distinct arrestees, respectively, in April 2005. Though the representative plaintiffs (and, by definition, the class) were arrested on minor charges, some of their cellmates had been charged with major offenses ranging from armed robbery to first-degree assault to distribution of cocaine and heroin.⁵ (See Felder Decl., ECF No. 439, Ex. 116.) All of the plaintiffs were released directly from the booking floor upon presentment before a court commissioner. None was admitted to general population on the upper floors of CBIC.⁶

The plaintiffs in this case allege that, pursuant to booking at CBIC, each was strip searched without any individualized finding of reasonable suspicion by CBIC employees that he was concealing drugs, weapons, or other contraband. (ECF No. 146, ¶¶ 9, 25-78.) The plaintiffsseek to challenge this alleged practice via a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 9.) On March 19, 2009, prior to Florence, the court certified the following class:

Each person who, during any time from May 12, 2002 until April 30, 2008, was taken to Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (a) on charges [or in cases] not involving weapons, drugs, or felony violence, and (b) strip searched (c) prior to or without presentment before a court commissioner or other judicial officer.

(ECF No. 271.) The court defined "strip search" for the purpose...