Roberts v. State of Rhode Island, C.A. No. 99-259ML (D. R.I. 3/16/2000), C.A. No. 99-259ML.
| Decision Date | 16 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 99-259ML. |
| Parties | Craig L. Roberts, Sr., individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. The State Of Rhode Island, and George A. Vose, Jr., individually and in his capacity as Director of the R.I. Department of Corrections, and Roberta Richmond, individually and in her capacity as the Warden of The Women's Facility at the Adult Correctional Institutions, and Albert Gardiner, individually and as Warden of the Intake Services Center at the Adult Correctional Institution and Craig L. Roberts, Sr., individually, v. Two Unknown Rhode Island State Troopers whose names will become known in the course of pretrial discovery. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
This case is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability on Counts One and Two of his First Amended Complaint. The State has also moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the plaintiff's motion and denies the defendants' motion.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is "genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-movant, and a fact is "material" if it has the potential to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Where the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the standard of review does not buckle. See Blackie v. State of Maine, 75 F.3d 716, 721 (1st Cir. 1996) (). The trial court must consider each motion separately, viewing the facts and drawing all inferences in a light that is most favorable to the non-movant. See Reich v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1997).
In the early morning hours of April 20, 1999, the plaintiff, Craig Roberts ("Roberts"), was a passenger in a vehicle driven by an individual named Steven Rizzo ("Rizzo"). State police troopers John Gibbs and John Allen stopped the vehicle on Bellevue Avenue in Newport, Rhode Island, because the registration stickers on its license plate had expired. The troopers checked the occupants' identification, and allowed the vehicle to pull away after Rizzo produced the proper registration stickers.
As the vehicle pulled away, the troopers stopped it again and asked Roberts to exit the car. The troopers advised Roberts that the computer had revealed that he was subject to an outstanding body attachment.2 The troopers performed a pat-down frisk, which revealed no weapons, and placed Roberts in the back of the cruiser. Roberts then produced a carbon-copy of a family court order issued by magistrate George DiMuro, dated September 1, 1998, withdrawing the body attachment. After relaying this information to dispatch, the troopers declined to release Roberts and transported him to the Intake Services Center ("ISC") at the Adult Correctional Institution ("ACI") in Cranston, Rhode Island.
Upon arriving at the ISC, the troopers transferred Roberts to the correctional officer on duty. He was placed in a temporary holding cell and the committing officer completed a "New Inmate Committing Sheet." The officer photographed Roberts, took his fingerprints, and requested that he submit to a blood test. Roberts refused the blood test.
At some point during the committing procedure, a member or members of the ISC staff subjected Roberts to a strip search in accordance with two policies promulgated by the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Pursuant to those policies, Roberts was told to remove his clothing one item at a time for inspection. The member or members of the ISC staff completed a "Scars and Tattoo Sheet." The ISC staff member or members ordered Roberts to run his fingers through his hair. They then inspected the inside of his mouth, the inside of his nose, his hands, and his feet. Roberts was also ordered to spread his buttocks, whereupon the officer or officers visually inspected his body cavity. Noone touched Roberts during the course of the search. The ISC staff member or members then gave Roberts prison garments and placed him in a segregated cell because he had refused the blood test.
The ISC staff subjected Roberts to a similar search before transporting him to the Garrahy Judicial Complex later that morning. It is unclear from the deposition transcripts and Rule 12.1 submissions whether the area in which Roberts was searched was secluded from public view, although Roberts's deposition does suggest that another individual was next to him during the second strip search procedure. After showing the carbon-copy of the order withdrawing the body attachment to a sheriff in the Garrahy Complex, Roberts was released from custody. He was not presented before a judicial officer.
There are two policies in issue in this case, both of which were in effect at the time of Roberts's search. The first policy, dated June 15, 1984, is located in a DOC "Operational Memorandum" numbered 5.15.05-2. The subject of the memorandum is the "Reception and Identification for Awaiting Trial and Newly Sentenced Inmates." Part V.B. of that policy provides as follows:
B. SEARCH OF INMATE AND BELONGINGS:
Each new commitment's person, clothing, and personal belongings shall be thoroughly searched for contraband.
The commitment officer shall thoroughly search the inmate's body to include examination of hair, arms, hands, ears, mouth, nose; visual examination of groin and rectum; toes and soles of feet.
Any artificial limbs, dentures, or bandages shall be carefully examined.
The new commitment's clothing and belongings shall be thoroughly searched to include examination of all pockets, cuffs, seams, hat bands, waistbands, zippers, and collars; all clothing shall be turned inside-out and linings checked; soles, heels, socks, and inside of all shoes shall be examined; the contents of any and all luggage, packages, bags, etc. shall be thoroughly examined.
The second policy in issue derives from a DOC "Policy and Procedure" dated January 27, 1997, numbered 9.14-1. The subject of the memorandum is "Procedures for Detecting and Controlling Contraband On or In the Possession of Inmates." Part III.B.2. of that policy provides as follows:
2. Strip Searches
Strip searches of inmates will always be conducted for objective purposes only and will always be carried out in an expeditious and efficient manner. They will never be done for punitive purposes or as a form of harassment.
Strip searches shall be conducted under the direction of the Shift Supervisor or other Superior Officer, or as required by policy.
Two (2) Correctional Officers shall be assigned to conduct a strip search.
Strip searches shall be conducted by officers of the same sex as the inmates being searched, except during emergencies.
The following search plan shall be followed when conducting a strip search. The officer will examine:
All pockets;
Run fingers over linings, seams, collars, cuffs, waistbands, and fly;
Shoes, inside soles and heels;
Socks, turning them inside out;
False teeth, artificial limbs, plaster casts;
Inmates will run their fingers through their hair. Officers will check for wigs and hairpieces;
Inmates ears will be checked inside and out;
The officer will look inside the inmate's nose;
Inmates will open their mouths, lift their tongues and roll each lip, for the officer's view;
Inmates will lift their penises and testicles on the officer's command to provide a clear view of the groin area;
Inmates will then lift their feet so that the officer can clearly see between the toes and the soles;
Inmate's hands will be visually inspected;
Inmates will be required to bend over and spread the rectum to provide a clear view of the area.
Roberts's summary judgment motion asks this Court to declare these policies unconstitutional; the state seeks precisely the opposite.
The DOC operates the ACI, which currently consists of seven facilities with a total capacity of 3,858 beds. One of the seven facilities that the DOC operates is the ISC. The ISC serves as the receiving facility for all males committed to the care, custody, and control of the DOC. The Rhode Island State Police, sheriffs, local police departments, United States Marshals Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service all bring commitments to the ISC.
Commitments housed at the ISC fall into several categories. Some are pretrial detainees, some are newly sentenced inmates who await classification to other facilities, some are pretrial protective custody detainees, and others are sentenced protective custody inmates. The length of time an inmate remains committed to the ISC is approximately 16.8 days.
It is a standard policy at the ISC to strip search each male processed as a commitment. Nevertheless, if someone bails a commitment out of the facility within a very short4 period of time, he does not enter the general population and is not subjected to the routine strip search. The correctional officers at the ISC search inmates in accordance with the aforementioned DOC policies. Those officers receive training about the strip search procedure in video and lecture form.
Rhode Island has a unified prison system. This means that there are no regional facilities to house pretrial detainees before they are tried and sentenced. The ISC is, therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial