Williams v. State, 84-1750

• Decision Date: 18 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1750,84-1750
• Citation: 378 N.W.2d 894
• Parties: Jerry Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 894

378 N.W.2d 894

Jerry Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v.STATE of Iowa, Appellee.

No. 84-1750.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 18, 1985.

Charles L. Harrington, Appellate Defender, and B. John Burns, Asst. Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Gordon E. Allen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sarah J. Coats, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and McGIVERIN, LARSON, CARTER, and WOLLE, JJ.

LARSON, Justice.

In this postconviction relief case, the petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding resulting from his refusal to allow a body cavity search which, he claims, violated his rights under the fourth amendment.The district court denied relief, and we affirm.

Jerry Lee Williams was confined, in a single-occupancy cell, in the protective custody area at the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison.The "protective custody" area is not fully described in the record, but it appears it is a part of the prison complex where inmates are separated from the general prison population.

Two corrections officers went to Williams' cell and asked if he wanted to go to an exercise area.He said he did and began to undress for a strip search.He testified about the incident:

[S]ince I had been locked down so long, I don't have to be told what to do.So I started putting my clothes in the bars and stripping down naked for them to go through the strip search procedures--standard strip search procedures.I was told to open my mouth, and at that time I was chewing some snuff, and they wanted to see what was inside my mouth.I said it is snuff in there.So they were satisfied with that.So they told me to raise my arms, and I raised my arms so they could look up my armpits or whatever, and I was told to turn around and raise my feet slowly, and then before I could comply with the turn around--before I could comply with the turn around, I was told: "Do you want to squat and cough now?"I was going to comply with the squat and cough, because I have had that squat and cough before coming to [cellhouse] 218 when I'm dealing with the CERT team, and before I could even complete the squat and cough, I was told: "Do you want to bend over and spread your cheeks?"That is the way it was said.Then I said: "I'm not no bitch."

Williams' response was considered to be a refusal to comply, resulting in prison disciplinary proceedings against him.

The printed strip search policy of the penitentiary stated its objective to be "[t]o retard passing of inmate contraband and lessen the possibility of an inmate to conceal a weapon upon his person."The search was required, under the policy, to be made by a member of the same sex, in an area "as private as is possible" without jeopardizing the safety of the searchers or impairing the effectiveness of the search.The search policy then set out the procedure to be followed:

3.The inmate will be instructed to remove all clothing and hand it to one of the searchers.

4.While remaining in visual contact with the subject, (to prevent discarding any contraband) the clothing will be thoroughly searched and then set aside.

5.Subject will face the searcher(s), holding both hands in the air, palms ahead, and fingers spread apart.Slowly inspect the inmate from head to toe, looking for concealed items and needlemarks etc.

6.Have subject shake out his hair and turn his head to the side so that the ear canal can be inspected, then turn his head so that the process can be repeated.

7.Then have subject open his mouth, stick out his tongue, and roll upper and lower lips.

8.Have subject lift penis and scrotum to inspect the crotch area.

9.While keeping his hands in the air, have the subject turn around and lift one foot at a time so that the bottom of the foot, arch area, and the toes can be inspected.

10.Then have the subject [sic] put their hands on their buttocks, bend over, and spread the buttocks for a visual inspection of the anal area.

11.Squat and cough.

The squat and cough procedure is optional for the strip search.Keep in mind the reasons for this search and the destination of the inmate.It should always be used after a visit, for an inmate entering, returning, or leaving the institution, or when entering a maximum security cellhouse.

a. Keeping his hands in the air and both feet firmly on the ground and spread apart (shoulder width) have the inmate squat, so the buttocks are even with the knees.

b. While in this position, have the inmate cough several times while observing the anal area for any signs of concealment.

NOTE: The inmates [sic] is to be under close visual observation from start to finish during the strip search procedures.

The strip search procedure also provided for additional steps to be taken in the event evidence of contraband was found:

If it is determined or reasonably ascertained that the inmate has contraband concealed in a body cavity, he will be placed in a side room of the hospital or an equally secure area until he can be examined by a Physician or a Physician's Assistant.Criteria for this determination can include:

1.Visual observation during strip search.

2.Refusal of the inmate to cooperate with all or part of the search.

3.Investigative information.

At the outset, the State argues that the fourth amendment issue was not raised in district court.It points to Williams' postconviction petition which merely alleged that the search was "unconstitutional" under Goff v. Nix, No. 84-129-E(S.D.IowaDec. 21, 1984)(an unreported federal district court opinion filed after this incident and before Williams' postconviction hearing).The State argues that the order in Goff, enjoining certain body cavity searches, was filed after this event, thus it could not have been violated in Williams' case.Since no authorities other than Goff were cited by Williams in support of his constitutional argument, the State contends the constitutional argument must fail.The district court took this approach in denying postconviction relief.

We do not agree.Williams' reference to Goff in his petition, and later at his postconviction hearing, alerted the trial court and opposing counsel to the constitutional argument, because Goff was based on the fourth amendment.We believe these oblique references to the fourth amendment at least minimally raised the constitutional issue, and we therefore proceed to a discussion of it on the merits.

Postconviction relief actions are treated as special proceedings at law.Kelly v. Nix, 329 N.W.2d 287, 291(Iowa1983).When a fundamental constitutional question is raised, the court's review is de novo in light of the totality of the circumstances.Id.See alsoThomas v. State, 339 N.W.2d 166, 167(Iowa1983);Snethen v. State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14(Iowa1981);Fichtner v. Iowa State Penitentiary, 285 N.W.2d 751, 752(Iowa1979).The petitioner has the burden of proof to show a constitutional violation by a preponderance of the evidence.Stanford v. Iowa State Reformatory, 279 N.W.2d 28, 31(Iowa1979).See alsoThomas, 339 N.W.2d at 167;Kelly, 329 N.W.2d at 291.

Prisoners are not divested of their constitutional rights upon their confinement in a correctional institution.Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 950(1974)("There is no iron curtain drawn between the constitution and prisoners of this country.").

Fourth amendment rights of prisoners, however, raise special problems.In these cases, the Supreme Court has adopted a balancing test, under which the security of the prison officers, inmates, and members of the general public are weighed against the constitutional rights of the prisoner:

The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment 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.A detention facility is a unique place fraught with serious security dangers.Smuggling of money, drugs, weapons, and other contraband is all too common an occurrence.And inmate attempts to secrete these items into the facility by concealing them in body cavities are documented in this record, and in other cases.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1884, 60 L.Ed.2d 447, 481(1979)(citations omitted).

The restricted scope of fourth amendment rights, in a prison setting, is illustrated by a recent case in which the Supreme Court held that a prisoner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison cell, saying:

Notwithstanding our caution in approaching claims that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable in a given context, we hold that society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that a prisoner might have in his prison cell and that, accordingly, the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.The recognition of privacy rights for prisoners in their individual cells simply cannot be reconciled with the concept of incarceration and the needs and objectives of penal institutions.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, ---, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3200, 82 L.Ed.2d 393, 402-03(1984).

Along the same line, the Supreme Court has at least intimated that a prisoner also might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in body cavity searches.It said in Bell that,

assuming for present purposes that inmates, both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees, retain some Fourth Amendment rights upon commitment to a corrections facility ... we nonetheless conclude that these [visual body cavity] searches [in this case] do not violate that Amendment.

441 U.S. at 558, 99 S.Ct. at 1884, 60 L.Ed.2d at 481(emphasis added)(citations...