Former Cook County Detainees Win Strip Search Lawsuit

By Marcus Gilmer in News on Feb 25, 2009 8:45PM

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly sided with several thousand former Cook County Jail inmates in a lawsuit against the jail, claiming the strip searches they were subjected to upon entering the jail were humiliating and often done in deplorable conditions. The suit was officially brought by former inmates Kim Young, Ronald Johnson, and William Jones on behalf of themselves and numerous other prisoners against Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan and Sheriff’s employees Callie Baird, Scott Kurtovich, and Salvador Godinez (collectively the Sheriff Defendants) for violating their rights with these searches upon their arrival at the jail.

The Chicago Progressive Examiner took a look at Kennelly's decision [PDF] and listed some of the more important allegations:

[Plaintiff Attorney Michael] Kanovitz submitted as evidence sworn declarations from more than 500 men who were subjected to strip searches. The men alleged that:

• The searches were so crowded that they often made physical contact with one another
• The hallways where they were strip-searched were poorly ventilated and beset by strong, foul odors
• Bodily fluids such as vomit, diarrhea, and blood were often present during the searches
• Entire groups were sometimes required to repeat the strip search, or parts of it, after one detainee made a mistake during the process
• Guards used insults or abusive language during strip searches, including insults about body odor, anatomy, sexual orientation, and race
• Dogs were used to threaten, frighten, and intimidate detainees during strip searches; at times the dogs were not leashed or muzzled

While the defendants submitted 2,000 pages of reports about contraband found on inmates during searches, but Judge Kennelly says the defendants "refer to the 2000 pages of contraband reports as a group without providing detail regarding how many of those reports concern drugs, weapons, or other dangerous items."

Kennelly cited previous cases in showing the inmates Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

The Seventh Circuit has stated that “the balancing test prescribed in [Bell] does not validate strip searches in detention settings per se.” Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1272 (7th Cir. 1983). There are “few exercises of authority by the state that intrude on the citizen’s privacy and dignity as severely as” visual body cavity and strip searches. Id. (citing authority describing strip searches as “demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing, repulsive, signifying degradation and submission”). “The more intrusive the search, the closer governmental authorities must come to demonstrating probable cause for believing that the search will uncover the object for which the search is being conducted.” Id. at 1273 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 293 U.S. 1, 18 n.15 (1968)).

In Mary Beth G., the plaintiffs claimed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a City of Chicago policy to strip search all female detainees placed in Chicago Police Department detention facilities, without individualized suspicion for conducting the searches. Id. at 1267-68, 1273. The plaintiffs had been charged with misdemeanors and were being detained until they could make bond. Id. at 1272. The city attempted to justify the strip search policy based on security concerns. Id. at 1272-73. There was not, however, evidence that the women being strip searched posed serious security risks. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit held the searches “bore an insubstantial relationship to security needs so that, when balanced against . . . privacy interests, the searches cannot be considered ‘reasonable.’” Id. at 1273.

Following Bell, courts of appeal have generally ruled that a detainee held on a misdemeanor charge not related to weapons or drugs may not be strip searched absent individualized reasonable suspicion that he or she is carrying such contraband.

Kennelly also noted the difference in the way male and female inmates were handled in searches and declared that rights secured by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Still, while this class action suit has been ruled on, the Chicago Progressive Examiner points out that the case is not settled.

But Kanovitz pointed out that the case is far from over; the judge left several issues to be resolved at a jury trial, particularly questions over whether male detainees have been appropriately treated since privacy screens were installed — and after a trial victory there would still be the process of determining a monetary award for his clients.

Officials for the Cook County Sheriff's Office have made no public comment on the ruling.