please the court a common theme in the supreme court strip search jurisprudence is wide ranging deference to the expert pina logical judgment of jell and prison officials it's the plaintiff's burden to show that the judgement of jail or prison officials is irrational or unreasonable and  belfair was a a written rule that every prisoner had to be strip searched after a contact visit in florence the supreme court's most recent pronouncement on strip search practices the rule required that every detainee or prisoner who's entering the general jail population must be strip searched in this case the threshold question is what is the policy of the jerome combs detention center for strip searching arrested we know that there's a written policy there's a section nine zero one which says everyone going to the general population must be strip searched and we know there's another written policy section three fifteen but that requires that sets out to describe the type of very complete strip search that's performed oh when the plaintiff moved for summary for qwest certification in this case the defendant said well we don't really follow the written policy  or drug related charges is found during a pat down search we also conduct strip searches whenever you're resting officer request to strip search and writing the defendant said in their affidavits that everybody who's arrested in comes to the detention center does not go into the general population that depends on a number of factors and it's a case by case decision there isn't any media i'm sorry there isn't any in to mediate form of custody as i understand the record there's just the general population and people who are booked  eight detention cells we don't know whether they're one person to person or ten person cells there's evidence there's no evidence from any jail administrator saying what your honor just said the evidence is exactly the opposite that everybody who's arrested  people who are now arrested and are undergoing the booking process but they're not they're not holding cells for any reason that there's absolutely nothing in the record to support that i think that's asserted in the brief but there's no evidence of that and proof of proving what their policy was and they came forward a closer to the cation with affidavits stating everybody does not go into the general population that depends on a variety of factors it's a case by case decision we do not have a policy like there was in florence that everybody goes into the general population what is the summary judgement record so it doesn't show anything different the defendants did not come forward with any evidence from anyone any affidavits say everybody has to go to the general population the defendants relied on the statement that there are eight detention cells period and then argue and argue no i think the language that you shouldn't have but if it's your application as far as actual set if there's a policy that requires that it's clear from florida that there would not reaching any other situation other than where there was a rather than debating court about what florence me so why not focus on what the records show the your your brief says that at least two of the plaintiffs trollish and james contend that they were strip searched and then immediately released them i'm reading you correctly that's yes i think we cite to the page of the deposition and the line of the deposition that one would think that that's your critical distinction from for us rather than debating with the court about what florence means we need to decide whether the facts of this case are within keeping drug gang signs out of the general population so if you go in the general population before after a probable cause hearing that seems irrelevant but whether somebody went into the those two people might have individual claims for an absence of reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband to support the officers request for a strip not the on request of officer policy that's the knock the drug paraphernalia policy a miss petrovitch we never saw any written request for a strip church we had an oral request that this picture of were strip searched in advance of the judicial determination of and probable cause if she was booked in release and she's not in the class what she wants in that someone who has a different status que is finding out she was in the custody of the sheriff or she was waiting for her husband to show up with bail money and she was not free to leave she wasn't somebody fall off the street who they should look at and said we have to structure too she was there she was locked up she was awaiting her husband to show up if her husband never showed up she would have been held at the jail until she s gave in florence for that like dating strip searches of anybody who goes into the general population of the jail so the probable cause asked of the class definition just doesn't have anything to do with the claim think trying to distinguish your keys from florence you've got to focus on people who are strip searched when they weren't going into the general population distinguishes our case from florence is that there is no clear injury is and if the injury is a strip search without individualized suspicion that claim might be cognized of all if the person arrested is not going into the general population if it florence  if the person is going into the general population you don't need individualized suspicion i'm not going to reargue florence but when you're concerned about a policy and you're thinking about deferring to the rationality of that policy you have to know what the policy is every about a month before we filed the summary judgment summary judgment was due and i waited for the depositions to be transcribed not i filed the papers but just your judge applied the standard for amending the complaint represent we weren't really changing our legal theories we were trying to conform the pleadings to the proof about what the suck but what the practice actually was and we're trying to create a basis for people like miss petrovitch to have her claim a individual capacity claim against whoever they are it was it would now be time barred and there would be a strong qualified immunity argument about about doing that but she has but the policy authorizes strip may please the court my name is michael condit and i represent the sheriff of kinky county in this case the district court properly held that the drawn columns detention centers policy and practice of strip searching all  if you've already said something that triggers my concern how can a district judge told you that a particular policy is constitutional before first deciding what that policy is well i think that that the district court did determine what the policy in practice knows that the different courts said it would be constitutional to strip search everyone going into the general population and therefore it must be constitutional even if that's not the policy and the defendants themselves have said that's not the policy well the first thing that goes to scream advisory opinion judges are supposed to determine the validity or not of actual policies rather than hypothetical ones and second what bugs me is where the rationale for lawrence is that you need to search everybody to keep weapons out of the general population docent search everyone how has it satisfied the rationale of florence your honor in florence the court said that the term strip search is an imprecise ter thing about the meaning of the phrase scripture i wish you to address my question and in response to your question your honor the evidence in the case from chief downey and from the correctional officers is that the practice in the drone comes the tension center is to have each inmate was going into the general population go through a shower procedure all the inmates clothes are taken off on their section i know one of the intake policy calls it to remove the inmate that's essentially nude in front of a correctional officer which technically is a strip search that's not what section three fifteen of the policy says which is a more invasive strip search procedure and our the evidence from our officers was that we do not apply section three fifteen in the intake process but for purposes of summary judgment because with the rationale of florence critically depend on everybody being strip searched who goes into the population if we have evidence that that's not what happens in kankakee how does flore apply i am inviting you to discuss the rationale of florence not to discuss something else of your own choosing and i believe that the that the florence decision does require that inmates who go into the general population that they be strip searched and the testimony in our case is that's what's happened it's not a strips the invasive strip search on the three fifteen what it is a technically a strip search in the testimony is that every every arrest he that goes i can't post back who goes into general population and can't get key goes through this procedure which requires them to disrobe the officer sees them in that state they're given a jail uniform the whole purpose is slow they don't bring contraband into the facility and that's what florence was concerned about was that when inmates are going into the general population that for security reasons correctional fishel zx have to be able to under section three fifteen carry all right let me see if i understand your position correctly you seem to be saying there's nothing to distinguish about florence because the record  everyone who goes into the general population is first observed nude in the shower is that you're saying that the record an invader was we establish is that i say that the record establishes that every inmate is disrobed whether an officer you know decides to look at that inmate earth you know that that's on a quickly each officer does that i can say that that's in the record but what the officers oh whoa whoa whoa whoa counsel if i'm not being clear who question is not what's written in the policy but what happens in fact yes and you say it's an ambiguous we established in the record that that happens in fact yes ok warrants i don't believe that with the florence decision that there's any distinction to be made with respect to that scenario i think that if the inmate under florence of an inmate is going to be housed in the general population that they can be strip searched with respect to the questions with respect regarding inmates james and petrovich james and petrovich testified in their depositions and and we assumed it true for purposes of summary judgment they still testified that they were subjected to strip searches even though they were not put into the general population as your honor noted previously do you think that they're in the defined plans i do not believe that they're in the defined class neuer or they were not put in the general population plaintiffs in their complaint when this held in a housing unit and two that the sheriff's policies required a strip search of all arrestees who would be unable to under the general population so no i do not believe that these two individuals to inmates are part of the class and visual strip search is correct or it's correct according to the written policies and the actual practice at the jail they are allowed to wait you know waiting area and that's correct they all shows up within a reasonable time they are not placed in the general population on that research they're held in one of these bookings or in the waiting area and put through the the paperwork of booking but not  saying no your honor what i'm saying is that when a person comes in and if they can't immediately post plans are going to be put into the general population because we don't have enough sal's this goes and get released but has to wait for arraignment which could be as long as two days forty eight hours that's correct there isn't that intermediate status there is not either you're in the jump jail population until you put two people in there yeah you could they could stand next to each other but these are individual cells in booking just like in the morgue case were the court upholds florence case it was a very situation where there was eight eight individual booking cells in the booking area plaintiff in the deposition of chief downing or the other officers could ask more in detail questions about you know what's the size of it what's the meeting asked of questions reply brief where we have the record sites with page and line numbers of the depositions in which the officers testified that people don't get strip searched in the shower of them people were allowed to stand behind  shower curtain when they shower i don't look at people's private parts when they take a shower which had it's a fari who'd been at the jail for twenty years was asked to do you know strip searchers ever have been conducted in the shower room nude in the shower room the i would challenge the court to find in the record anything saying that those shells in the booking area are single