UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTFUCT OF OREGON

DARRELL ROLLINS, both individually and on behalf of a class of : others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CLATSOP COUNTY, TOM BERGIN, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff,
Defendants.

Civil Action Number
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. For at least the past several years, the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Clatsop County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendant Tom Bergin. It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In fact, several judges in this Judicial District, as well as

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have recently held that blanket strip search policies/practices like those in dispute in this case are unconstitutional. In short, the policy of Clatsop County and the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department of forcing those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Clatsop County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is degrading, insensitive and unnecessary.
Darrell Rollins brings this action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of his civil rights and those of the class members he proposes to represent. Mr. Rollins was taken in on allegations of Resisting Arrest. Mr. Rollins was transported to the Clatsop County Jail and was subjected to a strip search, in violation of his right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He seeks monetary damages for himself and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriffs Department's policies/practices are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Clatsop County and the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Darrell Rollins, through counsel, hereby complains as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. $ 5
1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the
United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 5 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 8 2201, as it is

filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government.
2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 8 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to
Plaintiff'sclaims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Darrell Rollins ("Rollins") resides in Wahkiakum County, Washington. On or about. November 20, 2005, he was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of Resisting Arrest. 4. Defendant Clatsop County (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriffs Department, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Clatsop County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel. including those working in the Clatsop County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Clatsop County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Oregon. 5 . The Clatsop County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is a County Sheriffs Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriffs Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Clatsop County Jail ("CTCJ"). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff :j Department, together with Clatsop County was responsible for the polices, practices,

supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the CTCJ, and was

responsilble for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department

personnel, including those working in the CTCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto,

Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with Clatsop County, was responsible for enforcing

the rules of the Clatsop County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department personnel

employed in the CTCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of

Oregon.

61. Defendant Tom Bergin is the duly elected Sheriff of Clatsop County, and, as such, is

a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the CTCJ

exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Bergin is made a Defendant in this action in both his

individual and official capacities.

7.

Sheriff Bergin will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendant."

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(l), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuials who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon
their entry into the Clatsop County Jail.
9. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Clatsop County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department and Clatsop County. The class period commences on November 8, 2005 and extends to the date on which the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department and/or the County of Clatsop are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
10. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under
Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for
maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
1 I. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon
information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations
who are placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail every month - all of whom are
members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class
totals at least 1,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple
occasions.

12. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class rrsmbers are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Clatsop County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
13. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants' conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
14. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
15. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are (adverseto the interests of the members of the Class.
16. Plaintiff has retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of civil rights litigation.
17. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
118. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks c1,asscertification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to

the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail. In short, the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Clatsop County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
19. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
20. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants' written and/or defacto policylpractice of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Clatsop County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or defacto policy existed during the class period.
211. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expensc to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.

22. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendaints' flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defenda:ntshave maintained their illegal strip search regimen for the past several years.
23. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 24. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as tlne Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 25. Upon information and belief, the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de jacto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Clatsop County Jail (by forcing them to remove their clothing for a visual inspection of their bodies and/or forcing lhem to submit to a visual inspection of their body cavities) and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches." 26. The County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. This judicial circuit has stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip search individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations absent particularized, reasonable suspicion, with this principle being clearly established in Kennedy v. Los Angeles P.D., 901 F2d 702, 711, (9thCir. 1990).

27. The Defendants' written andlor de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesalle strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectualed and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
28. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, andlor the circumstances of the arrest.
2:9. Upon information and belief, the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, andlor failed to rectify a written andlor de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or defacto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
30. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Clatsop County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de jucto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches - each member of

the class, including the named Plaintiff - has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliatiion, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Rollins (Clatsop County) 32. Mr. Darrell Rollins's experience is representative of the class at large. On November 20, 2005., Mr. Rollins was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail. 33. Mr. Rollins was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Rollins removed all of his clothing, including his underpants. 34. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Rollins to lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Rollins' genitals and rectal cavity. Mr. Rollins was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower. 35. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Rollins was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Rollins that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Rollins has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law
-- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under of Color of State Law --
37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraplhs 1 through 37.
38. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
39. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Clatsop County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiff and class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to orderldirect Clatsop County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.
40. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Clatsop and the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department. As such, the County of Clatsop is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
4.1. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Bergin is responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Clatsop County Jail, and is responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Roberts is individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.

42. Sheriff Bergin knew that strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowing,ly. and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
43. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
4.4.As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class have been irreparably injured.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
-- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 44.
46. The policy, custom and practice of the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department, the County of Clatsop and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directinglconducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Clats'op County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
47. Plaintiff and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Clatsop and the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
-- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
4.8. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 48.
4.9. The policy, custom and practice of the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department, the County of Clatsop and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directinglconducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Clatsop County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.

50. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Clatsop County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff.
51. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
52. Plaintiff demands that the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Clatsop County Corrections Officers immedialtely desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 53. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional. 54. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Clatsop and the Clatsop County Sheriffs Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Clatsop County.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 55. The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Darrell Rollins, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of

others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant him the following relief:

A.

An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

B.

A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs First Cause of

Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each named Plaintiff and each

member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both

an individual and a class wide basis.

C.

A judgment against Defendant Bergin on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for

$1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

D.

A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Clatsop and

the Clatslop County Sheriffs Department's policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity

searching all detainees entering the Clatsop County Jail, regardless of the crime charged or

suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper.

E.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to

strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent

particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing

weapons or other contraband.

F.

A monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 5 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

Dated: November 8, 2007

I Respectfully submitted by: ,-
Leonard R. Berman, OSB # 96040 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 23 Page ID#: 67

Leonard R. Berman 4711 SW Huber St., Suite E-3 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 473-8787 OSB # 96040 Easyrabbi@yahoo.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

____________________________________

:

DARRELL ROLLINS, DEBBI DAVIS, :

TYLER KING, NOEL LEROUX,

:

DAVID MENKEN, STEPHEN

:

SCHWANBECK, BRANDI STEPHENS, :

All both individually and on behalf of a :

class of others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

CLATSOP COUNTY,

:

TOM BERGIN,

:

both individually and in his

:

official capacity as Sheriff ,

:

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Civil Action Number 07-1678 KI
CLASS ACTION AM. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION

This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured

to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United

States of America. For at least the past several years, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department

has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Clatsop County Jail and are

placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 23 Page ID#: 68

and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendant Tom Bergin.
It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In fact, several judges in this Judicial District, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have recently held that blanket strip search policies/practices like those in dispute in this case are unconstitutional. In short, the policy of Clatsop County and the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department of forcing those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Clatsop County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is degrading, insensitive and unnecessary.
Darrell Rollins, Debbi Davis, Tyler King, Noel Leroux, David Menken, Stephen Schwanbeck, and Brandi Stephens bring this action on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of his civil rights and those of the class members he proposes to represent. Mr. Rollins was taken in on allegations of Resisting Arrest. Mr. Rollins was transported to the Clatsop County Jail and was subjected to a strip search, in violation of his right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He seeks monetary damages for himself and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriff’s Department’s policies/practices are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Clatsop County and the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Darrell Rollins, et al through counsel, hereby complains as follows:

AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 3 of 23 Page ID#: 69

JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Darrell Rollins (“Rollins”) resides in Wahkiakum County, Oregon. On or about November 20, 2005, he was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of Resisting Arrest. 4. Plaintiff Debbi Davis (“Davis”) resides in Clatsop County, Oregon. On or about April 18, 2008, she was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of Hindering Prosecution. 5. Plaintiff Brandi Stephens (“Stephens”) resides in Clatsop County, Oregon. On or about March 17, 2006, she was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for being a fugitive on DUI and Theft charges.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 4 of 23 Page ID#: 70

6. Plaintiff Tyler King (“King”) resides in Snohomish County, Washington. On or about June 16, 2006, he was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of a fugitive warrant for Assault 2 and Endangering Children.
7. Plaintiff Noel Leroux (“Leroux”) resides inClatsop County, Oregon. On or about January 19, 2008, he was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of DUI.
8. Plaintiff David Menken (“Menken”) resides in Clatsop County, Oregon. On or about February t, 2006, he was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of Resisting Arrest.
9. Plaintiff Stephen Schwanbeck (“Schwanbeck”) resides in Clatsop County, Oregon. On or about September 21, 2006, he was housed at the Clatsop County Jail for allegation of DUI.
10. Defendant Clatsop County (the “County”) is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriff’s Department, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Clatsop County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department personnel, including those working in the Clatsop County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Clatsop County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Oregon.
11. The Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’s Department”) is a County Sheriff’s Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff’s Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Clatsop County Jail (“CTCJ”). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 5 of 23 Page ID#: 71

Sheriff’s Department, together with Clatsop County was responsible for the polices, practices,

supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the CTCJ, and was

responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff’s Department

personnel, including those working in the CTCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto,

Defendant Sheriff’s Department, together with Clatsop County, was responsible for enforcing

the rules of the Clatsop County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff’s Department personnel

employed in the CTCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of

Oregon.

12. Defendant Tom Bergin is the duly elected Sheriff of Clatsop County, and, as such, is

a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the CTCJ

exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Bergin is made a Defendant in this action in both his

individual and official capacities.

13.

Sheriff Bergin will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendant.”

AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 6 of 23 Page ID#: 72
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
14. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon
their entry into the Clatsop County Jail.
15. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Clatsop County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department and Clatsop County. The class period commences on November 8, 2005 and extends to the date on which the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department and/or the County of Clatsop are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
16. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under
Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for
maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
17. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon
information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations
who are placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail every month – all of whom are
members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class
totals at least 1,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple
occasions.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 7 of 23 Page ID#: 73

18. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Clatsop County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
19. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’ conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
20. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
21. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
22. Plaintiff has retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of civil rights litigation.
23. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
24. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to

AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 8 of 23 Page ID#: 74

the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail. In short, the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Clatsop County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
25. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
26. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy/practice of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Clatsop County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
27. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 9 of 23 Page ID#: 75
28. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for the past several years.
29. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 10 of 23 Page ID#: 76
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 30. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 31. Upon information and belief, the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Clatsop County Jail (by forcing them to remove their clothing for a visual inspection of their bodies and/or forcing them to submit to a visual inspection of their body cavities) and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as “strip searches.” 32. The County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. This judicial circuit has stated repeatedly that state officials may not strip search individuals charged with misdemeanors or violations absent particularized, reasonable suspicion, with this principle being clearly established in Kennedy v. Los Angeles P.D., 901 F2d 702, 711, (9th Cir. 1990).

AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 11 of 23 Page ID#: 77
33. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
34. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
35. Upon information and belief, the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
36. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Clatsop County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches – each member of

AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 12 of 23 Page ID#: 78

the class, including the named Plaintiffs – has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Rollins 38. Mr. Darrell Rollins’s experience is representative of the class at large. On November 20, 2005, Mr. Rollins was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail. 39. Mr. Rollins was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Rollins removed all of his clothing, including his underpants. 40. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Rollins to lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Rollins’ genitals and rectal cavity. Mr. Rollins was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower. 41. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Rollins was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Rollins that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Rollins has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff King 43. Mr. Tyler King’s experience is representative of the class at large. On June 16, 2006, Mr. Tyler King was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 13 of 23 Page ID#: 79
44. Mr. Tyler King was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Tyler King removed all of his clothing, including his underpants.
45. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Tyler King to lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Tyler King’s genitals and rectal cavity. Mr. Tyler King was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower.
46. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Tyler King was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Tyler King that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
47. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Tyler King has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Leroux 48. Mr. Tyler King’s experience is representative of the class at large. On January 19, 2008, Mr. Noel Leroux was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail. 49. Mr. Noel Leroux was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Noel Leroux removed all of his clothing, including his underpants. 50. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Noel Leroux to lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the

AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 14 of 23 Page ID#: 80
Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Noel Leroux’s genitals and rectal cavity. Mr. Noel Leroux was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower.
51. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Noel Leroux was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Noel Leroux that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Noel Leroux has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Schwanbeck 53. Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck’s experience is representative of the class at large. On September 21, 2006, Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail. 54. Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck removed all of his clothing, including his underpants. 55. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck to lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck’s genitals and rectal cavity. Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 15 of 23 Page ID#: 81
56. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Menken 58. Mr. David Menken’s experience is representative of the class at large. On February 7, 2006, Mr. David Menken was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail. 59. Mr. David Menken was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. David Menken removed all of his clothing, including his underpants. 60. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. David Menken to lift his testicles, turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of his buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Mr. David Menken’s genitals and rectal cavity. Mr. David Menken was then provided with a jail uniform after taking a shower. 61. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. David Menken was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Stephen Schwanbeck that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 16 of 23 Page ID#: 82
62. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. David Menken has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Davis
63. Ms. Debbi Davis’ experience is representative of the class at large. On April 18, 2008, Ms. Debbi Davis was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail.
64. Ms. Debbi Davis was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Ms. Debbi Davis removed all of her clothing, including her underpants.
65. On the above-mentioned occasion, Debbi Davis was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Ms. Debbi Davis removed all of her clothing, including her underpants.
66. On this occasion, a Corrections Officer then instructed Ms. Debbi Davis to turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of her buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Ms. Debbi Davis’ genitals and rectal cavity. Ms. Debbi Davis was then provided with a jail uniform.
67. On each occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Ms. Debbi Davis was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Ms. Debbi Davis that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

16

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 17 of 23 Page ID#: 83

68. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Ms. Debbi Davis has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Stephens
69. Ms. Brandi Stephens’ experience is representative of the class at large. On March 17, 2006, Ms. Brandi Stephens’ was strip and cavity searched in the Clatsop County Jail.
70. Ms. Brandi Stephens’ was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Ms. Brandi Stephens removed all of her clothing, including her underpants.
71. On the above-mentioned occasion, Brandi Stephens’ was moved into a shower area in the Clatsop County Jail and ordered to disrobe. As a Corrections Officer watched, Ms. Brandi Stephens’ removed all of her clothing, including her underpants.
72. On this occasion, a Corrections Officer then instructed Ms. Brandi Stephens to turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of her buttocks and squat while coughing, with the Corrections Officer conducting a visual inspection of Ms. Brandi Stephens’ genitals and rectal cavity. Ms. Brandi Stephens was then provided with a jail uniform.
73. On each occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Ms. Brandi Stephens’ was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Ms. Brandi Stephens that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff’s Department policy, practice and custom, Ms. Brandi Stephens has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 18 of 23 Page ID#: 84

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law
-- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid Constitutional Deprivations Under of Color of State Law --
75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and realleg each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 74.
76. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
77. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Clatsop County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiff and class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Clatsop County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.
78. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Clatsop and the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department. As such, the County of Clatsop is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
79. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Bergin is responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Clatsop County Jail, and is responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Roberts is individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 19 of 23 Page ID#: 85
80. Sheriff Bergin knew that strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
81. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
82. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class have been irreparably injured.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 20 of 23 Page ID#: 86
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 82.
84. The policy, custom and practice of the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Clatsop and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Clatsop County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
85. Plaintiff and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Clatsop and the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 85.
87. The policy, custom and practice of the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department, the County of Clatsop and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Clatsop County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 21 of 23 Page ID#: 87
88. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Clatsop County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff.
89. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
90. Plaintiff demands that the County of Clatsop, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Clatsop County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Clatsop County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 22 of 23 Page ID#: 88

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 91. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional. 92. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Clatsop and the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Clatsop County.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 93. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Darrell Rollins et al, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a

class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following

relief:

A.

An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

B.

A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each named Plaintiff and each

member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both

an individual and a class wide basis.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI Document 16 Filed 09/18/08 Page 23 of 23 Page ID#: 89

C.

A judgment against Defendant Bergin on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for

$1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

D.

A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Clatsop and

the Clatsop County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity

searching all detainees entering the Clatsop County Jail, regardless of the crime charged or

suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper.

E.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to

strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent

particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing

weapons or other contraband.

F.

A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

Dated: September 18, 2008

Respectfully submitted by:
S//S Leonard R. Berman
______________________ Leonard R. Berman, OSB # 96040 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI As of 05/08/2013 01:23 PM PDT Page 1 of 6 Page ID#: <pageID>

U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Portland (3)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−01678−KI

TERMINATED

Rollins v. Clatsop County et al Assigned to: Judge Garr M. King Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Date Terminated: 05/05/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Darrell Rollins both individually and on bhalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 10/15/2008

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman Law Office of Leonard R. Berman 4711 SW Huber Street Suite E−3 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 473−8787 Fax: (503) 473−8787 Email: easyrabbi@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Debbie Davis

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tyler King TERMINATED: 10/15/2008

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Noel Leroux TERMINATED: 11/18/2008

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
David Menken TERMINATED: 10/15/2008

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stephen Schwanbeck

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brandi Stephens

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI As of 05/08/2013 01:23 PM PDT Page 2 of 6 Page ID#: <pageID>

V. Defendant Clatsop County
Defendant Tom Bergin individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff
Counter Claimant Clatsop County
Counter Claimant Tom Bergin individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff

represented by Steven A. Kraemer Hart Wagner, LLP 1000 SW Broadway Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 222−4499 Fax: (503) 222−2301 Email: sak@hartwagner.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis J. Mayor Law Offices of Michael L. Rosenbaum 1826 NE Broadway Portland, OR 97232 (503) 288−8000 Fax: (503) 288−8046 Email: travis@mayorlaw.com TERMINATED: 09/30/2008
represented by Steven A. Kraemer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis J. Mayor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2008
represented by Steven A. Kraemer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis J. Mayor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2008
represented by Steven A. Kraemer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis J. Mayor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2008

V.
Counter Defendant
Darrell Rollins both individually and on bhalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 10/15/2008

represented by Leonard Randolph Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI As of 05/08/2013 01:23 PM PDT Page 3 of 6 Page ID#: <pageID>

Date Filed 11/08/2007 11/08/2007
12/14/2007 01/24/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008
03/20/2008 07/24/2008 07/24/2008 07/25/2008
09/05/2008 09/05/2008
09/16/2008 09/18/2008

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. Jury Trial Requested. Filing Fee in amount of $350 collected. Receipt No. 18356 issued..Filed by Darrell Rollins against Clatsop County, Tom Bergin. (ntm) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
2 Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment to the Honorable Michael W. Mosman. Discovery is to be completed by 3/7/2008. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 4/7/2008. Pretrial Order is due by 4/7/2008. Ordered by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (ntm) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
3 Notice of Case Reassignment: This case has been reassigned from Judge Michael W. Mosman to Judge Garr M. King. (eo) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
4 Waiver of Service of Summons Returned Executed by Clatsop County waiver sent on 1/23/2008; Tom Bergin waiver sent on 1/23/2008. Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
5 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines. Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
6 Affidavit of Travis J. Mayor in Support of Motion. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines 5 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
7 ORDER − Defendants' Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines 5 is GRANTED as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 9/4/2008. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 10/6/2008. Pretrial Order is due by 10/6/2008. Setting a Telephone Rule 16 Conference for 9/3/2008 at 09:15AM. The Court will initiate the call to the following parties: Leonard Randolph Berman (503) 473−8787 and Steven A. Kraemer (503) 222−4499. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
8 Answer to Complaint with Jury Demand. Filed by Clatsop County, Tom Bergin. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
9 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
10 Declaration of Leonard Berman. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines 9 .) (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
11 ORDER − Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines 9 as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 12/1/2008. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 1/5/2009. Pretrial Order is due by 1/5/2009. Resetting the Telephone Rule 16 Conference from 9/3/2008 to 11/18/2008 at 09:45AM. The Court will initiate the call to the following parties: Leonard Randolph Berman (503) 473−8787 and Steven A. Kraemer (503) 222−4499. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
12 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
13 Declaration of Leonard Berman. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition 12 .) (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT A) (Berman, Leonard) Modified text of attachment on 9/10/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 09/05/2008)
14 Response to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition 12 . Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
15 ORDER − Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 12 . Amended Complaint is due 9/26/2008. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 09/18/2008)

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI As of 05/08/2013 01:23 PM PDT Page 4 of 6 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/18/2008 09/30/2008 10/01/2008 10/15/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008
12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 01/05/2009
01/08/2009
02/04/2009
02/27/2009 02/27/2009

16 Amended Complaint.Filed by Darrell Rollins against all defendants. (Berman, Leonard) Modified text of against parties on 9/19/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 09/18/2008)
17 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Travis J. Mayor.Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
18 Answer to Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim Darrell Rollins. Filed by Clatsop County, Tom Bergin. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
19 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Individual Plaintiffs Voluntarily. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
20 ORDER − Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Individual Plaintiffs Voluntarily 19 . Plaintiffs Kenken, King and Rollins are dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
23 AMENDED ORDER − Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Individual Plaintiffs Voluntarily 19 . Plaintiffs Menken, King and Rollins are dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
21 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Leroux. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
22 MINUTES of Telephone Rule 16 Conference: Order − Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Leroux 21 is GRANTED. Order − Setting a case schedule as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 1/2/2009. Dispositive Motions are due by 2/2/2009. Motion to Certify Class is due by 6/1/2009. Steven A. Kraemer present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Leonard Berman present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
24 Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
25 Declaration of Leonard R. Berman. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines 24 .) (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
26 Response to Motion for Extension of Discovery &PTO Deadlines 24 . Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
27 Declaration of Steven A. Kraemer. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 26 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
28 Scheduling Order by Judge Garr M. King. Order − Setting a Telephone Conference to discuss Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines 24 for 1/8/2009 at 01:30PM. The Court will initiate the call. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
29 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order − Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines 24 is GRANTED in PART. Discovery to be completed by 1/26/2009. Dispositive Motions are due by 2/17/2009. All other deadlines remain as previously set. Leonard Berman present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven Kraemer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Judge Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
30 Scheduling Order by Judge Garr M. King. Order − Defendants' letter request to extend the deadline for filing his Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Dispositive Motion due by 2/27/2009. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
31 Motion for Summary Judgment. oral argument requested. Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
32 Concise Statement of Material Fact. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI As of 05/08/2013 01:23 PM PDT Page 5 of 6 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/27/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009 03/02/2009
03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/10/2009
03/26/2009 03/26/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009
04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/07/2009

33 Memorandum in Support. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
34 Affidavit of Steven A. Kraemer in Support of Motion. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
35 Affidavit of Paul Tesi in Support of Motion. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
36 Affidavit of Richard Moyer in Support of Motion. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
37 Affidavit of David Clarke in Support of Motion. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
38 Scheduling Order by Judge Garr M. King. Order − Setting Oral Argument on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 31 for 4/9/2009 at 09:30AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
39 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment 31 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
40 Declaration of Leonard R. Berman. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 39 .) (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
41 ORDER − Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 39 . Response is due by 3/27/2009. Resetting the Oral Argument Hearing from 4/9/2009 to 4/23/2009 at 09:30AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
42 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
43 Declaration of Leonard R. Berman. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition 42 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Second Amended Complaint) (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
44 Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 31 Oral requested. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
45 Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts regarding Motion for Summary Judgment 31 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
46 Declaration of Leonard R. Berman. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Clatsop County Policy, # 2 Exhibit 2. Affidavit of Debbi Davis, # 3 Exhibit 3. Affidavit of Stephen Schwanbeck) (Berman, Leonard) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
47 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment 31 . Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
48 Declaration of Steven A. Kraemer. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 47 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
49 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply 47 . Reply is due by 4/13/2009. Resetting the Oral Argument from 4/23/2009 to 4/30/2009 at 10:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 04/07/2009)

Case 3:07-cv-01678-KI As of 05/08/2013 01:23 PM PDT Page 6 of 6 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/30/2009
04/30/2009
05/05/2009

50 Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition 42 . Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
51 Reply to Plaintiffs' Additional Asserted Facts. Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
52 Reply In Support to Motion for Summary Judgment 31 Oral Argument requested. Filed by all defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
53 MINUTES of Motion Hearing: Order − Due to the unavailability of plaintiffs' counsel, the Court is resetting the TIME set for the Oral Argument Hearing from 4/30/2009 at 10:00AM to 4/30/2009 at 01:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Steven Kraemer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Judge Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
54 MINUTES of Oral Argument Hearing: Order − Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 31 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion to File Amended Complaint 42 is DENIED. Leonard Berman present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven Kraemer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Judge Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
55 JUDGMENT. Based on the record, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 05/04/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 05/05/2009)