UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YO~E:m:'"1

"7 ~ ISO,co k fC/
__ yu{,1701L{J
- b~S {S~~Z

PAUL ADAM KAHLER, both individually and on behalf of a class of : others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, DANIEL KEATING, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Rensselaer, LARRY WALRAED, both individually and as Undersheriff ofthe County of Rensselaer, ROBERT LOVERIDGE, both individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, HAROLD SMITH, both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, and KATHLEEN JIMINO, both individually: and as County Executive of the County of Rensselaer,
Defendants.

IndeXNb CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. For at least the past fourteen years, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Rensselaer 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

1

the written procedures of the Rensselaer County Sherif:fs Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Sheriff Daniel Keating, Undersheriff Larry Walraed, Colonel Robert Loveridge, Lieutenant Harold Smith and Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino.
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 short, the policy of Rensselaer County and the Rensselaer County Sherif:fs Department to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Rensselaer County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary. It is also just the latest indication of a County Jail that is mismanaged and where the civil rights of those who enter, even for a brief stay on minor charges, are simply ignored or consciously trampled upon.
Paul Kahler 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. Kahler was sent to the Rensselaer County Jail on two occasions during the class period after being charged with misdemeanor and/or violation offenses, and was subject to a strip search on both occasions, in violation of his rights 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 Sherif:fs Department's policies are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Rensselaer County and the Rensselaer County Sherif:fs
2

Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Paul Kahler hereby complains as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 US.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 US.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 US.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 US.C. § 1391 (e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Paul Kahler ("Kahler") is 19 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. On or about April 8, 2000, Kahler (then age sixteen) was arrested on charges of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (a misdemeanor) and placed in the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail. On or about October 26,2001, Kahler (then age seventeen) was again arrested on charges of assault in the third degree (a misdemeanor) and harassment in the second degree (a violation), and was placed in the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail.
3
I I!

4. Defendant County of Rensselaer (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 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 Rensselaer County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the Rensselaer County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Rensselaer County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and ofthe State of New York.
5. The Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is a County Sheriffs Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriff s Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Rensselaer County Jail ("RCJ"). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Rensselaer, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the RCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the RCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Rensselaer, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Rensselaer County Jail, and for
4
I I!

ensunng that Sheriff's Department personnel employed in the RCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New York.
6. Defendant Daniel V. Keating ("Sheriff Keating") is the duly elected Sheriff of Rensselaer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Keating's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Sheriff Keating is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
7. Defendant Larry Walraed ("Larry Walraed") is the duly appointed Undersheriff of Rensselaer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Larry Walraed's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Larry Walraed is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Robert Loveridge ("Colonel Loveridge") is the duly appointed Colonel of the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Rensselaer County Jail. As such, Colonel Loveridge is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Colonel Loveridge's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Colonel Loveridge is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Harold Smith ("Lieutenant Smith") is a duly appointed Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and is the administrative officer for the Rensselaer County Jail. Lieutenant Smith is second in command to Colonel Loveridge in
5

responsibility for jail operations. As such, Lieutenant Smith is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Lieutenant Smith's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Lieutenant Smith is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Kathleen Jimino ("County Executive Jimino") is the duly elected County Executive of Rensselaer County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. County Executive Jimino's principal place of business is the Rensselaer County Office Building, Seventh Avenue, Troy, NY 12180. County Executive Jimino is made a Defendant in this action in both her individual and official capacities.
11. Collectively, Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants. "
6

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
12. 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 himself and a class of similarly situated
individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip
searched upon their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail.
13. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows:
All persons in the United States who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, violations or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and the County of Rensselaer. The class period commences on June 26, 1999, and extends to the date on which the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and/or the County of Rensselaer are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion.
Specifically excluded from the proposed class are Defendants, and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
14. This action has been subject to a prior complaint to this Court, filed on June
26, 2002, where the Court, for scheduling reasons, declined to entertain a motion for class
certification. See, Bruce v. County of Rensselaer, No. 02-CV-0847 (TJMlDRH). To
date, no motion to dismiss the class action allegations has been raised, and the class
allegations themselves have not been stricken from the complaint. Consequently, the
class is defined from June 26, 1999 to present, as the statute oflimitations has been tolled
by the filing of a prior complaint.
15. 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).
7

16. 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 Rensselaer 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 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions.
17. 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 Rensselaer 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 indi vi dually.
18. Common questions oflaw 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 Rensselaer County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
19. Plaintiff's claim is 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 hanns suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the hanns suffered by the class members.
8

20. 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.
21. Plaintiff has retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiff is being represented by Elmer Robert Keach, III; Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger of Berenbaum Menken & Ben-Asher, LLP; and Gary E. Mason and Charles Schneider of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions before this Court, and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady City School District, and has previously litigated two other cases against the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, including one on behalf of a sixteen year old girl raped by a Corrections Officer.
22. Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger are both experienced civil rights attorneys from New York City, having litigated scores of civil rights cases against a number of Defendants, including one prison brutality case presently pending in this District. Mr. Menken and Mr. Rozger have successfully represented many victims of illegal strip searches, including several who opted out of the recent class action litigation against the City of New York.
23. Gary E. Mason is one of this country's premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions,
9

including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million dollars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation. In addition to his extensive experience as a class action and environmental lawyer, Charles Schneider is a former trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and has successfully litigated a series of cases involving corrections misconduct.
24. In short, Plaintiffs counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Rensselaer County, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
25. 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 the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail. In short, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Rensselaer County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
26. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
27. 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
10
I, 'I I

predominate question of whether the Defendants' de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Rensselaer County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a de facto policy existed during the class period.
28. 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.
29. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions (other than Bruce) 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 at least the past twelve years, with the practice being declared unconstitutional in this judicial circuit in 1986.
30. 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).
11

FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 31. 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. 32. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail 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. 33. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches." 34. The County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer 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,
12
, I

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 1986 by Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986). In fact, this decision was recently cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in one of many civil rights cases to be successfully prosecuted against the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department. See, Sagendorf-Teal v. County of Rensselaer, 100 F.3d 270, 276 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Weber).
35. The Defendants' 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.
36. Upon information and belief, not only is the policy of strip searching illegal, but the manner in which individuals are searched is also impermissible. For example, upon information and belief, individuals are strip searched in the presence of corrections officers, jail employees andlor arrestees ofthe opposite gender.
37. 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.
38. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and the Individual Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, andlor failed to rectify a de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any
13
I ,I I

sort. This 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.
39. Pursuant to this de facto policy, each member of the Class, including every named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Rensselaer 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.
40. The strip searches in question largely occurred in an open area of the Rensselaer County Jail booking room, behind a "half wall" near the booking computers utilized by RCJ employees. This open area is in clear view of all six prisoner holding cells in the booking room, and can also been seen by Corrections Officers on an elevated platform, from windows in the booking room and from larger holding cells utilized to prepare inmates for transport.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches - each member of the class, including every named Plaintiff - has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
42. Additionally, Defendant Daniel Keating, in his capacity as Sheriff and chief policy maker for the Rensselaer County Jail, together with the Policy Making Defendants, have promulgated a written policy purporting to govern the strip searches of
14

individuals detained in the Rensselaer County Jail. This written policy, attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, does not provide that all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail are subject to being strip-searched.
43. This written policy, however, is not followed in the Rensselaer County Jail, as admitted by Colonel Loveridge and Lieutenant James Karam during their deposition testimony. While some (but not all) correctional employees maintain that strip searches were based on reasonable suspicion, proof taken in this action demonstrates that the Rensselaer County Jail employs a de facto policy, as set forth above, that provides that all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail and placed into jail clothing are subj ect to a strip-search.
44. Additionally, the Defendants claim that they provided training to their subordinates about various policies relative to strip-searching, including the need for a supervisor to approve of a strip-search and make a written report, the use of an unwritten "clothing change" policy, and the requirement that reasonable suspicion be present when conducting a strip search. Discovery in this action has shown, however, that there has been absolutely no substantive training about booking procedures or strip searches during the class period, or even since the commencement of this action. COs received no training whatsoever relative to the circumstances under which they could conduct a strip search, and instead learned procedures by observing other officers in the booking room.
45. Nevertheless, the written policy promulgated by Defendant Keating and the Policy Making Defendants is, on its face, unconstitutional.
15

46. The written policy provides that strip-searches may be conducted on individuals arrested for misdemeanors and violations without requiring particularized, reasonable suspicion that those individuals are concealing contraband or a weapon.
47. The written policy provides that anyone charged with a crime involving violence or drugs is subject to a strip search, even in the absence of particularized reasonable suspicion.
48. The written policy also states that anyone who appears in the Rensselaer County Jail that is under the influence of alcohol or drugs (in the SUbjective opinion of the search officer) is subject to a strip search regardless of the nature of their criminal charges and in the absence of particularized reasonable suspicion.
49. The written policy further provides that anyone arrested for the following offenses, even in the absence of particularized, reasonable suspicion that they are possessing contraband or a weapon, is subject to a strip search: Sexual Misconduct (A Misdemeanor); Unlawful Imprisonment (A Misdemeanor); Resisting Arrest (A Misdemeanor); Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (A Misdemeanor); Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree (A Misdemeanor); Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (Violation); Disorderly Conduct (Violation); Harassment in the First Degree (B Misdemeanor); Public Drunkenness (Violation); Unlawfully Dealing with Fireworks and Dangerous Fireworks (B Misdemeanor); Unlawful Possession of Weapons by Persons Under Sixteen (Juvenile Offense); Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (A Misdemeanor); Inciting a Riot (A Misdemeanor); Riot in the Second Degree (A Misdemeanor); Killing or Injuring a Police Animal (A Misdemeanor); and Self Abortion (A Misdemeanor).
16
I I

50. This written policy also provides that someone who has ever been charged with a "strip-searchable" offense may, if later arrested for a non "strip searchable" charge, be strip searched without the necessity of particularized, reasonable suspicion. These individuals are termed "permanently strip searchable" in the policy.
51. The written policy does not state that strip searches will only be performed by members of the same gender as the accused, and does not state that individuals of the opposite gender should not be present during the search.
52. The written policy is, for these reasons, unconstitutional on its face. Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Paul Kahler
53. Mr. Kahler's experience is representative. On or about April 8, 2000, Mr. Kahler was charged with Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, a misdemeanor, for allegedly punching a wall. Mr. Kahler subsequently resolved these charges by pleading guilty and receiving probation. Mr. Kahler is presently 19 years old. He was taken into custody by the East Greenbush Police Department. Mr. Kahler's transporting officer informed the booking staff at RCJ that Mr. Kahler was "real [sic] cooperative."
54. Subsequent to his arrest, Mr. Kahler was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Kahler was moved into the shower area (behind the half wall) of the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. This area is visible from every holding cell, as well as from much of the booking room. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Kahler was ordered to, and did, remove his clothing. Mr. Kahler objected to having to remove his clothing, and was told to "just do it."

17

I'

I I

55. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Kahler to "face the wall," and told him to "squat." The officer instructed Mr. Kahler to "lift your sack" to allow for an examination underneath his scrotum. After the completion of the examination, the Corrections Officer made disparaging comments to Mr. Kahler about the color of his underpants.
56. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Kahler was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made ofMr. Kahler that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Kahler had already been in custody of police officers from the Town of East Greenbush, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Kahler had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
57. On or about October 26, 2001, Mr. Kahler was charged with Assault in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor, and Harassment in the Second Degree, a violation, for allegedly getting in a fist fight with his brother. These charges were later dismissed. Mr. Kahler was taken into custody by the East Greenbush Police Department.
58. Subsequent to his arrest, Mr. Kahler was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Kahler was moved into the shower area (behind the half wall) of the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Kahler was ordered to, and did, remove his clothing. Mr. Kahler was then told to tum around and "squat."
18

59. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Kahler was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Kahler that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Kahler had already been in custody of police officers from the Town of East Greenbush, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Kahler had already been sUbjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
60. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip searches conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Kahler has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
19
!' ! I

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 -61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 60. 62. 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. 63. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiff's rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 64. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department. As such, the County of Rensselaer is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class. 65. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino are responsible for
20
, II

establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Rensselaer County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Keating, Walraed, Loveridge, Smith and Jimino are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
66. Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino knew that the RCJ's 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.
67. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 US.c. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured.
21
I I

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 68.
70. The policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, the County of Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
71. 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 Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 71.
73. The policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, the County of Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Jail without any
22
I II

particularized SuspIcIOn that the individuals III question have either contraband or weapons.
74. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Rensselaer 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.
75. 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.
76. Plaintiff demands that the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Rensselaer County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer 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.
23

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 77. 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. 78. The conduct of the Individual Defendants herein represents just the latest example of a County Jail and Sheriffs Department that is completely mismanaged. In recent years, the Jail has come under scrutiny for a series of incidents involving the excessive use of force against inmates (where the County and the Sheriffs Department inevitably blames the inmates for "injuring" themselves), the rape of a juvenile inmate by a Corrections Officer, deliberate indifference to those with psychological problems, and the illegal termination of a Corrections Officer who detailed the application of excessive force in an administrative report. The Sheriffs Department has also recently been sued for firing, and prosecuting on felony charges, one of its own deputies for supposedly misusing a sick day. 79. It is clear that the Individual Defendants, the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer 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 Individual Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Rensselaer County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 80. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paul Kahler, 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 Plaintiff's First

and Fourth Causes 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 Daniel Keating on Plaintiff's First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

D.

A judgment against Defendant Larry Walraed on Plaintiff's First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

E.

A judgment against Defendant Robert Loveridge on Plaintiff's First and

Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

F.

A judgment against Defendant Hal Smith on Plaintiff's First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

G.

A judgment against Defendant Kathleen Jimino on Plaintiff's First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

H.

A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of

Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department's policy, practice and custom

of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Rensselaer County Jail,

25
, !

regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and

Improper.

r.

A preliminary and permanent injunction ellJommg 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.

J.

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: October 23, 2003 Albany, NY

518.434.1718 518.434.1717 bobkeach@keachlaw.com

Bruce E. Menken, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 104942

Jason J. Rozger, Esquire

BERANBAUM,MENKEN,&

BEN-ASHER, LLP

Three New York Plaza

New York, NY 10004

Telephone:

212.509.1616

Telecopier:

212.509.8088

Electronic Mail: jrozger@bmbf.com

26
, II

Gary E. Mason, Esquire

(Member ofthe New York Bar, Motion for

Permanent Admission Pending)

Charles Schneider, Esquire

THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone:

202.429.2290

Telecopier:

202.429.2294

Electronic Mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS

27

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PAUL ADAM KAHLER, both individually and on behalf of a class of : others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, DANIEL KEATING, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of : Rensselaer, LARRY WALRAED, both individually and as Undersheriffof the County of Rensselaer, ROBERT LOVERIDGE, both individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, HAROLD SMITH, both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, and KATHLEEN JIMINO, both individually: and as County Executive of the County of Rensselaer,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 03-CV-l324 (TJMIDRH)
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. For at least the past fourteen years, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Rensselaer 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

1

the written procedures of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Sheriff Daniel Keating, Undersheriff Larry Walraed, Colonel Robert Loveridge, Lieutenant Harold Smith and Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino.
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 short, the policy of Rensselaer County and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Rensselaer County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary. It is also just the latest indication of a County Jail that is mismanaged and where the civil rights of those who enter, even for a brief stay on minor charges, are simply ignored or consciously trampled upon.
Paul Kahler 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. Kahler was sent to the Rensselaer County Jail on two occasions during the class period after being charged with misdemeanor and/or violation offenses, and was subject to a strip search on both occasions, in violation of his rights 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 are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Rensselaer County and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs
2

Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Paul Kahler hereby complains as follows:
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 Plaintiffs' claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Paul Kahler ("Kahler") is 19 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. On or about April 8,2000, Kahler (then age sixteen) was arrested on charges of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (a misdemeanor) and placed in the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail. On or about October 26, 2001, Kahler (then age seventeen) was again arrested on charges of assault in the third degree (a misdemeanor) and harassment in the second degree (a violation), and was placed in the custody of the Rensselaer County JaiL
3

4. Defendant County of Rensselaer (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 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 Rensselaer County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the Rensselaer County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Rensselaer 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 New York.
5. The Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is a County Sheriffs Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriffs Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Rensselaer County Jail ("RCJ"). At aU times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Rensselaer, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the RCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff's Department personnel, including those working in the RCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Rensselaer, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Rensselaer County Jail, and for
4

ensunng that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the RCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws ofthe United States and ofthe State of New York.
6. Defendant Daniel V. Keating ("Sheriff Keating") is the duly elected Sheriff of Rensselaer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other controL Sheriff Keating's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Sheriff Keating is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
7. Defendant Larry Walraed ("Larry Walraed") is the duly appointed Undersheriff of Rensselaer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Larry Walraed's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Larry Walraed is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Robert Loveridge ("Colonel Loveridge") is the duly appointed Colonel of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Rensselaer County Jail. As such, Colonel Loveridge is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Colonel Loveridge's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Colonel Loveridge is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Harold Smith ("Lieutenant Smith") is a duly appointed Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and is the administrative officer for the Rensselaer County Jail. Lieutenant Smith is second in command to Colonel Loveridge in
5

responsibility for jail operations. As such, Lieutenant Smith is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Lieutenant Smith's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Lieutenant Smith is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Kathleen Jimino ("County Executive Jimino") is the duly elected County Executive of Rensselaer County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. County Executive Jimino's principal place of business is the Rensselaer County Office Building, Seventh Avenue, Troy, NY 12180. County Executive Jimino is made a Defendant in this action in both her individual and official capacities.
11. Collectively, Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants. "

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12. 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 himself and a class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail. 13. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 14. This action has been subject to a prior complaint to this Court, filed on June 26, 2002, where the Court, for scheduling reasons, declined to entertain a motion for class certification. See, Bruce v. County of Rensselaer, No. 02-CV-0847 (TJMlDRH). To date, no motion to dismiss the class action allegations has been raised, and the class allegations themselves have not been stricken from the complaint. Consequently, the class is defined from June 26, 1999 to present. 15. 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). 16. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon infonnation and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail every month
7

all of whom are members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions.
17. 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 Rensselaer 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.
18. Common questions oflaw 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 Rensselaer County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
19. Plaintiff's claim is 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.
20. 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.
8

21. Plaintiff has retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiff is being represented by Elmer Robert Keach, III; Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger of Berenbaum Menken & Ben-Asher, LLP; and Gary E. Mason and Charles Schneider of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions before this Court, and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady City School District, and has previously litigated two other cases against the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, including one on behalf of a sixteen year old girl raped by a Corrections Officer.
22. Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger are both experienced civil rights attorneys from New York City, having litigated scores of civil rights cases against a number of Defendants, including one prison brutality case presently pending in this District. Mr. Menken and Mr. Rozger have successfully represented many victims of illegal strip searches, including several who opted out of the recent class action litigation against the City of New York.
23. Gary E. Mason is one of this country's premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions, including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million dollars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product
9

Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation. In addition to his extensive experience as a class action and environmental lawyer, Charles Schneider is a fonner trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and has successfully litigated a series of cases involving corrections misconduct.
24. In short, Plaintiffs counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Rensselaer County, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members ofthe class, or between counsel and members of the class.
25. 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 the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail. In short, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Rensselaer County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
26. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
27. 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' de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Rensselaer
10

County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a de facto policy existed during the class period.
28. 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.
29. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions (other than Bruce) 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 at least the past twelve years, with the practice being declared unconstitutional in this judicial circuit in 1986.
30. 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).

FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 31. 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. 32. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail 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. 33. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a defacto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches." 34. The County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer 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,
12

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 1986 by Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986). In fact, this decision was recently cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in one of many civil rights cases to be successfully prosecuted against the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department. See, Sagendorf- Teal v. County of Rensselaer, 100 F.3d 270, 276 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Weber).
35. The Defendants' 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.
36. Upon information and belief, not only is the policy of strip searching illegal, but the manner in which individuals are searched is also impermissible. For example, upon information and belief, individuals are strip searched in the presence of corrections officers, jail employees and/or arrestees of the opposite gender.
37. 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.
38. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Individual Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any
13

sort. This 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.
39. Pursuant to this de facto policy, each member of the Class, including every named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Rensselaer 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.
40. The strip searches in question largely occurred in an open area of the Rensselaer County Jail booking room, behind a "half wall" near the booking computers utilized by RCJ employees. This open area is in clear view of all six prisoner holding cells in the booking room, and can also been seen by Corrections Officers on an elevated platform, from windows in the booking room and from larger holding cells utilized to prepare inmates for transport.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches - each member of the class, including every named Plaintiff has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
42. Additionally, Defendant Daniel Keating, in his capacity as Sheriff and chief policy maker for the Rensselaer County Jail, together with the Policy Making Defendants, have promulgated a written policy purporting to govern the strip searches of
14

individuals detained in the Rensselaer County Jail. This written policy, attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, does not provide that all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail are subject to being strip-searched.
43. This written policy, however, is not followed in the Rensselaer County Jail, as admitted by Colonel Loveridge and Lieutenant James Karam during their deposition testimony. While some (but not all) correctional employees maintain that strip searches were based on reasonable suspicion, proof taken in this action demonstrates that the Rensselaer County Jail employs a de facto policy, as set forth above, that provides that all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail and placed into jail clothing are subject to a strip-search.
44. Additionally, the Defendants claim that they provided training to their subordinates about various policies relative to strip-searching, including the need for a supervisor to approve of a strip-search and make a written report, the use of an unwritten "clothing change" policy, and the requirement that reasonable suspicion be present when conducting a strip search. Discovery in this action has shown, however, that there has been absolutely no substantive training about booking procedures or strip searches during the class period, or even since the commencement of this action. COs received no training whatsoever relative to the circumstances under which they could conduct a strip search, and instead learned procedures by observing other officers in the booking room.
45. Nevertheless, the written policy promulgated by Defendant Keating and the Policy Making Defendants is, on its face, unconstitutionaL
15

46. The written policy provides that strip-searches may be conducted on individuals arrested for misdemeanors and violations without requiring particularized, reasonable suspicion that those individuals are concealing contraband or a weapon.
47. The written policy provides that anyone charged with a crime involving violence or drugs is subject to a strip search, even in the absence of particularized reasonable suspicion.
48. The written policy also states that anyone who appears in the Rensselaer County Jail that is under the influence of alcohol or drugs (in the subjective opinion of the search officer) is subject to a strip search regardless of the nature of their criminal charges and in the absence of particularized reasonable suspicion.
49. The written policy further provides that anyone arrested for the following offenses, even in the absence of particularized, reasonable suspicion that they are possessing contraband or a weapon, is subject to a strip search: Sexual Misconduct (A Misdemeanor); Unlawful Imprisonment (A Misdemeanor); Resisting Arrest (A Misdemeanor); Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (A Misdemeanor); Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree (A Misdemeanor); Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (Violation); Disorderly Conduct (Violation); Harassment in the First Degree (B Misdemeanor); Public Drunkenness (Violation); Unlawfully Dealing with Fireworks and Dangerous Fireworks (B Misdemeanor); Unlawful Possession of Weapons by Persons Under Sixteen (Juvenile Offense); Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (A Misdemeanor); Inciting a Riot (A Misdemeanor); Riot in the Second Degree (A Misdemeanor); Killing or Injuring a Police Animal (A Misdemeanor); and Self Abortion (A Misdemeanor).
16

50. This written policy also provides that someone who has ever been charged with a "strip-searchable" offense may, if later arrested for a non "strip searchable" charge, be strip searched without the necessity of particularized, reasonable suspicion. These individuals are termed "permanently strip searchable" in the policy.
51. The written policy does not state that strip searches will only be performed by members of the same gender as the accused, and does not state that individuals of the opposite gender should not be present during the search.
52. The written policy is, for these reasons, unconstitutional on its face. Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff Paul Kahler
53. Mr. Kahler's experience is representative. On or about April 8, 2000, Mr. Kahler was charged with Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, a misdemeanor, for allegedly punching a wall. Mr. Kahler subsequently resolved these charges by pleading guilty and receiving probation. Mr. Kahler is presently 19 years old. He was taken into custody by the East Greenbush Police Department. Mr. Kahler's transporting officer informed the booking staff at RCJ that Mr. Kahler was "real [sic] cooperative."
54. Subsequent to his arrest, Mr. Kahler was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Kahler was moved into the shower area (behind the half wall) of the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. This area is visible from every holding cell, as well as from much of the booking room. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Kahler was ordered to, and did, remove his clothing. Mr. Kahler objected to having to remove his clothing, and was told to "just do it."
17

55. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Kahler to "face the wall," and told him to "squat." The officer instructed Mr. Kahler to "lift your sack" to allow for an examination underneath his scrotum. After the completion of the examination, the Corrections Officer made disparaging comments to Mr. Kahler about the color of his underpants.
56. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Kahler was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made ofMr. Kahler that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Kahler had already been in custody of police officers from the Town of East Greenbush, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Kahler had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
57. On or about October 26, 2001, Mr. Kahler was charged with Assault in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor, and Harassment in the Second Degree, a violation, for allegedly getting in a fist fight with his brother. These charges were later dismissed. Mr. Kahler was taken into custody by the East Greenbush Police Department.
58. Subsequent to his arrest, Mr. Kahler was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Kahler was moved into the shower area (behind the half wall) of the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Kahler was ordered to, and did, remove his clothing. Mr. Kahler was then told to tum around and "squat."
18

59. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Kahler was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Kahler that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Kahler had already been in custody of police officers from the Town of East Greenbush, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Kahler had already been SUbjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
60. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip searches conducted pursuant to County and Sheriff's Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Kahler has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
19

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 -61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 60. 62. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from umeasonable 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. 63. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 64. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department. As such, the County of Rensselaer is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class. 65. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino are responsible for
20

establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Rensselaer County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Keating, Walraed, Loveridge, Smith and Jimino are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
66. Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino knew that the RCJ's 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.
67. 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.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured.
21

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 68.
70. The policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the County of Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
71. 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 Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 71.
73. The policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the County of Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Jail without any
22

particularized SUSpICIOn that the individuals III question have either contraband or weapons.
74. Upon infonnation and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Rensselaer County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the hanns that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff.
75. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with mmor crimes will cause irreparable hann to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
76. Plaintiff demands that the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Rensselaer County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and pennanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
23

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 77. 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. 78. The conduct of the Individual Defendants herein represents just the latest example of a County Jail and Sheriffs Department that is completely mismanaged. In recent years, the Jail has come under scrutiny for a series of incidents involving the excessive use of force against inmates (where the County and the Sheriffs Department inevitably blames the inmates for "injuring" themselves), the rape of a juvenile inmate by a Corrections Officer, deliberate indifference to those with psychological problems, and the illegal termination of a Corrections Officer who detailed the application of excessive force in an administrative report. The Sheriffs Department has also recently been sued for firing, and prosecuting on felony charges, one of its own deputies for supposedly misusing a sick day. 79. It is clear that the Individual Defendants, the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer 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 Individual Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Rensselaer County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 80. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paul Kahler, 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

and Fourth Causes 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 Daniel Keating on Plaintiffs First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

D.

A judgment against Defendant Larry Walraed on Plaintiffs First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

E.

A judgment against Defendant Robert Loveridge on Plaintiffs First and

Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

F.

A judgment against Defendant Hal Smith on Plaintiffs First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

G.

A judgment against Defendant Kathleen Jimino on Plaintiffs First and Fourth

Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

H.

A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of

Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sherifrs Department's policy, practice and custom

of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Rensselaer County Jail,

25

regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and

Improper.

I.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enJommg 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.

J.

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: March 17, 2004 Albany, NY

Respectfully submitted by:
ct~

Elmer Robert Ke , III, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 601537

One Steuben Place

Albany, NY 12207

Telephone:

518.434.1718

Telecopier:

877.471.3092

Electronic Mail: bobkeach@keachlaw.com

Bruce E. Menken, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 104942

Jason J. Rozger, Esquire

BERANBAUM,MENKEN,&

BEN-ASHER, LLP

Three New York Plaza

New York, NY 10004

Telephone:

212.509.1616

Telecopier:

212.509.8088

Electronic Mail:

jrozger@bmbf.com

26

Gary E. Mason, Esquire

Charles Schneider, Esquire

THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone:

202.429.2290

Telecopier:

202.429.2294

Electronic Mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS

27

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

____________________________________

:

NATHANIEL BRUCE, et. al., both

:

individually and on behalf of a class of :

others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. al., :

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

:

PAUL KAHLER, both individually

:

and on behalf of a class of others

:

similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. al., :

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

Index No. 02-CV-0847 (TJM/DRH)
Index No. 03-CV-1324 (TJM/DRH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, AND JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND DECREE

THIS CAUSE coming on for hearing before the undersigned Judge on September 13, 2004 pursuant to this Court's Preliminary Approval Order of April 28, 2004, in or der for this Court to conduct a final Fairness Hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement with Defendants the County of Rensselaer, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Sm ith, and Kathleen Jimino (hereafter "Defendants") is fair,reasonable and adequate, and the Settlement Class

Members being represented by Class Counsel and Defendants being represented by its attorneys;

AND THE COURT having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, including the

Notice Program described therein, and Memoranda submitted by Class Counsel, having received

evidence at the hearing, having heard arguments from Class Counsel and the Defendants, and having

considered the submissions by Class m embers, and being further advised in the prem ises, now

makes the following Order:

FINDINGS OF FACT1

1. These actions were commenced on June 26, 2002 and October 31, 2003, as class

actions.

2. After intensive litigation between the parties in these related actions, and several months

of intensive, arm's-length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defendants, the parties have

reached accord with respect to a Settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class

Members, in return for a release and dism issal of the claim s at issue in this case against the

Defendants ("Settlement Agreement"). The resulting Settlem ent Agreement was prelim inarily

approved by the Court on April 28, 2004.

3. As part of the Order Granting Prelim inary Approval, this Court approved a proposed

Notice Program and Class Notice, which provided members of the Settlement Class notice of this

proposed settlement with Defendants. The No tice Program provided an opportunity for class

members to file objections to the Settlement.

4. The settling Parties have f iled with the Court a declaration f rom Kinsella/Novak

Communications, Ltd., declaring that the mailing of the Court-approved Notice, consistent with the

1 Capitalized terms used in this Order have the meaning assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement, Order of Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and this Order.
2

Notice Program, has been completed. 5. The Court finds that the published, direct notice and Internet posting constitute the best
practicable notice of the Fairness Hearing, the por posed Settlement, Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and the Summary Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complied fully with the requirem ents of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New York and any other applicable law.
6. Any persons who wished to excluded from this Settlement were provided an opportunity to “opt out” pursuant to the Notice. All persons who have validly excluded themselves from this Action have no rights under the Settlem ent Agreement and shall not be bound by the Settlem ent Agreement or the final judgment herein.
7. Settlement Class Members are bound by the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and releases contained therein, and the Final Orde r and Judgm ent, and do not have any further opportunity to opt-out of the Action.
8. Any Class member who did not tim ely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry of Final Orderand Judgment, or to Class Counsel's application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, is deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
9. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation, and the provisions of the Settlem ent Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that th e Settlement is a f air, reasonable and adequate compromise of the claims against the Defendants in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number of factors which the Court has considered in affirming
3

this Settlement, including: a. The liability issues in this case have been vigorously contested. b. The Court notes that for settlement purposes, this Settlement has the benefit of
providing relief to members of the class now, without further litigation, under circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously contested among the parties to this litigation. This Settlement provides Settlement Class Members with a substantial benefit, which might not have been available were this litigation to continue.
c. This Settlement is clearly a byproduct of hard-fought litigation between the parties, and not a result of any collusion on the parot f Class Counsel or Counsel for the Defendants.
10. Class Counsel submitted to the Court and served on the Defendants their application for reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses consistent with the term s of the Settlem ent Agreement. This Court has considered Class Counsel's request and hereby grants the request.
11. The claims procedure established under the Settlement Agreement is fair, a simplified process and workable. In any event, the Court will retain jurisdiction to work out any unantiipcated problems. NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. 13. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following Settlement Class is certified for purposes of final settlement:
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, after being charged w ith misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions or civil court
4

commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 14. The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for Class certification under Rule 23 are present. The Class members are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined. Questions of law and fact common to all Class members predominate over individual issues and should be determined in one proceeding with respect to all Class members. The Class Representatives’ claims are typical of those of the Class. The class action mechanism is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and resolving this action. 15. Settlement Class Representatives are entitled to and are hereby awarded a paym ent of $66,000, over and above their respective proceeds underthe Settlement Agreement and as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, in recognition of the efforts they have undertaken and the risk they have incurred in connection with this Action. 16. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, including the distribution of the proceeds of the settlement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17. The Courts finds that the request for attorneys' fees is reasonable. NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 18. The Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement is GRANTED. 19. Settlement Class Representatives are entitled to and are hereby awarded an additional
5

payment of $66,000 over and above their claim s for damages, in accordance with the Settlem ent Agreement, in recognition of the efforts they have undertaken and the risk they incurred in connection with this Action.
20. The Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses is granted. 21. These Actions and all claims against the Defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice, but the Court shall retain exclusive and continui ng jurisdiction of the Actions, all Parties, and Settlement Class Members, to interpret and enfor ce the terms, conditions and obligations of this Settlement Agreement. 22. All Class members who have not timely filed a Request For Exclusion are barred and enjoined from commencing and/or prosecuting any settled claim or action against the Defendants. Any Class member who has not timely filed a RequesFt or Exclusion is enjoined from initiating any action, or continuing to prosecute any filed action, in any forum. This the ____ day of _________________, 2004.
The Honorable Thomas J. McAvoy Senior United States District Judge
6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PAUL ADAM KAHLER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

03-cv-1324

THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et al.

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THOMAS J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

For the reasons more fully stated from the bench on September 13, 2004, it is

hereby ORDERED that:

1.

The motion to certify the class is GRANTED;

2.

The motion for final approval of the proposed settlement is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a.

The settlement is APPROVED concerning the payments to

be made to class members;

b.

The application for $66,000 in incentive fees is DENIED.

$5,000 in incentive fees will be ALLOWED to Mr. Bruce.

All other applications for incentive fees are DENIED;

c.

The application for $580,000 in attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

The Court ALLOWS a total of $442,701.74 for attorneys’

fees, litigation expenses and administrative costs.

3.

In light of the settlement, the following cases are hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE: 02-cv-847 and 03-cv-1324.

4.

All class members who have not timely filed a Request for Exclusion are barred

and enjoined from commencing and/or prosecuting any settled claim or action

against the Defendants.

5.

Any class member who has not timely filed a Request for Exclusion is enjoined

from initiating any action or continuing to prosecute any filed action in any forum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:September 23,2004

- 2 -

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PAUL ADAM KAHLER et aI.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER et aI.,

Defendants.

No.03-CV-1324 (TJM/DRH)

NATHANIEL BRUCE et aI.,
v.

Plaintiffs,

COUNTY OF RENSSELAER et aI.,

Defendants.

No.02-CV-847 (TJM/DRH)

DAVID R. HOMER U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER By letter dated June 14, 2007, class counsel for the plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases advised that all proceedings to effectuate the settlement of these cases has now been completed and requested that the cases now be terminated. According to the letter, counsel for defendants joins in that request. Good cause appearing for the request, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate the two above-captioned cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 27, 2007 Albany, New York

United States Magistrate Judge

 
 Kahler v. County of Rensselaer, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 1981300 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. New York.
Paul Adam KAHLER, Harold Bonesteel, T’Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine,
William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Mark LaBelle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M.
Rockefeller, and Peter Rupp, all both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER; Daniel Keating, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Rensselaer; Larry
Walraed, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Rensselaer; Robert Loveridge, both
individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Department; Harold Smith, both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer
County Sheriff’s Department; and Kathleen Jimino, both individually and as County Executive
of the County of Rensselaer, Defendants. Nathaniel BRUCE, Mark LaBelle, T’Shad Bradley,
Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, and Dana Halloran, all both individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF RENSSELAER; Daniel Keating, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Rensselaer; Larry Walraed, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Rensselaer; Robert Loveridge, both individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Department; Harold Smith, both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s
Department; and Kathleen Jimino, both individually and as County Executive of the
County of Rensselaer, Defendants.
No. 03-CV-1324 (TJM/DRH), 02-CV-847 (TJM/DRH). | Aug. 17, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Amsterdam, New York, for Plaintiffs, of counsel.
Napierski, Vandenburgh & Napierski, L.L.P., Albany, New York, for Defendants, Thomas J. O’Connor, of counsel.

Opinion
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
HOMER, Magistrate J.
*1 Presently pending is the motion of defendant County of Rensselaer and the other defendants in the above captioned cases (collectively referred to herein as the “County”) for an order precluding the claims for damages of approximately forty individuals as untimely. Bruce Docket No. 110. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and cross-move for an order permitting such claims. Bruce Docket No. 111. For the reasons which follow, both the motion and cross-motion are granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
Plaintiffs commenced the two above captioned class actions alleging that class members had been subjected to strip searches at the Rensselaer County Correctional Facility between June 26, 1999 and July 1, 2002 without reasonable cause following their arrests on misdemeanor charges. The cases were settled in March 2004 in an agreement subsequently approved by the district court. Kahler Docket Nos. 7, 26, 27. The agreement required the County in principal part to pay class members $1,000 each plus incentive payments to class representatives, attorney’s fees, and costs up to a maximum total expenditure of $2,700,000. Settlement Agreement (Kahler Docket No. 7, Ex. 3) [hereinafter “Agreement”] at ¶¶ I(II), III(C)(1).
The Agreement required in pertinent part a period for notice of the settlement to potential claims and a period of sixty days from the “Notice Date” for the submission of claims. Agreement at ¶¶ I(B), (S); IV(B). By agreement of the parties, the period was extended to ninety days and that ninety-day period was incorporated in the district court’s preliminary approval of the settlement. Kahler Docket No. 12; Defs. Reply Letter-Brief dated July 1, 2005 (Kahler Docket No. 33) at 1-2 & attachs. The “Notice Date” which commenced the claims period was defined as “the date upon which Class Notice is mailed to known Class Members in accordance with the terms herein.” Id. at ¶ I(S).
Class notice was initially mailed to known class members at their last known addresses on April 30, 2004. Ness Aff. (Kahler Docket No. 17, Ex. B) at ¶ 9. Nearly half of the
1

Kahler v. County of Rensselaer, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2,632 mailings were returned as undeliverable. Id. at ¶ 11. Through various sources of information, including additional information provided by the County, plaintiffs obtained updated address information on these known class members and re-mailed class notice to them at these updated addresses. Id. at ¶¶ 11-15; Pls. Reply Letter-Brief (Bruce Docket No. 112) at 1-2. It appears that such re-mailings continued as new addresses were found until approximately August 1, 2004. Ness Aff. at ¶¶ 11-15; Pls. Reply Letter-Brief at 1-2.
Following the periods for notice and claims, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and for final approval of the Agreement (Kahler Docket No. 26), and entered judgment thereon on September 24, 2004. Kahler Docket No. 27. The final order “barred and enjoined” any action for recovery by any class member who had failed to file a timely response to the class notice. Kahler Docket No. 26 at ¶¶ 4, 5. Thereafter, plaintiffs advised that approximately forty individuals had submitted claims for damages after July 29, 2004, the date ninety days after the initial mailing of the class notice to known class members. Plaintiffs submitted these claims to the County for payment pursuant to the Agreement. The County declined payment on the ground that the claims were untimely. These motions followed.1
II. Discussion
*2 “Settlement agreements are contracts and must therefore be construed according to general principles of contract law.” Torres v. Walker, 356 F.3d 238, 245 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, 173 F.3d 238, 245 (2d Cir.1999)); Dahingo v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 312 F.Supp.2d 440, 445 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (Francis, M.J.). As a contract, its terms to which the parties have agreed should not thereafter be altered by a court. Dahingo, 312 F.Supp.2d at 445-46. However, in the circumstances of a class settlement, a court may vary the terms of a settlement agreement for equitable considerations where (1) the total cost to a defendant will not be increased, or (2) the term to be varied was established in the first instance by the court rather than by the parties. Id. at 446.
Here, the issue presented concerns the closing date for class members to file claims. It is clear from the Agreement that if claims filed after the closing date agreed between the parties is permitted, the cost to the County will be increased. As noted above, the Agreement provided for the County to pay to plaintiffs the total of $1,000 for each approved claim, incentive payments to class representatives, costs, and attorneys’ fees with the total not to exceed $2,700,000. Thus, the total cost to the County depends in part on the number of claims allowed.

Allowing the claims at issue here would necessarily increase the cost to the County by $1,000 for each such claim. Accordingly, the first exception which would permit the Court to vary the terms of the Agreement is inapplicable here.
As to the second, plaintiffs contend that as the ninety-day period for claims was included in the district court’s preliminary approval order, that date was established by the Court and not by the parties. However, the parties’ submissions on this motion demonstrate otherwise. The extension of the claims period from the sixty days set forth in the Agreement, Agreement at ¶ I(B), to the ninety days established in the preliminary approval order, Kahler Docket No. 12 at ¶ 9, was negotiated and agreed between the parties and then incorporated in the preliminary approval order submitted by plaintiffs and signed by the district court. See Pls. Reply Letter-Brief at 1 (acknowledging that the parties provided the district court with “input” on the claims period); Defs. Reply Letter-Brief at 1-2 & attachs. (referring to electronic mail communications between the parties establishing the parties’ agreement to extend the claims period from sixty to ninety days and to the proposed preliminary approval order being submitted by plaintiffs). Therefore, the duration of the claims period was a term of the Agreement negotiated between the parties rather than set by the district court and the second exception is likewise inapplicable.
The parties’ motions thus require interpretation of the Agreement under contract principles rather than an equitable determination of the appropriate closing date for the claims period. According to the Agreement, the ninety-day “Claims Period” commenced to run on the “Notice Date.” Agreement at ¶ I(B). As quoted above, the “Notice Date” was “the date upon which Class Notice is mailed to known Class Members in accordance with the terms herein.” Id. at ¶ I(S). As to such mailings, the Agreement further provides that “[n]otice will be provided to the Class by direct mailing of Class Notice and a Claim Form to all individuals at their last known or readily ascertainable address ....” Id. at ¶ IV(B)(1) (emphasis added). The “Notice Date” triggering the ninety-day claims period thus depended on when a notice was mailed to a class member’s “last known address.”
*3 The record demonstrates that mailings to last known addresses of class members began on April 30, 2004 with the mailings to the then last known addresses of the 2,632 known class members. Ness Aff. at ¶ 9. The County contends that this mailing constituted the “Notice Date” and that the claims period ended ninety days later, or July 29, 2004. If this construction is accepted, the approximately forty claims at issue herein were properly rejected as untimely.
It appears uncontradicted from the record that 1,287 of the
2

Kahler v. County of Rensselaer, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

April 30, 2004 mailings were returned as undeliverable. Ness Aff. at ¶ 11. Plaintiffs thereafter made substantial efforts to obtain more current addresses for the returned mailings, including obtaining further information from the County. Id. at ¶¶ 12-14; Pls. Reply Letter-Brief at 1-2. Those efforts provided updated addresses for an unspecified number of the returned mailings and, between April 30 and approximately August 1, 2004, notices were re-mailed to such updated addresses. Ness Aff. at ¶¶ 12-14. Thus, it appears that the “last known address” for many of the class members was not fixed in time on April 30, 2004 but, rather, was a rolling process for an unspecified number as more current last known addresses were obtained and notices were re-mailed.
Under the Agreement, there is no dispute that the claims period commenced on the “Notice Date” of April 30, 2004 for the 1,345 class members for whom the notice was not returned as undeliverable as well as for any then unknown class members. For those individuals, the claims period ended on July 29, 2004. As to those among the remaining 1,287 to whom notices were re-mailed to updated addresses, the mailing to their last known address which constituted their “Notice date” occurred with the latest re-mailing. For those class members, the claims period ended ninety days after such latest re-mailing and any claim received from such a class member may not be rejected as untimely.

III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby
ORDERED that the parties’ motion and cross-motion are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. If a claim was received from an individual to whom plaintiffs re-mailed notice to an updated address obtained after April 30, 2004, such claim was timely filed and shall be accepted by the County if the claim was received within ninety days of the date on which the latest re-mailing was made;
2. All other claims received after July 29, 2004 were properly rejected by the County; and
3. As to any claims received after July 29, 2004, plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that (a) an address different from that used for the April 30, 2004 mailing was obtained after April 30, 2004; (b) notice was re-mailed to such updated address; and (c) the claim was received within ninety days of the date on which the latest re-mailing of the notice was made.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

Footnotes

1

These motions have been submitted to the undersigned pursuant to paragraphs X(N) and I(P) of the Agreement, which provide that

any disputes regarding the Agreement shall be submitted to and resolved by the undersigned, whose decision shall be “final and

binding.”

	  

3

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NATHANIEL BRUCE, MARK LA BELLE,: T'SHAD BRADLEY, NATIKA MILLER, PETER RUPP, WAYNE CONINE, JEFFREY ROCKEFELLER, WILLIAM GARRITY, HAROLD BONESTEEL, CHARLES LINEN, and DANA HALLORAN, both individually and on behalf of a class of : others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, DANIEL KEATING, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of : Rensselaer, LARRY WALRAED, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Rensselaer, ROBERT LOVERIDGE, both individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, HAROLD SMITH, both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, and KATHLEEN JIMINO, both individually: and as County Executive of the County of Rensselaer,
Defendants.

Civil Action Number 02-CV-0847 (TJM/DRH)
SECOND AMENDED 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 thirteen years, the Rensselaer

1

County Sheriffs Department has had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Sheriff Daniel Keating, Undersheriff Larry Walraed, Colonel Robert Loveridge, Lieutenant Harold Smith and Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino.
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 short, the policy of Rensselaer County and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Rensselaer County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary. It is also just the latest indication of a County Jail that is mismanaged and where the civil rights of those who enter, even for a brief stay on minor charges, are simply ignored or consciously trampled upon.
Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, Wayne Conine, Jeffrey Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen and Dana Halloran 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 their civil rights and those of the class members they propose to represent. All eleven of these individuals were charged with misdemeanor and/or violation offenses, and all eleven were subject to strip searches, in
2

violation of their right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. They seek monetary damages for themselves and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriffs Department's policies are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Rensselaer County and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiffs Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, Wayne Conine, Jeffrey Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen and Dana Halloran complain as follows:
JURISDICTION I. 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 Plaintiffs' claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Nathaniel Bruce ("Bruce") IS 31 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. On or about November 11, 2001, Bruce was arrested and placed in the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Assault in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of Child (both misdemeanors). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Nathaniel Bruce was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by Corrections Officer Thomas Job. 4. Plaintiff Mark La Belle ("La Belle") is 32 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. La Belle was arrested on or about April 14, 2001 and transported to the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Driving While Intoxicated (a misdemeanor). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County and on LaBelle's recollection, Mark LaBelle was strip searched by Corrections Officer Gregory Buell. 5. Plaintiff T'Shad Bradley ("Bradley") is 19 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Bradley was arrested on or about April29, 2000 and placed into the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Trespassing (a misdemeanor). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, T'Shad Bradley was, upon information and belief, strip searched by either Corrections Officers Jason Valente or Keith Hancock. 6. PlaintiffNatika Miller ("Miller") is 19 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Miller was arrested on or about April 29, 2000 and placed into the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Resisting Arrest (a misdemeanor) and Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Natika Miller was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by either Corrections Officer Dana Miles or Timothy Dobert.
4

7. Plaintiff Peter Rupp ("Rupp") is 23 years old and resides within this judicial district. Rupp was arrested on or about June 22, 2000 and placed into the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Peter Rupp was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by either Correctional Officers Wendy Veiga or Ronald LaFountain.
8. Plaintiff Wayne Conine ("Conine") is 41 years old and resides in Albany County. Conine was arrested on or about March 29, 2002 and placed into the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Criminal Possession of a Weapon (a misdemeanor), Resisting Arrest (a misdemeanor) and Disorderly Conduct (a violation). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Wayne Conine was, upon information and belief, stripsearched by either Correctional Officers Wendy Veiga or Anthonay Lazzaro.
9. Plaintiff Jeffrey Rockefeller ("Rockefeller") is 34 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Rockefeller was arrested on or about May 4, 2000 and placed into the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor) and Harassment in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor). Rockefeller was also incarcerated in the Rensselaer County Jail at other times during the class period. Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Jeffrey Rockefeller was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by Christopher Fumarola.
10. Plaintiff William W. Garrity ("Garrity") is 32 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Garrity was arrested on or about January 5, 2002 and placed into the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Resisting Arrest (a misdemeanor), Driving While Intoxicated (a misdemeanor), refusal of a breath test (a traffic violation) and speeding (a
5

traffic infraction). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, William Garrity was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by either Correctional Officers Wendy Veiga or Timothy Warren.
11. Plaintiff Harold Bonesteel ("Bonesteel") is 23 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Bonesteel was arrested on or about June 21, 2002 (five days before the filing of this action) and placed in the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Menacing in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Harold Bonesteel was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by either Corrections Officers Robert Patrick or Albert Giamei.
12. Plaintiff Charles Linen ("Linen") is 39 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Linen was arrested on or about May 15, 2002 (less than sixty days before the filing of this action) and placed in the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree and Non-Support of a Child (both misdemeanors). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Charles Linen was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by either Corrections Officers Wendy Veiga or Gregory Buell.
13. Plaintiff Dana Halloran ("Halloran") is 22 years old and resides in Rensselaer County. Halloran was arrested on or about December 7, 2002 (nearly six months after this action was filed) and placed in the Rensselaer County Jail on charges of criminal contempt in the second degree (a misdemeanor) and violation of an order of protection (a violation). Based on booking sheets produced by Rensselaer County, Dana Halloran was, upon information and belief, strip-searched by either Corrections Officer Christine Center or Corrections Officer Simon.
6

14. Defendant County of Rensselaer (the "County") is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 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 Rensselaer County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the Rensselaer County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Rensselaer 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 ofNew York.
15. The Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is a County Sheriffs Department organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriffs Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Rensselaer County Jail ("RCJ"). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Rensselaer, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the RCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the RCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of Rensselaer, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Rensselaer County
7

Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the RCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State ofNew York.
16. Defendant Daniel V. Keating ("Sheriff Keating") is the duly elected Sheriff of Rensselaer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Keating's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Sheriff Keating is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
17. Defendant Larry Walraed ("Larry Walraed") is the duly appointed Undersheriff of Rensselaer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Larry Walraed's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Larry Walraed is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
18. Defendant Robert Loveridge ("Colonel Loveridge") is the duly appointed Colonel of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and is the officer in charge of the operation of the Rensselaer County Jail. As such, Colonel Loveridge is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Colonel Loveridge's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Colonel Loveridge is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
19. Defendant Harold Smith ("Lieutenant Smith") is a duly appointed Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and is the administrative
8

officer for the Rensselaer County Jail. Lieutenant Smith is second in command to Colonel Loveridge in responsibility for jail operations. As such, Lieutenant Smith is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. Lieutenant Smith's principal place of business is 4000 Main Street, Troy, NY 12180. Lieutenant Smith is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
20. Defendant Kathleen Jimino ("County Executive Jimino") is the duly elected County Executive of Rensselaer County and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the RCJ exercises custodial or other control. County Executive Jimino's principal place of business is the Rensselaer County Office Building, Seventh Avenue, Troy, NY 12180. County Executive Jimino is made a Defendant in this action in both her individual and official capacities.
21. Collectively, Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants."

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 22. Plaintiffs bring 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 individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail. 23. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows: All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the JaiL Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 24. 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). 25. 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 Rensselaer 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 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions. 26. 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
10

presently residing outside of Rensselaer 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.
27. 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 Rensselaer County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.
28. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
29. The representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
30. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiffs are being represented by Elmer Robert Keach, III; Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger of Berenbaum Menken & Ben-Asher, LLP; and Gary E. Mason and Charles Schneider of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions before this Court, and has
11

litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady City School District, and has previously litigated two other cases against the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, including one on behalf of a sixteen year old girl raped by a Corrections Officer.
31. Bruce Menken and Jason Rozger are both experienced civil rights attorneys from New York City, having litigated scores of civil rights cases against a number of Defendants, including one prison brutality case presently pending in this District. Mr. Menken and Mr. Rozger have successfully represented many victims of illegal strip searches, including several who opted out of the recent class action litigation against the City of New York.
32. Gary E. Mason is one of this country's premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions, including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million doHars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation. In addition to his extensive experience as a class action and environmental lawyer, Charles Schneider is a former trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and has successfully litigated a series of cases involving corrections misconduct.
33. In short, Plaintiffs' counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Rensselaer County, the Rensselaer County
12

Sheriff's Department and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
34. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiffs' seek class certification 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 Rensselaer County Jail. In short, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Rensselaer County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
35. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
36. 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' de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Rensselaer County Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a de facto policy existed during the class period.
37. 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
13

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.
38. 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 at least the past twelve years, with the practice being declared unconstitutional in this judicial circuit in 1986.
39. 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).
14

FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 40. 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. 41. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail 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. 42. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches." 43. The County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer 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,
15

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 1986 by Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1986). In fact, this decision was recently cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in one of many civil rights cases to be successfully prosecuted against the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department. See, Sagendorf-Teal v. County of Rensselaer, 100 F.3d 270, 276 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Weber).
44. The Defendants' 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.
45. Upon information and belief, not only is the policy of strip searching illegal, but the manner in which individuals are searched is also impermissible. For example, upon information and belief, individuals are strip searched in the presence of corrections officers, jail employees and/or arrestees of the opposite gender.
46. 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.
47. Upon information and belief, the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department and the Individual Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a de facto policy, practice or custom of
16

strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This 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.
48. Pursuant to this de facto policy, each member ofthe Class, including every named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Rensselaer 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.
49. The strip searches in question largely occurred in an open area of the Rensselaer County Jail booking room, behind a "half wall" near the booking computers utilized by RCJ employees. This open area is in clear view of all six prisoner holding cells in the booking room, and can also been seen by Corrections Officers on an elevated platform, from windows in the booking room and from larger holding cells utilized to prepare inmates for transport.
50. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches - each member of the class, including every named Plaintiff- has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
17

51. Additionally, Defendant Daniel Keating, in his capacity as Sheriff and chief policy maker for the Rensselaer County Jail, together with the Policy Making Defendants, have promulgated a written policy purporting to govern the strip searches of individuals detained in the Rensselaer County Jail. This written policy, attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, does not provide that all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail are subject to being strip-searched.
52. This written policy, however, is not followed in the Rensselaer County Jail, as admitted by Colonel Loveridge and Lieutenant James Karam during their deposition testimony. While some (but not all) correctional employees maintain that strip searches were based on reasonable suspicion, proof taken in this action demonstrates that the Rensselaer County Jail employs a de facto policy, as set forth above, that provides that all individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail and placed into jail clothing are subject to a strip-search.
53. Additionally, the Defendants claim that they provided training to their subordinates about various policies relative to strip-searching, including the need for a supervisor to approve of a strip-search and make a written report, the use of an unwritten "clothing change" policy, and the requirement that reasonable suspicion be present when conducting a strip search. Discovery in this action has shown, however, that there has been absolutely no substantive training about booking procedures or strip searches during the class period, or even since the commencement of this action. COs received no training whatsoever relative to the circumstances under which they could conduct a strip search, and instead learned procedures by observing other officers in the booking room.
18

54. Nevertheless, the written policy promulgated by Defendant Keating and the Policy Making Defendants is, on its face, unconstitutional.
55. The written policy provides that strip-searches may be conducted on individuals arrested for misdemeanors and violations without requiring particularized, reasonable suspicion that those individuals are concealing contraband or a weapon.
56. The written policy provides that anyone charged with a crime involving violence or drugs is subject to a strip search, even in the absence of particularized reasonable suspicion.
57. The written policy also states that anyone who appears in the Rensselaer County Jail that is under the influence of alcohol or drugs (in the subjective opinion of the search officer) is subject to a strip search regardless of the nature of their criminal charges and in the absence of particularized reasonable suspicion.
58. The written policy further provides that anyone arrested for the following offenses, even in the absence of particularized, reasonable suspicion that they are possessing contraband or a weapon, is subject to a strip search: Sexual Misconduct (A Misdemeanor); Unlawful Imprisonment (A Misdemeanor); Resisting Arrest (A Misdemeanor); Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (A Misdemeanor); Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree (A Misdemeanor); Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (Violation); Disorderly Conduct (Violation); Harassment in the First Degree (B Misdemeanor); Public Drunkenness (Violation); Unlawfully Dealing with Fireworks and Dangerous Fireworks (B Misdemeanor); Unlawful Possession of Weapons by Persons Under Sixteen (Juvenile Offense); Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (A Misdemeanor);
19

Inciting a Riot (A Misdemeanor); Riot in the Second Degree (A Misdemeanor); Killing or Injuring a Police Animal (A Misdemeanor); and Self Abortion (A Misdemeanor).
59. This written policy also provides that someone who has ever been charged with a "strip-searchable" offense may, if later arrested for a non "strip searchable" charge, be strip searched without the necessity of particularized, reasonable suspicion. These individuals are termed "permanently strip searchable" in the policy.
60. The written policy does not state that strip searches will only be performed by members of the same gender as the accused, and does not state that individuals of the opposite gender should not be present during the search.
61. The written policy is, for these reasons, unconstitutional on its face. Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiffs
A. Nathaniel Bruce 62. Mr. Bruce's experience is representative. On or about November 11,
2001, Mr. Bruce was charged with Assault in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, both misdemeanors. Mr. Bruce subsequently resolved these charges by pleading guilty to harassment, a violation. Mr. Bruce is presently 31 years old. He was taken into custody by the Troy Police Department.
63. At approximately 12:00 PM on November 11, 2001, Mr. Bruce was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Bruce was moved into a depressed area in the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Bruce removed his clothing.
64. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Bruce to tum his back to them, lower his underpants and touch his toes. When Mr. Bruce was unable to bend over
20

because of a back injury, he was instructed to "pull your butt cheeks apart and wiggle." A Corrections Officer then conducted a visual inspection of Mr. Bruce's rectal cavity.
65. On this particular occasion, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Bruce was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Bruce that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Bruce had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officers in question knew or should have known that Mr. Bruce had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
66. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Bruce has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. B. Mark La Belle
67. Mr. La Belle's experience is representative as well. On or about April 14, 2001, Mr. La Belle was charged with Driving While Intoxicated, a misdemeanor under New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law. Mr. La Bene subsequently resolved these charges by pleading guilty to Driving While Ability Impaired, a traffic violation. Mr. La Belle is presently 32 years old. Mr. La Belle was taken into custody by the New York State Police.
68. At approximately 6:00 AM on April 14, 2001, Mr. La Belle was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. La Belle was moved into
21

the shower area in the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. La Belle removed his clothing.
69. A Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. La Belle to tum his back to him, lower his underpants and touch his toes. Mr. La Belle complied, and Corrections Officers then conducted a visual inspection ofMr. La Belle's rectal cavity.
70. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. La Belle was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. La Belle that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion.
71. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. La Belle has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. C. T'Shad Bradley
72. Mr. Bradley's experience is representative as well. On or about April 29, 2000, Mr. Bradley was charged with Trespassing, a misdemeanor. Mr. Bradley subsequently resolved these charges by pleading guilty to trespassing. Mr. Bradley is presently 19 years old, and was sixteen at the time of his arrest. Mr. Bradley had never been arrested prior to this trip to the RCJ. Mr. Bradley was taken into custody by the Troy Police Department.
73. At approximately 11:00 PM on the day of his arrest, Mr. Bradley was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Bradley was moved into the shower area in the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove his clothing. As a Corrections Officer watched, Mr. Bradley removed his clothing. The Corrections Officer
22

in question instructed Mr. Bradley to remove each piece of clothing while standing directly in front of him, including his underpants.
74. The Corrections Officer then instructed Mr. Bradley to turn his back to him and "squat". Mr. Bradley complied while the Corrections Officer stood above him.
75. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Bradley was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Bradley that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Bradley had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Bradley had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
76. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Bradley has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. D. Natika Miller
77. Ms. Miller's experience is representative as well. On or about April 29, 2000, Ms. Miller was charged with Resisting Arrest, a misdemeanor, and Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, a misdemeanor. Ms. Miller subsequently resolved these charges by accepting an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Ms. Miller is presently 19 years old, and was seventeen at the time of her arrest. Ms. Miller had never been arrested prior to this trip to the RCJ. Ms. Miller was taken into custody by the Troy Police Department.

78. At approximately 11 :00 PM on the day of her arrest, Ms. Miller was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Ms. Miller was moved into a comer in the RCJ booking room and ordered to remove her clothing by a female Corrections Officer. Ms. Miller was forced to do this while in the same room with male arrestees and male Corrections Officers. As a Corrections Officer watched, Ms. Miller removed her clothing. The Corrections Officer in question instructed Ms. Miller to remove each piece of clothing while standing directly in front of her, including her underpants and bra.
79. After removing her bra, the Corrections Officer instructed Ms. Miller to lift her breasts for an inspection of the skin on the bottom part of the breast. The Corrections Officer then instructed Ms. Miller to tum her back to her and touch her toes. Ms. Miller complied while the Corrections Officer stood behind her and visually examined Ms. Miller's vaginal and rectal cavities.
80. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Ms. Miller was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Ms. Miller that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Ms. Miller had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Ms. Miller had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
81. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Ms. Miller has

suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. E. Peter Rupp
82. Mr. Rupp's experience is representative as well. Mr. Rupp was arrested on or about June 22, 2000 and was charged with Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor). After arraignment, Mr. Rupp was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rupp was ordered by a Corrections Officer to disrobe, and to bend over and touch his toes. This was done in the RCJ booking room while in the presence of a female corrections officer.
83. Mr. Rupp was a Corporal on active duty in the United States Marine Corps at the time of his incident.
84. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Rupp was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Rupp that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Rupp had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Rupp had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
85. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Rupp has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

F. Wayne Conine 86. Mr. Conine's experience is representative as well. Mr. Conine was
arrested on or about March 29, 2002 and was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (a misdemeanor), Resisting Arrest (a misdemeanor) and Disorderly Conduct (a violation).
87. At approximately 10:00 AM on the day of his arrest, Mr. Conine was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Soon thereafter, Mr. Conine was ordered, in the presence of a female Corrections Officer, to remove his clothing. In response to his complaints relative to the presence of a female officer, Mr. Conine was told that it (meaning his naked body) was nothing she had not "seen before." Mr. Conine complied by removing his clothing, and was also instructed to bend over, lift his genitals and spread the lobes of his buttocks. No contraband was found on Conine's person.
88. Approximately six hours later, Mr. Conine posted bail and was released. 89. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Conine was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Conine that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Conine had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Conine had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband. 90. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Conine

has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. G. Jeffrey Rockefeller
91. Mr. Rockefeller's experience is representative as well. Mr. Rockefeller was arrested on or about May 4, 2000 on charges of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor) and Harassment in the Second Degree (a violation). After arraignment, Mr. Rockefeller was subject to a $500.00 bail and was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Shortly after arrival, Mr. Rockefeller was ordered by a Corrections Officer to remove all of his clothing. Mr. Rockefeller complied and was then ordered to squat down, lift his genitals and ''wiggle" his buttocks. The Corrections Officer then examined Mr. Rockefeller's anus with a flashlight, and then told Mr. Rockefeller that "you got a pencil dick there buddy." The officer then laughed in Mr. Rockefeller's presence.
92. This search took place in view of other inmates and female Corrections Officers.
93. All charges pending against Mr. Rockefeller where later dismissed. 94. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Rockefeller was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Rockefeller that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Dolan had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Rockefeller had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
27

95. Mr. Rockefeller has also been incarcerated in the Rensselaer County Jail several other times during the class period, and was subject to a strip search on each and every occasiOn.
96. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Rockefeller has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. H. William Garrity
97. Mr. Garrity's experience is representative as welL Mr. Garrity was arrested on January 5, 2002 and was charged with Resisting Arrest (a misdemeanor), Driving While Intoxicated (a misdemeanor), Refusal of a Breath Test (a traffic violation), and Speeding (a traffic infraction).
98. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Garrity was transported to the Rensselaer County JaiL Mr. Garrity was ordered, in the presence of a female Corrections Officer, to remove his clothing. Specifically, Mr. Garrity was taken behind the "half wall" in the shower area ofthe booking room and ordered to take off all ofhis clothing. He was then ordered to bend forward and "spread [his] cheeks." During his discussions with the Corrections Officer who conducted the search, Garrity was told that "you have no rights in here." Immediately before being searched, Mr. Garrity watched as another detainee was strip searched in the shower area over that person's verbal objections.
99. Mr. Garrity was subsequently bailed out after spending only a few hours in the Rensselaer County Jail.
28

100. Mr. Garrity is the son of a retired New York State Police Captain, and is a licensed physical therapist.
101. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Garrity was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Garrity that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Garrity had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Mr. Garrity had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
102. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Garrity has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. /. Charles Linen
103. Mr. Linen's experience is representative as well. Mr. Linen was arrested on or about May 15, 2002 and was charged with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor) and Non-Support of a Child (a misdemeanor). After arraignment, Linen was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Linen was then ordered to remove all of his clothing and place it on the top of the "half wall" in the shower area of the booking room. Mr. Linen complied and was ordered to touch his ankles, lift his genitals, and spread the lobes of his buttocks. When Mr. Linen objected to this procedure and informed the Corrections Officer that he was only in for child support, the officer responded that it "doesn't matter." This Officer also told Mr. Linen that if he
29

did not like being strip searched, "stop coming to jail." No contraband was found on Mr. Linen's person.
104. Mr. Linen was strip searched in the presence of female inmates housed in the holding cells.
105. Mr. Linen was bailed out of the RCJ the following day. 106. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Linen was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Linen that could have given rise to the requisite suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Linen had already been in the custody of police officers from the New York State Police, the Corrections Officers in question knew or should have known that Mr. Linen had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband. 107. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Linen has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. J. Harold Bonesteel 108. Mr. Bonesteel's experience is representative as well. Mr. Bonesteel was arrested on or about June 21 2002 and was charged with Menacing in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor). After arraignment, Bonesteel was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail. Bonesteel was then ordered to remove all of his clothing. Mr. Bonesteel complied and was ordered to touch his toes, lift his genitals, and spread the lobes of his buttocks. No contraband was found on Mr. Bonesteel's person.
30

109. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Bonesteel was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Mr. Bonesteel that could have given rise to the requisite suspicion. Moreover, because Mr. Bonesteel had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officers in question knew or should have known that Mr. Bonesteel had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
110. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Bonesteel has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. K. Dana Halloran
111. Ms. Halloran's experience is representative as well, and is all the more compelling given that she was arrested after the filing of this action. Ms. Halloran was arrested on or about December 7, 2002 and was charged with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor) and Violation of an Order of Protection (a violation). Ms. Halloran subsequently resolved her charges by accepting an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal. Ms. Halloran is a 22 year old college student and pharmacy employee, and had never been arrested prior to her being sent to the Rensselaer County Jail.
112. After Ms. Halloran was transported to the Rensselaer County Jail from Troy, she was processed for booking and walked through a metal detector. She was then moved from the booking room to the former Court Ready room across the hall, where she
31

was ordered into a room and told to remove her clothing by a female corrections officer. When Ms. Halloran attempted to retain her underpants and bra when changing into the jail uniform, she was forced to take off both by the Corrections Officer standing by the door. Specifically, the Corrections Officer told her to remove both her bra and underpants while watching her from behind. There was a mirror present against the far wall, allowing this Corrections Officers to observe Ms. Halloran's naked body from the front, as well.
113. Approximately two hours after entering the Rensselaer County Jail, Ms. Halloran posted bail and was released.
114. There was no reasonable suspicion to believe that Ms. Halloran was concealing a weapon or other contraband. Indeed, no inquiry was made of Ms. Halloran that could have given rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion. Moreover, because Ms. Halloran had already been in the custody of police officers from the City of Troy, the Corrections Officer in question knew or should have known that Ms. Halloran had already been subjected to a search incident to arrest that would have revealed any weapons or contraband.
115. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Ms. Halloran has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
32

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 -116. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 115. 117. 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. 118. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Rensselaer County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiffs 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 Rensselaer County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 119. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department. As such, the County of Rensselaer is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members ofthe Class. 120. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino are responsible for
33

establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Rensselaer County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Keating, Walraed, Loveridge, Smith and Jimino are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
121. Sheriff Keating, Larry Walraed, Colonel Loveridge, Lieutenant Smith and County Executive Jimino knew that the RCJ's strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
122. 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.
123. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment -
124. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 123.
125. The policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the County of Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
126. Plaintiffs 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 Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
127. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 126.
128. The policy, custom and practice of the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the County of Rensselaer 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 Rensselaer County Jail without any
35

particularized suspicion that the individuals m question have either contraband or weapons.
129. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Rensselaer County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiffs.
130. 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.
131. Plaintiffs demand that the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Rensselaer County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Rensselaer 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.
36

DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 132. 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. 133. The conduct of the Individual Defendants herein represents just the latest example of a County Jail and Sheriff's Department that is completely mismanaged. In recent years, the Jail has come under scrutiny for a series of incidents involving the excessive use of force against inmates (where the County and the Sheriff's Department inevitably blames the inmates for "injuring" themselves), the rape of a juvenile inmate by a Corrections Officer, deliberate indifference to those with psychological problems, and the illegal termination of a Corrections Officer who detailed the application of excessive force in an administrative report. The Sheriff's Department has also recently been sued for firing, and prosecuting on felony charges, one of its own deputies for supposedly misusing a sick day. 134. It is clear that the Individual Defendants, the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer 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 Individual Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Rensselaer County.
DEMANDFORTIDALBYJURY 135. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
37

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Charles Linen, Peter Rupp, Jeffrey Rockefeller, Wayne Conine, Dana Halloran, William Garrity and Harold Bonesteel, 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 and Fourth Causes 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 Daniel Keating on Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. D. A judgment against Defendant Larry Walraed on Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. E. A judgment against Defendant Robert Loveridge on Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. F. A judgment against Defendant Hal Smith on Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. G. A judgment against Defendant Kathleen Jimino on Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Causes of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. H. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Rensselaer and the Rensselaer County Sheriffs Department's policy, practice and custom of strip
38

and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Rensselaer County Jail, regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper. I. 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. J. 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;
39

Dated: March 17, 2004 Albany, NY

Elmer bert K

USDC,NDNY

One Steuben Place

Albany, NY 12207

Telephone:

518.434.1718

Telecopier:

877.471.3092

Electronic Mail: bobkeach@keachlaw.com

Bruce E. Menken, Esquire

USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number 104942

Jason J. Rozger, Esquire

BERANBAUM,MENKEN,&

BEN-ASHER, LLP

Three New York Plaza

New York, NY 10004

Telephone:

212.509.1616

Telecopier:

212.509.8088

Electronic Mail: jrozger@bmbf.com

Gary E. Mason, Esquire

Charles Schneider, Esquire

THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 191h Street, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone:

202.429.2290

Telecopier:

202.429.2294

Electronic Mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS

40

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

ADR, CLOSED, LEAD
U.S. District Court Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 3.0.5] (Albany)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-01324-TJM-DRH

Kahler v. Rensselaer County, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy Referred to: Magistrate Judge David R. Homer Demand: $5,000,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Paul Adam Kahler both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Consol Plaintiff Harold Bonesteel

Date Filed: 10/31/2003 Date Terminated: 09/24/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Elmer R. Keach, III Office of Elmer R. Keach, III 1040 Riverfront Center P.O. Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 518-434-1718 Fax: 518-770-1558 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce E. Menken Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm 80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 212-509-1616 Fax: 212-509-8088 Email: bmenken@bmbblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary E. Mason Mason Law Firm - DC Office 1225 19th Street N.W. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 202-429-2290 Fax: 202-429-2294 Email: gmason@masonlawdc.com

1 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Consol Plaintiff T'Shad Bradley
Consol Plaintiff Nathaniel Bruce
Consol Plaintiff

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm 80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 212-509-1616 Fax: 212-509-8088 Email: jrozger@bmbblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Wayne E. Conine
Consol Plaintiff William Garrity
Consol Plaintiff Dana Halloran
Consol Plaintiff Mark La Belle

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

Consol Plaintiff Charles Linen
Consol Plaintiff Natika Miller

Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

4 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Consol Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Rockefeller
Consol Plaintiff Peter Rupp
V. Defendant County of Rensselaer
Defendant Daniel Keating both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Rensselaer

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor Napierski, Vandenburgh Law Firm 296 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12203 518-862-9292 Fax: 518-862-1519 Email: toc@nvnlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

5 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Defendant Larry Walraed both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Rensselaer
Defendant Robert Loveridge both individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department.
Defendant Harold Smith both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department
Defendant Kathleen Jimino both individually and as County Executive of the County of Rensselaer.
Consol Defendant Gregory Buell Consol Defendant Salvatore Greico Consol Defendant Keith Hancock Consol Defendant Thomas Job Consol Defendant Patrick Kane Consol Defendant Ronald LaFountaine Consol Defendant Anthony Lazaro Consol Defendant Barry McDonald

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

6 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

Consol Defendant Dana Miles
Consol Defendant Timothy Moran
Consol Defendant Michael Patrick
Consol Defendant Robert Patrick
Consol Defendant Walter Ryan, Jr.
Consol Defendant James Simon

Date Filed 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 02/27/2004
02/27/2004 03/01/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 70745; Service deadline 12/30/03 for Kathleen Jimino, for Harold Smith, for Robert Loveridge, for Larry Walraed, for Daniel Keating, for Rensselaer County (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2004 (tm, ). (Entered: 10/31/2003)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Rensselaer County, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, Kathleen Jimino (jel) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
General Order 25 Filing Order Issued; Conference set before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer in Albany, Status Conference at 9:30 a.m. on 1/28/04, Deadline for filing Case Management Plan, 1/14/04, ADR Track Case. (jel) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Paul Adam Kahler. Kathleen Jimino served on 2/27/2004, answer due 3/18/2004; Daniel Keating served on 2/27/2004, answer due 3/18/2004; Robert Loveridge served on 2/27/2004, answer due 3/18/2004; Harold Smith served on 2/27/2004, answer due 3/18/2004; The County of Rensselaer served on 2/27/2004, answer due 3/18/2004; Larry Walraed served on 2/27/2004, answer due 3/18/2004. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
3 Letter from Elmer Keach for Paul Adam Kahler requesting Provision of Extension of Time for Defendants to Answer. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
4 LETTER REQUEST & ORDER, Answer due date updated for Kathleen Jimino answer due 5/1/2004; Daniel Keating answer due 5/1/2004; Robert Loveridge answer due 5/1/2004; Harold Smith answer due 5/1/2004; The County of Rensselaer answer due 5/1/2004; Larry Walraed answer due 5/1/2004. Signed by

7 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

03/17/2004 03/17/2004 03/18/2004
04/15/2004 04/23/2004
04/23/2004 04/26/2004 04/27/2004 04/28/2004 06/09/2004

Judge David R. Homer on 3/1/04. (ban ) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kathleen Jimino, Daniel Keating, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, The County of Rensselaer, Larry Walraed, filed by Paul Adam Kahler.(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
6 STIPULATION consenting to filing of Amended Complaint by Paul Adam Kahler. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
7 MOTION to Certify Class and for preliminary approval of class action settlement Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2004 10:00 AM in Binghamton before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 4/6/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 4/12/2004. Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2004 10:00 AM in Binghamton before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 4/6/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 4/12/2004. by Paul Adam Kahler. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in support of motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and provision certification of settlement class# 2 Affidavit of Elmer Keach in support of motion for preliminary approval# 3 settlement agreement# 4 Proposed Order/Judgment)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
8 Court NOTICE to parties advising that the pending motions for 4/23/04 are on for ORAL argument at 10:00 AM in Binghamton bef. Judge McAvoy. (sfp, ) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
9 Minute Entry: MOTION CALENDAR held 4/23/04 bef Judge McAvoy in Binghamton, NY: APP: Elmer Keach, III & Charles Schneider, Esqs. for Pltfs; Eugene Napierski & Dwight Davis (admitted pro hac vice), Esqs. for Defts; CR: V. Theleman; LC/SE; CRD/mp. Pltfs' 7 MOTION for provisional Class Certification & for preliminary approval of class settlement - GRANTED; Court directs that related action Bruce vs. County/Rensselaer, 1:02-CV-847 be consolidated as member case. Parties advised that Court will not approve proposed settlement unless issues identified by the Court are resolved. [10:00a 10:45a] (cml ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
ORAL ORDER consolidating this case with 1:02-cv-847 being the member case and 1:03-cv-1324 being the lead case. Stated by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy at 4/23/04 motion calendar. (amt, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
10 NOTICE by Paul Adam Kahler Long Form Notice for Court Approval (Attachments: # 1 Summary Notice for Court Approval# 2 Claim Form for Court Approval)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
11 NOTICE by Paul Adam Kahler of Letter to Lawrence Baerman, Clerk regarding (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order/Judgment # 2 Exhibit A - Long Form Notice# 3 Exhibit B - Summary Notice)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
12 ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT granting 7 Motion to Certify Class . Signed by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 4/28/04. (sfp, ) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
13 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp

8 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

07/15/2004 07/15/2004 08/13/2004
08/16/2004

requesting Discovery Conference with the Court. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
14 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Letter to Woodburne Correctional Facility regarding Opt-Out David Sousa. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
15 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Letter to Opt-Out David Sousa, cc to Court. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
16 MOTION to Certify Class and For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2004 10:00 AM in Albany before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 8/27/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/2/2004. Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2004 10:00 AM in Albany before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 8/27/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/2/2004. by Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affirmation of Elmer Robert Keach, III, in Support of Motion# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Kim Ness in Support of Motion# 3 Exhibit A to Ness Affidavit -- Summary Notice# 4 Exhibit B to Ness Affidavit -- Class Notice# 5 Exhibit C to Ness Affidavit -- Reminder Postcard# 6 Exhibit D to Ness Affidavit -- List of Opt Outs and Copies of Exclusion Requests# 7 Memorandum of Law In Support of Final Approval# 8 Proposed Final Approval Order)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
17 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class , For Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, corrected to include exhibits to affirmation of Elmer Keach Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2004 10:00 AM in Albany before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 8/27/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/2/2004. Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2004 10:00 AM in Albany before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 8/27/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/2/2004. by Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp. (Attachments: # 1 affirmation of elmer keach in support of motion for final approval and attorneys' fees# 2 Keach Ex. A -- website pages# 3 Keach Ex. B -- Ness Affidavit, without attachments# 4 Keach Ex. C -- website statistics# 5 Keach Ex. D -- Order from Judge Homer compelling production of social services records# 6 Keach Ex. E -- Short form notice from Schenectady Gazette# 7 Keach Ex. F -- List of Opt-Outs# 8 Keach Ex. G -- Doan v. Watson Decision# 9 Keach Ex. H -- Findings in Eddleman v. Jefferson County# 10 Keach Ex. I -- affidavit of gregory belzley, counsel in eddleman# 11 Keach Ex. J -- affidavit from Howard Freidmant, counsel in mack v. suffolk county# 12 Keach Ex. K -- Affidavit of Daniel Duckett, counsel in Moser v. Anderson# 13 Keach Ex. L -- Spinner v. City of New York decision# 14 Keach Ex. M -- order decertifying class in spinner v. city of new york# 15 Keach Ex. N -- New York

9 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

08/18/2004 08/25/2004
09/02/2004 09/08/2004 09/10/2004
09/10/2004

Times Article about Spinner v. City of New York# 16 Keach Ex. O -- Augistin v. Jablonsky decision# 17 Keach Ex. P -- New York Times Article re: Sorenstam v. City of New York# 18 Keach Ex. Q -- Dodge v. County of Orange decision# 19 Keach Ex. R -- New RCJ Strip Search Policy# 20 Keach Ex. S -- Fee affidavit of Elmer Keach# 21 Keach Ex. T -- Fee Affidavit of Bruce Menken# 22 Keach Ex. U -- Fee Affidavit of Charles Schneider# 23 Keach Ex. V -- Independent Energy decision# 24 Keach Ex. W -- Chipcom decision# 25 Keach Ex. X -- Bruce v. County of Rensselaer Decision# 26 Keach Ex. Y -- Whittum v. Saginaw County decision# 27 Keach Ex. Z -- Duncan v. Unity Life Decision# 28 Keach Ex. AA -Arakis Energy Decision# 29 Keach Ex. BB -- Dreyfus Growth Decision# 30 Keach Ex. CC -- Lloyd's growth fund decision# 31 Keach Ex. DD -- Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette decision# 32 Keach Ex. EE -- Varljen v. H. J. Meyers decision# 33 Keach Ex. FF -- Fine Host Corp. decision# 34 Keach Ex. GG -- Lo Re v. Chase Manhattan decision# 35 Keach Ex. HH -- portion of testimony, corrections officer Jamie Kosowski# 36 Keach Ex. II -- Rensselaer County Budget Address, 2004# 37 Affidavit of Kim Ness, Third Party Administrator# 38 Ness Ex. A -- Published Summary Notice# 39 Ness Ex. B -Long Form Notice, mailed to Class Members# 40 Ness Ex. C -- Reminder Postcard# 41 Ness Ex. D -- List of Opt-Outs and Copies of Exclusion requests# 42 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Final Approval and Award of Fees and Expenses# 43 Proposed Final Approval Order)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
18 NOTICE by Paul Adam Kahler of Errata (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
19 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Supplementing Motion Papers for Final Approval and Award of Attorneys' Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Time Records -- Elmer Keach# 2 Time Records -- Jason Rozger# 3 Time Records -Mason Law Firm# 4 Time Records --- Bruce Menken)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
20 Court NOTICE to parties advising that the pending motions for 9/13/04 are on for Oral Argument in Albany at 10:00 bef. Judge McAvoy. (sfp, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
21 SEALED DOCUMENT - maintained in Clerk's Office and not available for electronic viewing (ban) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
22 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Supplementing Plaintiffs' Submission regarding Final Approval. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Ralph White# 2 letter to unverified class members)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
23 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Permanent Admission Ceremony for Gary Mason on Monday, September 13, 2004. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 09/10/2004)

10 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

09/10/2004
09/13/2004
09/23/2004 09/24/2004 11/01/2004 11/17/2004 12/08/2004 01/21/2005 02/02/2005 07/01/2005 08/17/2005 02/27/2006

24 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Paul Adam Kahler, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Detailing for Court the Total Costs of Notice Program and Settlement Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Invoices from Kinsella and Rust)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
25 Minute Entry: MOTION CALENDAR held 9/13/04 bef Judge McAvoy in Albany, NY: APP: Elmer Keach, Esq. for Pltfs; Bruce Menken, Esq. for Consolidated Pltfs; Gary Mason & Thomas O'Connor, Esqs. for Consolidated Pltfs; CR: B. Buckley; LC/SE; CRD/mp. Pltfs' 16/17 MOTION to Certify Class & For Final Approval of Class Settlement - GRANTED IN PART / DENIED IN PART; Court to issue order. [10:00a - 11:00a] (cml ) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
26 ORDER granting 16 and 17 Motion to Certify Class, and granting in part and denying in part 16 and 17 Motion for final approval of class settlement. Signed by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/23/04. (amt, ) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
27 JUDGMENT in accordance with Judge McAvoy's Order filed on 9/23/04 (amt, ) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
28 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/13/04 (decision) before Judge McAvoy. Court Reporter: B. Buckley. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
29 LETTER BRIEF Regarding waiver of liens in settlement agreement and issues of child support owed by The County of Rensselaer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: 9-23-04 Order# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: 9-23-04 Judgment# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C: Child Support Owed)(O'Connor, Thomas) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
30 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER granting in part, denying in part pltfs' motion for an order denying County's request to seize settlement payments to satisfy child support liens of class members. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 12/7/04. (wjg, ) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
31 Letter from Andre Akins to Clerk dd 1/14/05 asking what can be done to exercise right of settlement. (wjg, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
32 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER returning letter request regarding settlement from Anthony Rucker. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 2/2/05. (ban) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
33 LETTER BRIEF by County of Rensselaer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(O'Connor, Thomas) [Atty O'Connor contacted and directed to re-file breif in the 02-cv-847 case since all documents relating to this issue are filed in the 847 case] Modified on 7/5/2005 (amt, ). (Entered: 07/01/2005)
34 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER granting in part, denying in part parties' motion and cross-motion. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 8/17/05. (wjg, ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
35 Letter Motion from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp, Paul Adam Kahler requesting Conference With Court to Discuss Conclusion of Settlement submitted to Judge David R. Homer. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered:

11 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

03/01/2006 06/27/2007

02/27/2006)
36 NOTICE of Hearing: In Chambers Conference re: settlement agreement issues set for 3/28/2006 09:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (wjg, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
37 ORDER terminating case. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 6/27/07. (tab) (Entered: 06/27/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

07/27/2007 13:42:58

hs0328

Client Code:

clearinghouse

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:03-cv-01324-TJM-DRH

8

Cost:

0.64

12 of 12

7/27/2007 12:43 PM

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

ADR, CLOSED, MEMBER
U.S. District Court Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE - Version 3.0.5] (Albany)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-00847-TJM-DRH

Bruce, et al v. County of Rensselaer, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy Referred to: Magistrate Judge David R. Homer Demand: $800,000,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Nathaniel Bruce both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

Date Filed: 06/27/2002 Date Terminated: 09/24/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Bruce E. Menken Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm 80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 212-509-1616 Fax: 212-509-8088 Email: bmenken@bmbblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elmer R. Keach, III Office of Elmer R. Keach, III 1040 Riverfront Center P.O. Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 518-434-1718 Fax: 518-770-1558 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary E. Mason Mason Law Firm - DC Office 1225 19th Street N.W. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 202-429-2290 Fax: 202-429-2294 Email: gmason@masonlawdc.com TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jason J. Rozger Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm 80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005

1 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Plaintiff Mark La Belle Both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff T'Shad Bradley both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
212-509-1616 Fax: 212-509-8088 Email: jrozger@bmbblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Natika Miller both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff Peter Rupp both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff Wayne E. Conine both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason J. Rozger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006

3 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Rockefeller both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff William Garrity both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff Harold Bonesteel both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

4 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Plaintiff Charles Linen both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
Plaintiff Dana Halloran both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
V. Defendant County of Rensselaer
Defendant Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department TERMINATED: 08/19/2003

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Bruce E. Menken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary E. Mason (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor Napierski, Vandenburgh Law Firm 296 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12203 518-862-9292 Fax: 518-862-1519 Email: toc@nvnlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2003

5 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report
Defendant Daniel Keating both indivudually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Rensselaer
Defendant Larry Walraed both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of Rensselaer
Defendant Robert Loveridge both individually and as Colonel in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department
Defendant Harold Smith both individually and as Lieutenant in the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department
Defendant Kathleen Jimino both individually and as County Executive of the County of Rensselaer
Defendant John & Jane Does Numbers 1 through 100 TERMINATED: 08/19/2003

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel J. Stewart Brennan, White Law Firm 163 Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 518-793-3424 Fax: 518-793-3422 Email: DanielStewart@albany.twcbc.com TERMINATED: 08/19/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J. O'Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

6 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

Defendant Thomas Job
Defendant James Simon
Defendant Ronald LaFountaine
Defendant Gregory Buell
Defendant Barry McDonald
Defendant Anthony Lazaro
Defendant Salvatore Greico
Defendant Patrick Kane
Defendant Walter Ryan, Jr.
Defendant Timothy Moran
Defendant Robert Patrick
Defendant Michael Patrick
Defendant Dana Miles
Defendant Keith Hancock

Date Filed

#

7 of 21

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Docket Text

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

06/27/2002
06/27/2002 06/27/2002 07/25/2002 10/21/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002
10/28/2002 10/28/2002
10/31/2002
12/18/2002 12/20/2002

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 64112 ; Service deadline 8/26/02 for John & Jane Does, for Kathleen Jimino, for Harold Smith, for Robert Loveridge, for Larry Walraed, for Daniel Keating, for Rensselaer Sheriffs, for County of Rensselaer (wbl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 06/28/2002)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for County of Rensselaer, Rensselaer Sheriffs, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, Kathleen Jimino, John & Jane Does (wbl) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
Filing Order Issued; Conference set before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer in Albany, Status Conference at 9:30 10/22/02 , Deadline for filing Case Management Plan, 10/7/02 , ADR Track Case. (wbl) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
2 ANSWER to Complaint by County of Rensselaer, Rensselaer Sheriffs, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, Kathleen Jimino, John & Jane Does (Attorney Thomas J. O'Connor), (pta) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 07/25/2002)
3 Proposed Joint Civil Case Management Plan Submitted. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 10/21/2002)
4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: why defts. should not be compelled to obtain separate counsel . (Signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 10/23/02) (fce) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
5 ORDER set Discovery deadline to 3/3/03 concerning class certification and p.i. relief ; set Motion Filing deadline to 4/1/03 concerning a motion for class certification and for p.i. relief; any response to such motion is to be filed by 5/1/03, reply papers are due 5/15/03 and any such motion is returnable 6/9/03 @10:00 . ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 10/22/02) (fce) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
Status conference held (fce) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
6 Minute entry: Status Conf. held b/f USMJ Homer; Length of conf. was :25; appr. by B. Keach and J. Roach for Bruce and T. O'Connor for Co. of Renss.; no dates extended; case is not trial ready; a further conf. to be held to est. a schedule for case completion after the motion for p.i. and class certification is decided. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 10/29/2002)
7 ORDER that the City of Troy Police Dept. records relating to the 11/12/01 arrest of pltf. be unsealed for review & copy by counsel; City of Troy Police Dept. records relaing to the 4/29/00 arrest of Miller be unsealed for use by counsel; and that in accordance w/FRCP 26(c), all files prod. pursuant to this order shall not be disclosed to any one other than counsel to this case. (signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 10/31/02) (fce) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
8 Scheduling Notice:, set Discovery Conference (on-the-record) for 9:45 on 12/19/02 b/f USMJ Homer; Att. J. Rozger will participate by phone. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 12/18/2002)
9 ORDER that plf's request for an order compelling defts. to produce for exam the files of inmates incarcerated at Renss. Co. Jail from 6/1/99 to date is denied except for named pltfs. in this action; and that to pltf's request for an order

8 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

01/09/2003 01/13/2003
01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/17/2003 01/24/2003
01/24/2003
01/24/2003
01/27/2003 01/27/2003

compelling this court to take any action re: non-party Mark Piche as to his legal representation is denied; and to Amend [5-1] order set Discovery deadline to 3/3/03 concerning class certification and p.i. relief , reset Amended Pleadings deadline to 2/1/03 ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 12/20/02) (fce) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
10 REQUEST and ORDER, granting Pltfs to Extend Time to file an Appeal from the Mag/Judge's 12-20-02 no later than 1-22-03 ( signed by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy ) (pta) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
11 NOTICE of In Camera Submission re: Joint Representaion filed by County of Rensselaer, Rensselaer Sheriffs, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, Kathleen Jimino, John & Jane Does. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/13/2003)
12 SEALED DOCUMENT/Affidavit placed in vault. (fce) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
13 SEALED DOCUMENT/Affidavit placed in vault. (fce) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
14 SEALED DOCUMENT/Affidavit placed in vault. (fce) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
15 SEALED DOCUMENT/Affidavit placed in vault. (fce) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
16 SEALED DOCUMENT/Affidavit placed in vault. (fce) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
17 ORDER Approving Defts' Waiver of Potential Conflict. ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 1/13/03) Date Entered: 1/13/03 (fce) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
18 Scheduling Notice:, set Discovery Hearing/Conference (on-the-record) for 1:00 on 1/31/03 . (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/17/2003)
19 MOTION by Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller for an order reversing a discovery order of USMJ Homer ; Hearing set for 10:00 3/10/03, Response Deadline 2/24/03; Motion returnable before Judge: McAvoy in Albany. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller in support of [19-1] motion for an order reversing a discovery order of USMJ Homer. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
21 AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT by Elmer Robert Keach on behalf of Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller Re: [19-1] motion for an order reversing a discovery order of USMJ Homer. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
22 LETTER of Elmer Robert Keach, III dd 1-23-03 requesting additional time to file Appeal from the discovery decision of Judge Homer [motion filed 1-24-03] (pta) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
23 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 12/19/02 (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)

9 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

01/31/2003 02/03/2003
02/03/2003 02/04/2003 02/05/2003 02/11/2003
03/03/2003 03/03/2003 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 04/15/2003

Discovery hearing held bef MJ Homer (cml) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
24 ORDER setting In Chambers/Evidentiary hearing for 2:30 on 2/4/03 , and that in reconsideration of Order [9-1], it is Ordered that on or b/f 3/1/03, defts. shall provide pltfs. w/copies of the RCCF booking sheets for individuals admitted to the RCCF for non-felony charges for the period of 6/1/99 to day; and reset Discovery deadline to 5/1/03 concerning class certification; ddl. for the amendment of pleadings is extended to 3/1/03 . ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 1/31/03) Date Entered: 2/3/03 (fce) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
Deadline updated; Amended Pleadings deadline to 3/1/03 , as per order [24-1]. (fce) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
In-chambers conference/evidentiary hearing held bef MJ Homer (cml) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
25 Scheduling Notice:, set Status Conference re: settlement for 10:00 on 3/17/03 b/f USMJ Homer. (fce) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 02/06/2003)
26 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER that pltfs' motion for an order compelling Loveridge to answer questions at oral depo. concerning communications b/w Loveridge & Sheriff Keating and RCCF employees is GRANTED and DENIED as to all such communications that occurred after the commencement of legal representation by defts' counsel up to 2/4/03. (signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer ) Date Entered: 2/11/03 (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
27 Court NOTICE to counsel dd 3/3/03 advising that the pending motions for 3/10/03 are on submit basis, no appearances necessary (sfp) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 03/03/2003)
28 PLTFS NOTICE of Withdrawing their Motion/Appeal of Mag/Judge Homer's 12-20-02 discovery order by Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller [motion scheduled fro 3-10 MC] (pta) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 03/03/2003)
Motion hearing re: Pltfs' [19-1] motion/appeal of MJ Homer discovery order held (cml) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
29 LETTER REQUEST by Elmer Keach and ORDER of USMJ Homer granted to reset Joining of Parties Deadline to 3/24/03 , and reset Amended Pleadings deadline to 3/24/03 . ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 3/11/03) (fce) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
Status conference held bef MJ Homer (cml) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
30 Minute entry: MOTION CALENAR held 3/10/03 bef Judge McAvoy in Albany, NY: APP/LC: None; CR: T. Berical; CRD/mp. Pltfs' [19-1] motion/appeal of MJ Homer's discovery order - WITHDRAWN [addressed by [28-1] letter]. (cml) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
31 LETTER REQUEST by Jason Rozger and ORDER of USMJ Treece granted to reset Amended Pleadings deadline to 5/1/03 , reset Discovery deadline to 6/1/03 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece on 4/14/03) (fce) (Entered:

10 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

05/09/2003 05/19/2003 05/20/2003
06/03/2003
06/03/2003
06/03/2003 06/13/2003 06/18/2003 07/24/2003 07/25/2003
07/25/2003

04/16/2003)
32 NOTICE of attorney appearance for John & Jane Does by Daniel J. Stewart (tab) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 05/12/2003)
Tele-conference held bef MJ Homer (cml) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
33 ORDER, reset Amended Pleadings deadline to 6/1/03 , reset Discovery deadline (concerning class certification) to 7/1/03 , the ddl for pltfs to serve any motion re: class certification and preliminary injunctive relief is extended to 8/1/03; the ddl for defts to respond to any such motion is 9/1/03; reset pltf reply ddl and Motion package filing deadline to 9/15/03; any such motion shall be made returnable before the district court in Albany on 10/16/03 @ 9:30am; if no motion for class certification is filed or, if filed, once such motion is decided by the district court, a further conference will be held to establish a schedule for completion of this case. ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 5/19/03) (wjg) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
34 MOTION by Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Permissive Joinder of additional class representatives , Hearing set for 9:30 7/17/03 , Response Deadline 7/3/03 Motion returnable before Mag. Judge: David R. Homer (tab) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 06/05/2003)
35 AFFIRMATION by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. as to Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller Re: in support of [34-1] motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Permissive Joinder of additional class representatives (tab) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 06/05/2003)
36 MEMORANDUM by Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller in support of [34-1] motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Permissive Joinder of additional class representatives (tab) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 06/05/2003)
37 LETTER REQUEST by Elmer Keach dd 6/10/03 and ORDER, to Extend Time, nunc pro tunc, for the filing of motion to amend to 6/3/03 ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer ) (wjg) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
38 Letter RESPONSE by defts to [34-1] motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Permissive Joinder of additional class representatives; defts DO NOT OPPOSE MOTION. (wjg) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/26/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 06/18/2003)
Tele-conference held before Judge david R. Homer (jel) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
39 ORDER, that the ddl for pltfs to file and serve any motion for class certification and other preliminary relief is hereby extended to 9/1/03; that defts shall provide pltfs with responses to the outstanding denands for documents on or before 8/8/03. ( signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer ) (wjg) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
40 ORDER granting [34-1] motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and for Permissive Joinder of additional class representatives, set Amended Pleadings deadline (for filing & service of proposed amended complaint) to 8/15/03 (

11 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

08/08/2003
08/19/2003 08/19/2003 08/19/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003

signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer ) (wjg) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
41 ORDER, The City of TPD records and TCC records related to the 12/7/02 arrest and prosecution of Halloran are herby unsealed solely for the review, copying and use by counsel in this action , The City of TPD records and TCC records relating to the 5/4/00 arrest and prosecution of Rockefeller, are hereby unsealed solely for the use by counsel in this action , In accordance with FRCP 26(c), all files produced pursuant to this Order shall not be disclosed to any one other than counsel of record in this action or third-parties necessarily employed by counsel for purposes of assistance with this action. In the event any documents covered by this order are filed with the Court, they will be filed in a separate, sealed envelope plainly indicating that they are to be filed under seal pursuant to this Order, and will not be made part of the public record. To the extent deposition testimony or other documents reference these sealed criminal proceedings and are later filed with the Court or released publicly, portions of the documents will be redacted to remove any mention of sealed criminal prosecutions. In the event of a court filing, the parties will file one redacted copy of documents referencing these sealed prosecutions under seal as detailed above, and will file a redacted copy of the document for the public record (signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 8/7/03) (jel) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
42 LETTER REQUEST dated 8/18/03 by Jason J. Rozger, Esq., and ORDER, granting request to extend time by one day to file the amended complaint (signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 8/18/03) (jel) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
43 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: by Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran, Service deadline 10/18/03 for County of Rensselaer, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, Kathleen Jimino, amends [1-1] Complaint, w/attached jury trial demand. (jmb) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 08/21/2003)
Status Note: the # [43-1] Amended Complaint does not name defendants' The Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department and the John and Jane Does, Numbers 1 through 100, L/M with attorney to confirm if these defts are to be terminated from the Court Docket. (jmb) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
44 LETTER REQUEST dated 9/2/03 by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., and ORDER, denying request for an enlargement of time for plaintiffs to file their motion in support of class certification and preliminary injunction (signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 9/2/03) (jel) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
Tele-conference held before Judge David R. Homer (jel) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
45 Court Scheduling Notice dated 9/4/03 by Lynda A. Hennessy, Judicial Assistant, to Judge David R. Homer resetting Filing Order Deadlines: Conference set before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer in Albany, Status Conference at 3:00 p.m. on 9/17/03, Deadline for filing Case Management Plan, 9/10/03 (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/04/2003)
46 ORDER, denying Reconsideration of [44-1] order denying request for an enlargement of time for plaintiffs to file their motion in support of class certification and preliminary injunction (signed by Magistrate Judge David R.

12 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

09/08/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003
09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/16/2003

Homer on 9/4/03) (jel) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
47 LETTER REQUEST dated 9/4/03 by Thomas J. O'Connor, Esq., and ORDER, to extend time until 10/13/03 for the defendants to appear or answer the amended complaint , resetting Answer deadline to 10/13/03 for County of Rensselaer, for Rensselaer Sheriffs, for Daniel Keating, for Larry Walraed, for Robert Loveridge, for Harold Smith, for Kathleen Jimino, for John & Jane Does (signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 9/8/03) (jel) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
48 ORDER - denying Pltfs Order to Show Cause from Mag/Judge Homer's ruling of 9-04-03 ( signed by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy ) Date Entered: 9/15/03 (pta) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
49 AFFIRMATION by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran Re: in support of plaintiffs' request to proceed by order to show cause for appeal of USMJ David R. Homer's decision. (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/16/2003)
50 APPEAL OF A MAGISTRATE DECISION by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran appealing USMJ David R. Homer's [44-1] and [46-1] orders to USDJ Thomas J. McAvoy , Hearing set for 10:00 a.m. 10/14/03, Response Deadline 9/30/03 Motion returnable before Judge/Mag. Judge: Thomas J. McAvoy (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/16/2003)
50 AFFIRMTATION along with Exhibits A-E by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran Re: in support of the [50-1] motion appealing USMJ R. Homer's [44-1] and [46-1] orders to USDJ Thomas J. McAvoy (jel) Modified on 09/16/2003 (Entered: 09/16/2003)
51 AFFIRMATION by Bruce E. Menken, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran Re: in support of the [50-1] motion appealing USMJ R. Homer's [44-1] and [46-1] orders to USDJ Thomas J. McAvoy (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/16/2003)
52 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran in support of [50-1] motion appealing USMJ David R. Homer's [44-1] and [46-1] orders to USDJ Thomas J. McAvoy (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/16/2003)
53 Court Scheduling Notice dated 9/16/03 by John E. Law, deputy clerk, scheduling an appeal of a magistrate's decision for 10/14/03 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/16/2003)

13 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

09/29/2003 09/29/2003
10/01/2003 10/03/2003 10/08/2003
10/14/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/31/2003
11/04/2003

54 Proposed Joint Civil Case Management Plan Submitted. (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 09/30/2003)
55 Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order; Length of Trial: 25 days; Trial Location: Albany; Joining of Parties Deadline 12/1/03; Amending of Pleadings Deadline 12/1/03; Discovery Deadline 9/1/04; Motion Filing Deadline 11/1/04; Trial ready deadline 11/1/04 Jury Trial Deadline 9:30 a.m. on 2/15/05; Early Neutral Evaluation Deadline 12/28/03; (Signed by: Magistrate Judge David R. Homer on 9/29/03) (jel) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
56 Court NOTICE to counsel dd 10/1/03 advising that the pending motion for 10/14/03 in on submit, no appearances necessary (sfp) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 10/01/2003)
57 LETTER of Thomas J. O'Connor dd 9-30-03 as response to Pltfs objections to Mag/Judge Homer's ruling, precluding Pltf's from filing Motion for Class Certification and for a Preliminary Injunction [accepted by Chambers] (pta) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 10/03/2003)
58 REPLY by Elmer Robert Keach, III Esq. dd 10-06-03 on behalf of Pltfs Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran to response to [50-1] motion appealing USMJ David R. Homer's [44-1] and [46-1] orders to USDJ Thomas J. McAvoy w/case law [accepted by Chambers] (pta) Modified on 10/08/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 10/08/2003)
59 ANSWER by Kathleen Jimino, Harold Smith, Robert Loveridge, Larry Walraed, Daniel Keating, County of Rensselaer (Attorney Thomas J. O'Connor) to amended complaint (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 10/16/2003)
60 MEMORANDUM-DECISION-ORDER; that Pltfs objections are overruled and the decision of the Magistrate Judge is affirmed re: [50-1] motion appealing USMJ David R. Homer's [44-1] and [46-1] orders (dd 10-17-03 signed by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy ) Date Entered: 10/20/03 (pta) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
61 Minute entry MOTION CALENDAR HELD 10-14-03 BEFORE HON. THOMAS J. MCAVOY IN ALBANY NY - Appearances: Court Reporter/ECRO: B. Buckley, CRD/MP, LC/SE, No Counsel. Pltfs Appeal of Mag/Judge [44-1 / 46-1] decision [50-1] - TAKEN ON SUBMIT (pta) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
62 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran . Appellant is appealing from the 10/20/03 decision denying plaintiff's objections to the scheduling ruling of a MJ precluding them from moving for class certification and preliminary injunction. FILING FEE $105.00 RECEIPT # 70743 Appeal record due on 11/30/03 (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (pta, ). (Entered: 11/03/2003)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA re: [62-1] appeal by Dana Halloran, Charles Linen, Harold Bonesteel, William Garrity, Jeffrey M.

14 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

12/01/2003
12/01/2003 12/08/2003 12/16/2003 12/30/2003 12/30/2003 01/05/2004
01/07/2004
01/07/2004

Rockefeller, Wayne E. Conine, Peter Rupp, Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller (parties noticed). (jel) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
63 NOTICE OF MOTION by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran to Amend [1-1] complaint and to join additional parties , Hearing set for 9:30 a.m. on 1/15/04, Response Deadline 1/1/04 Motion returnable before Judge/Mag. Judge: David R. Homer (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (tab, ). (Entered: 12/03/2003)
63 AFFIRMATION along with Exhibits A-B by Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq., for Natika Miller, T'Shad Bradley, Mark La Belle, Nathaniel Bruce, Peter Rupp, Wayne E. Conine, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran Re: in support of the [63-1] motion to Amend [1-1] complaint, [63-2] motion to join additional parties (jel) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
64 Court of Appeals Scheduling Order, re: [62-1] appeal by Dana Halloran, Charles Linen, Harold Bonesteel, William Garrity, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Wayne E. Conine, Peter Rupp, Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller; Appeal record due on 12/30/03 (jel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/28/2004 (tab, ). (Entered: 12/10/2003)
Index to Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 62 Notice of Appeal. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
68 ORDER setting Settlement Conference set for 1/16/2004 at 09:30 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 12/30/03. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
69 NOTICE of receipt of Docketing index Record on Appeal from USCA re 62 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Wayne E. Conine, Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran. USCA Case Number 03-9188 (wjg, ) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
65 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 63 Motion to Amend/CorrectMotion for JoinderMotion for Joinder filed by Thomas Job, James Simon, Ronald LaFountaine, Gregory Buell, Barry McDonald, Anthony Lazaro, Salvatore Greico, Patrick Kane, Walter Ryan Jr., Timothy Moran, Robert Patrick, Michael Patrick, Dana Miles, Keith Hancock. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve a proposed second amended class action complaint)(Stewart, Daniel) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
66 AFFIDAVIT of Service for AOS of Notice of ECF served on Elmer Robert Keach, Esq.; Thomas J. O'Connor, Esq.; Dwight Davis, Esq.; Jason J. Rozger, Esq.; Charles Schneider, Esq. on 1/7/04, filed by Gregory Buell, Salvatore Greico, Keith Hancock, Thomas Job, Patrick Kane, Ronald LaFountaine, Anthony Lazaro, Barry McDonald, Dana Miles, Timothy Moran, Michael Patrick, Robert Patrick, Walter Ryan Jr., James Simon. (Stewart, Daniel) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
67 AFFIDAVIT of Service for AOS of MOL and Atty. Affidavit served on Elmer Robert Keach, Esq.; Thomas J. O'Connor, Esq.; Dwight Davis, Esq.; Jason J.

15 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

03/18/2004 03/18/2004 03/18/2004
03/29/2004 04/09/2004 04/12/2004 04/15/2004

Rozger, Esq.; Charles Schneider, Esq. on 1/2/04, filed by Gregory Buell, Salvatore Greico, Keith Hancock, Thomas Job, Patrick Kane, Ronald LaFountaine, Anthony Lazaro, Barry McDonald, Dana Miles, Timothy Moran, Michael Patrick, Robert Patrick, Walter Ryan Jr., James Simon. (Stewart, Daniel) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
70 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp.(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
71 STIPULATION Providing Consent for Filing of Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
72 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2004 10:00 AM in Binghamton before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 4/6/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 4/12/2004. Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2004 10:00 AM in Binghamton before Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Response to Motion due by 4/6/2004 Reply to Response to Motion due by 4/12/2004. by Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Provisional Certification of Settlement Class# 2 Affidavit of Elmer Keach In Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval# 3 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT# 4 Proposed Order/Judgment For Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
73 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting plaintiffs leave to file Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 3/29/04. (wjg, ) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
74 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 72 MOTION to Certify Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement of Thomas O'Connor filed by Gregory Buell, County of Rensselaer, Salvatore Greico, Keith Hancock, Kathleen Jimino, Thomas Job, Patrick Kane, Daniel Keating, Ronald LaFountaine, Anthony Lazaro, Robert Loveridge, Barry McDonald, Dana Miles, Timothy Moran, Michael Patrick, Robert Patrick, Walter Ryan Jr., James Simon, Harold Smith, Larry Walraed. (O'Connor, Thomas) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
75 MANDATE of USCA as to 62 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Wayne E. Conine, Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran. DISMISSING the interlocatory appeal. (tab, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
76 Court NOTICE to parties advising that the pending motions for 4/23/04 are on for ORAL argument at 10:00 AM in Binghamton bef. Judge McAvoy. (sfp, ) (Entered: 04/15/2004)

16 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

04/23/2004
04/23/2004 06/09/2004 06/15/2004 06/17/2004
06/22/2004 06/22/2004 07/06/2004 09/23/2004 09/24/2004 10/04/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004

77 Minute Entry: MOTION CALENDAR held 4/23/04 bef Judge McAvoy in Binghamton, NY: APP: Elmer Keach, III, Charles Schneider, Bruce Menkin & Jason Rozger, Esqs. for Pltfs; Eugene Napierski & Dwight Davis (admitted pro hac vice), Esqs. for Defts; CR: V. Theleman; LC/SE; CRD/mp. Pltfs' 72 MOTION to Certify Class & for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement DENIED; this case t/b consolidated under lead action Kahler vs. County/Rensselaer, 1:03-CV-1324. [10:00am - 10:45am](cml ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
ORAL ORDER consolidating this case with 1:03-cv-1324 being the lead case and 1:02-cv-847 being the member case. Stated by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy at 4/23/04 motion calendar. (amt, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
78 Letter from Elmer Keach for Harold Bonesteel, T'Shad Bradley, Nathaniel Bruce, Wayne E. Conine, William Garrity, Dana Halloran, Mark La Belle, Charles Linen, Natika Miller, Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Peter Rupp requesting Discovery Confernence with the Court. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
79 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 6/17/2004 04:30 PM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (tab) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer : Appearances: Bob Keach, Bruce Menken, Charles Schneider representing Bruce; Dwight Davis representing County of Rensselaer; Discovery Conference held on 6/17/2004, a further conference is necessary and the parties will contact chambers to schedule; No dates set or extended; Case is Not trial ready. (rzh, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
81 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer : Discovery Hearing held on 6/21/2004. Written order following conference. (tab) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
82 ORDER regarding discovery issues. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 6/22/04. (tab) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
83 STIPULATION/ORDER of USCA withdrawing appeal. (tab) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
84 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Certify Class, and granting in part and denying in part motion for approval of class settlement . Signed by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 9/23/04. (amt, ) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
85 JUDGMENT in accordance with Judge McAvoy's Order filed on 9/23/04 (amt, ) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
86 MANDATE of USCA as to 62 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Jeffrey M. Rockefeller, Wayne E. Conine, Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, Dana Halloran (tab) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
87 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David N. Hurd : Status Conference held on 10/20/2004. (tab) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
88 ORDER Setting Schedule for Letter briefs Response to brief due by 11/12/2004 Reply to Response to brief due by 11/19/2004. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 10/25/04. (tab) (Entered: 10/26/2004)

17 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/13/2004 11/15/2004 11/17/2004
11/17/2004
11/18/2004 11/19/2004 11/24/2004
11/24/2004 11/25/2004 11/25/2004 11/29/2004

89 ORDER RE: extention of time . Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 11/2/04. (tab) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
90 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer : Status Conference held on 11/2/2004. (tab) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
91 Letter from Elmer Keach for Nathaniel Bruce requesting Enlargement of Time to Brief Child Support Issue until Nov. 17, 2004, on consent. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/13/2004)
92 LETTER REQUEST AND ORDER extending time to brief to child support issue until 11/17/04. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 11/15/04. (tab) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
93 LETTER BRIEF regarding issue waiver of liens in settlement agreement and child support owed by County of Rensselaer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: 9/23/04 Order# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: 9-23-04 Judgment# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C: Child Support Owed [removed and replaced with redacted version--see numbered list])(O'Connor, Thomas). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/18/2004 (wjg, ). (Entered: 11/17/2004)
94 LETTER BRIEF by Nathaniel Bruce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Settlement Agreement# 2 Exhibit B -- Class Notice (Long Form)# 3 Exhibit C -Unconformed Ray Affidavit# 4 Exhibit D -- Rensselaer County Restraining Notice and Information Subpoena)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 93 LETTER BRIEF; Clerk removed unredacted names list and replaced it with redacted list, blacking out personal identifiers. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
95 AFFIDAVIT re 94 LETTER BRIEF, Supplement to Submission to Court on Child Support Issues (Conformed Affidavit of Jamie Ray) by Nathaniel Bruce. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
96 AFFIDAVIT of Ann Breen by Gregory Buell, County of Rensselaer, Salvatore Greico, Keith Hancock, Kathleen Jimino, Thomas Job, Patrick Kane, Daniel Keating, Ronald LaFountaine, Anthony Lazaro, Robert Loveridge, Barry McDonald, Dana Miles, Timothy Moran, Michael Patrick, Robert Patrick, Walter Ryan Jr., James Simon, Harold Smith, The Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department, Larry Walraed. (Nash, Shawn) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
97 NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 11/30/2004 11:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (tab) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
98 LETTER BRIEF In Reply to Defendant County of Rensselaer's Submission on Child Support Issues by Nathaniel Bruce. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/25/2004)
99 Letter from Elmer Keach for Nathaniel Bruce requesting Short Enlargement of Time to File Reply Brief. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/25/2004)
100 REQUEST & ORDER re: Court's granting of permission to late file 98 LETTER BRIEF filed by Nathaniel Bruce. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 11/29/04. (wjg, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

18 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

11/30/2004 01/12/2005 01/21/2005 01/28/2005 05/27/2005 06/01/2005 06/07/2005 06/13/2005
06/13/2005
06/24/2005 06/24/2005 07/02/2005 07/05/2005 07/06/2005 07/06/2005

101 ORDER re 97 11/30 o4 conference. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 11/30/04. (tab) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
102 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/23/04 before Judge McAvoy. Court Reporter: V. Theleman. (sfp, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
103 Letter from Andre Akins to Clerk dd 1/14/05 asking what to do to exercise right to settlement. (wjg, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
104 ORDER of USCA as to 62 Notice of Appeal, withdrawing appeal (tab) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
105 Letter from Elmer Keach for Nathaniel Bruce requesting Conference with Court to Discuss Disputed/Late Claimants. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
106 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference re: class settlement set for 6/8/2005 02:30 PM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (tab) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
107 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 6/13/2005 11:30 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (tab) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer : Telephone Status Conference held on 6/13/2005. Appearances by Bob Keach, Esq. representing Bruce and Tom O'Connor, Esq. representing Rensselaer County. A telephone conference was held 6/13/05 concerning an issue of claims received after the deadline for filing claims. The court directed the parties file briefs on the issue which will be taken on submit. An order was entered. (ban, ) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
109 ORDERED that on or before 6/24/05 the parties shall submit memoranda of law on this disputed issue. Ordered that on or before 7/1/05, any party may submit a reply memorandum of law addressing any point in the adverse party's memorandum not previously addressed and the issue will be taken on submission without oral argument. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 6/13/05. (ban) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
110 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by County of Rensselaer. (O'Connor, Thomas) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
111 LETTER BRIEF Addressing Late Claim Issue by Nathaniel Bruce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Settlement Agreement)(Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
112 LETTER BRIEF Relative to Late Claim Issue by Nathaniel Bruce. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 07/02/2005)
113 LETTER BRIEF by County of Rensselaer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(O'Connor, Thomas) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
114 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer : Status Conference held on 7/5/2005 (tab ) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
115 ORDER regarding discovery issues. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 7/6/05. (tab) (Entered: 07/07/2005)

19 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

05/10/2006 05/26/2006
05/26/2006 05/26/2006 06/12/2006 12/01/2006 12/02/2006 12/05/2006 01/10/2007 01/11/2007 02/13/2007
02/26/2007 03/06/2007

116 NOTICE of Hearing: In Chambers Conference re: settlement issues set for 5/25/2006 10:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (wjg, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer. Appearances: Bob Keach for plaintiffs; Tom O'Connor for defendants.A Conference was held on 5/25/2006 concerning claims of membership in the certified class. An evidentiary hearing will be held on JUNE 12, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. A written order will be entered. (lah, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
117 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 12/4/2006 10:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. (tab) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
118 ORDER setting hearing: Evidentiary Hearing set for 6/12/2006 10:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 5/26/06. (tab) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
119 NOTICE/LETTER from Thomas O'Connor, Esq. dated 6/9/06 (tab) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
120 Letter Motion from Elmer Keach for Nathaniel Bruce requesting Adjournment of Conference Scheduled for 12.04.06 submitted to Judge David R. Homer. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
121 ORDER granting 120 Letter Request adjourning conference scheduled for 12/4/06. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 12/2/06. (tab) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
TEXT NOTICE. The status conference set for 12/4/2006 before Judge Homer is RESCHEDULED to 1/31/2007 at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to the letter/request of plaintiff's counsel dated 12/1/2006. Please mark your calendars accordingly. (lah, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
122 Letter Motion from Tom O'Connor for County of Rensselaer requesting Adjournment of Conference submitted to Judge Homer. (O'Connor, Thomas) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
TEXT NOTICE. The status conference set for 1/31/2007 at 10:00 a.m. is RESCHEDULED to 2/9/2007 at 9:30 a.m. by telephone. Chambers will initiate the conference call. Please adjust your calendars. (lah, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David R. Homer. A Telephone Conference was held on 2/9/2007 with Bob Keach for plaintiffs and Tom O'Connor for defendants. There remains outstanding monies to be distributed to various claimants. Counsel agreed to have to 4/1/2007 to make final payments to the remaining claimants. Any remaining monies will be returned to Rensselaer County. In this regard, the attorneys will prepare stipulation for submission to Judge Homer to be "so ordered." (lah, ) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
123 STIPULATION by Nathaniel Bruce submitted to Judge David R. Homer. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
124 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 2/27/07. (tab) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

20 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND - Docket Report

https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?216927109638996-L_3...

04/02/2007
04/03/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007

125 Letter Motion from Elmer Keach for Nathaniel Bruce requesting Enlargement of Time to Reconcile Settlement Escrow Account, on consent submitted to Judge David R. Homer. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
126 ORDER granting 125 Letter Request extending deadline. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 4/3/07. (tab) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
127 STATUS REPORT Regarding Conclusion of Settlement by Nathaniel Bruce. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
128 ORDER terminating case. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 6/27/07. (tab) (Entered: 06/27/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/27/2007 13:46:58

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

clearinghouse

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:02-cv-00847-TJM-DRH

Billable Pages:

14

Cost:

1.12

21 of 21

7/27/2007 12:47 PM

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NATHANIEL BRUCE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. al.,
Defendants.

No. 02-CV-0847 (TJM/DRH)

PAUL ADAM KAHLER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. aI.,
Defendants.

No. 03-CV-1324 (TJM!DRH)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, and Defendants, by and through their counsel, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement providing, subject to the approval ofthe Court, for settlement of the claims herein described against Defendants.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, Wayne Connie, Jeffrey Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, and Paul Adam Kahler, filed the above-captioned class action lawsuits against Defendants, the County of Rensselaer, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, and Kathleen Jimino alleging that Defendants had violated Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights under color of state law by illegally strip searching them and others similarly situated upon entry into the Rensselaer County Jail.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs further allege that, in violation of law and pursuant to the policy of Rensselaer County, all persons such as Plaintiffs and the members of the class they purport to represent, who enter Rensselaer County Jail charged with misdemeanors, violations of probation or parole, or other violations or minor crimes are strip searched even absent any particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or other contraban.
WHEREAS, Defendants have vigorously denied and continue to deny Plaintiffs' claims, and Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability of any kind to Plaintiffs or to any members of the Settlement Class.
WHEREAS, the Parties to this Settlement Agreement have conducted and are continuing to conduct a thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the matters in this Litigation.
WHEREAS, Defendants have concluded that settlement is desirable in order to avoid the time, expense, and inherent uncertainties of defending protracted litigation and to resolve finally and completely all pending and potential claims of the Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class
2

Members relating to alleged conduct involved in this Litigation. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs recognize the costs and risks of prosecution of this Litigation, and
believe that it is in their interest, and the interest of all Settlement Class Members, to resolve this Litigation, and any and all claims against Defendants, as well as all current and former employees and elected officials of the County ofRensselaer.
WHEREAS, substantial settlement negotiations have taken place between the Parties, including a settlement conference with Stanley A. Bass,.Esquire, Staff Counsel to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and a mediation conducted by the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and, as a result, this Settlement Agreement has been reached, subject to the Court approval process set forth herein.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' counsel believe that this Settlement Agreement offers significant benefits to Settlement Class Members and is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of Settlement Class Members.
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement is made and entered into by and among Defendants and Plaintiffs, Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, Wayne Connie, Jeffrey Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, and Paul Adam Kahler, individually and on behalf of a national class of similarly situated persons defined as:
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail.
3

Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipUlated and agreed, by and between the undersigned as follows: I. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. Where appropriate, terms used in the singular shall be deemed to include the plural and vice versa.
A Claim Form. "Claim Form" shall mean the Proof of Claim and Release form in substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit A.
B. Claims Period. "Claims Period" shall mean the time period during which claims may be made by Settlement Class Members, extending from the Notice Date until the date 60 days thereafter, including weekends and holidays, provided that if the last day of the Claims Period falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, then the end of the Claims Period shall be the next following day that is not a weekend or Federal holiday.
C. Class Counsel. "Class Counsel" shall mean: The Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, ill, Esquire; Beranbaum, Menken & Ben-Asher, LLP; and The Mason Law Finn, PLLC.
D. Class Notice. "Class Notice" shall mean the Court-approved form of notice in substantially the same form as Exhibit B.
E. Class Settlement. "Class Settlement" shall mean the terms provided in this Settlement Agreement.
4

F. Court. "Court" shall mean the United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York, The Honorable Thomas J. McAvoy presiding, or his duly appointed or

designated successor.

G. Defendants. "Defendants" shall mean the County of Rensselaer, Daniel Keating,

Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, and Kathleen Jimino, and shall include all

current and former employees and elected officials of the County ofRensselaer.

1.

Defendants' Counsel. "Defendants' Counsel" shall mean Napierski,

Vandenburgh & Napierski, L.L.P. and King & Spalding, L.L.P.

J.

Distribution Amount. "Distribution Amount" shall mean the amount available

from the Settlement Fund after payment of the costs of notice and administration of the

Settlement and attorneys' fees and expenses.

K. Effective Date. "Effective Date" shall mean the date on which this Settlement and

the Final Judgment (as defined below) have become "Final" in that all of the following

conditions have been satisfied: (1) the Final Judgment has been entered; and (2) (a) ifan appeal

or review is not sought from the Final Judgment, the thirty-first day after ofthe entry of the Final

Judgment, or (b) if an appeal or review is sought from the Final Judgment, the day after the Final

Judgment is affirmed and the Final Judgment is no longer subject to judicial review or the day

after the appeal or review is dismissed or denied and the Final Judgment is no longer subject to

judicial review.

L. Final Approval Hearing. "Final Approval Hearing" shall mean the hearing at

which the Court will consider and finally decide whether to enter the Final Judgment.

5

M. Final Judgment. "Final Judgment" shall mean that Court order that finally certifies the Settlement Class, approves this Settlement Agreement, approves payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, and makes such other final rulings as are contemplated by this Settlement Agreement, in substantially the same form as Exhibit C.
O. Litigation. "Litigation" shall mean the above-captioned lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York as No. 2-CV-0874 and No. 4CV--1324.
P. Mediator. The "Mediator" shall mean The Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District ofNew York.
Q. Misdemeanor. "Misdemeanor" shall mean conduct so defined in Section 10 of the New York Penal Law.
R. Notice Program. "Notice Program" shall mean the program for disseminating the Class Notice to Settlement Class Members, including public dissemination ofthe Summary Notice, in accordance with the terms herein.
S. Notice Date. "Notice Date" shall mean the date upon which Class Notice is mailed to known Class Members in accordance with the terms herein.
T. Objection Date. "Objection Date" shall mean the date agreed upon by the Parties or otherwise ordered by the Court, by which Settlement Class Members must submit any objection to the Settlement Agreement's terms or provisions and submit any required statements, proof, or other materials and/or argument.
6

u. Opt-Out Deadline. "Opt-Out Deadline" shall mean the date agreed upon by the
Plaintiffs and Defendants or otherwise ordered by the Court, by which any Settlement Class Members who do not wish to be included in the Settlement Class and participate in the Settlement must complete the acts necessary to properly effect such election to opt out.
V. Opt-Out List. "Opt-Out List" shall mean a written list prepared by the Settlement Administrator of the names of all Settlement Class Members who submit timely Requests for Exclusion or Opt-Out Notices.
W. Opt-Out Notice. "Opt-Out Notice" or "Opt-Out" shall mean a Request for Exclusion.
X. Parties. "Parties" shall mean the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Y. Plaintiffs. "Plaintiffs" shall mean Nathaniel Bruce, Mark La Belle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, Peter Rupp, Wayne Connie, Jeffrey Rockefeller, William Garrity, Harold Bonesteel, Charles Linen, and Paul Adam Kahler. Z. Preliminary Approval Order. "Preliminary Approval Order" shall mean the order of the Court preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement and conditionally certifying a provisional Settlement Class, in substantially the same form as Exhibit D. AA. Putative Settlement Class Members. "Putative Settlement Class Members" shall mean all persons who are within the scope of the definition of the Settlement Class. BB. Release. "Release" shall mean the release described in Section VII herein. CC. Released Claims. "Released Claims" shall mean and include any and all claims or causes of action by or on behalf of any and all Settlement Class Members (and their
7

predecessors, successors, heirs, administrators, executors, agents, trustees, representatives, and assigns) that are released by the Release described in Section VII herein.
DD. Released Parties. "Released Parties" shall mean all persons or entities against
whom Released Claims will be released pursuant to the Release described in Section vn herein.
EE. Request for Exclusion. "Request for Exclusion" shall mean any request by any Putative Settlement Class Member for exclusion from the Settlement Class in compliance with Section V herein, i.e., to "opt out" of the Settlement Class.
FF. Settlement. "Settlement" or shall mean the agreement by the Plaintiffs and Defendants to resolve the Litigation, the terms of which have been memorialized in this Settlement Agreement.
GG. Settlement Administrator. "Settlement Administrator" shall mean the qualified party selected by the Plaintiffs and designated and approved by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order to administer the Settlement, including implementing the Notice Program. Neither Plaintiffs nor any of the Defendants shall have any responsibility for any acts or omissions of the Settlement Administrator.
HH. Settlement Agreement. "Settlement Agreement" shall mean this Settlement Agreement, including any amendment hereto pursuant to Section X hereof, and all the exhibits attached hereto.
n. Settlement Amount. "Settlement Amount" shall mean the amount of Two Million
Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,700,000) to be funded by the Defendants for the payment of all timely claims filed by Class Members, for payment of all costs of notice and administration
8

of the Settlement, for payment of incentive awards to the named Class Representatives, and for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.
JJ. Settlement Class. "Settlement Class" shall mean: All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July I, 2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
KK. Settlement Class Members. "Settlement Class Members" shall mean all persons in the Settlement Class who do not exclude themselves pursuant to Section V herein.
LL. Settlement Fund. "Settlement Fund" shall mean a fund, governed by terms to be agreed to between Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel which shall be utilized to administer the monetary requirements of the Settlement.
MM. Strip Search Policy. "Strip Search Policy" shall mean the written policy to govern the conduct of all strip searches by Defendants, their agents, and employees upon a person's entry into the Rensselaer County Jail.
NN. Summary Notice. "Summary Notice" shall mean a notice in substantially the same form as that which appears at Exhibit E.
00. Violation. "Violation" shall mean conduct so defined in Section 10 of the New York Penal Law.
9

II. REQUIRED EVENTS A Promptly after execution ofthis Settlement Agreement by all Parties: 1. Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel shall use their best efforts to
cause the Court to enter the Preliminary Approval Order and the Final Judgment in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibits D and C, respectively.
2. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement shall jointly move for entry of a Preliminary Approval Order in substantially the same form as Exhibit D, which by its terms shall:
a. Preliminarily approve the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement, including the certification ofthe Settlement Class for purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, as within the range of fair, reasonable and adequate settlements for purposes of issuing notice;
b. Approve the contents ofthe Class Notice and methods in the Notice Plan; c. Approve the Settlement Administrator; and d. Schedule a Final Approval Hearing to review comments regarding the proposed Class Settlement and to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy ofthe proposed Class Settlement and the application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement ofexpenses, and to consider whether the Court should issue a Final Judgment (in substantially the same form as Exhibit C) approving the Class Settlement, granting Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and dismissing the Litigation with prejUdice. 3. Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel will use their best efforts, consistent with the terms ofthis Settlement Agreement, to promptly obtain a Final Judgment.

4. ill the event that the Court fails to issue the Preliminary Approval Order or fails to issue the Final Judgment, Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel agree to act in good faith, consistent with this Settlement Agreement, to cure any defect identified by the Court; provided, however, that in no event shall any Defendant be required to agree to any such cure that would materially increase the cost or burden ofthe Settlement Agreement to such Defendant.
5. The Parties acknowledge that prompt approval, consummation, and implementation of the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement are essential. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out the purposes of and effectuate this Settlement Agreement, shall promptly perform their respective obligations hereunder, and shall promptly take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and all additional documents and all other materials and/or information reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby. Any disputes regarding the Parties' obligations under this paragraph shall be submitted for decision by the Mediator and his decision shall be binding on the Parties. ill. SETTLEMENT TERMS A. illjunctive Relief
1. Defendants have submitted a new Strip Search Policy for review by Plaintiffs' counsel. ill the event Defendants and class counsel are unable to agree on the terms of the Strip Search Policy, the parties will seek the immediate intervention ofU.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Homer to mediate the dispute. Defendants will then submit the Strip Search Policy to the New York State Commissioner of Corrections for final approval and will implement the Policy as
11

approved. 2. The Rensselaer County Correctional Facility Employee Manual will include a
copy of the Strip Search Policy. 3. A summary ofthe Strip Search Policy shall be posted conspicuously in the
booking room and the training room and a copy of the full policy will be readily available to all corrections personnel.
4. Current and new corrections officers will be trained in the Strip Search Policy and when strip searches may and may not be performed. The training of current officers will be completed within 90 days after preliminary approval of the Strip Search Policy. Defendants will present Class Counsel with copies of all training materials.
5. Defendants will take reasonable steps to ensure that all corrections officers abide by the Strip Search Policy.
6. The Strip Search Policy shall provide, among other things, that all strip searches will be conducted in privacy (i.e., out of public view and only in the presence of corrections officers of the same sex of the detainee). B. Settlement Fund
1. Defendants will fund the Settlement Fund, in the manner prescribed herein, in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000.
2. Not later than ten (10) business days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Defendants will pay into the Settlement Fund the amount of $35,000 (the "Initial Contribution") to be used by the Settlement Administrator to cover the costs of Notice and
12

administration of the Settlement. If, at any time, whether by order of any court or because of any Defendant exercising any option to withdraw, the Settlement does not become final, then any unspent money remaining from the Initial Contribution shall be returned to the Defendants with no obligation on the part of Class Counsel to repay any portion of the money actually spent on Notice and administration ofthe Settlement.
3. Defendants' remaining monetary obligations, not to exceed $2,665,000, will be deposited into the Settlement Fund within five days of the Effective date. The amount to be deposited at this time will be determined by adding the total of the filed claims that must be paid from the Distribution Amount, the total incentive awards approved by the Court, and the total attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court. Defendants shall not be responsible for any additional fees or expenses of any type. C. Payments to Class Members
1. Each Class Member who submits a timely Claim Form will be entitled to receive a cash payment in the amount of $1 ,000, provided the amount payable to Class Members does not exceed the Distribution Amount. If the amount payable to Class Members exceeds the Distribution Amount, then each individual payment to Class Members will be reduced pro rata.
2. No Class Member shall be entitled to more than one payment of$I,OOO or his prorata share of the Distribution Amount regardless of the number of times he or she has been booked and/or strip searched.
3. No portion of the Distribution Amount shall be disbursed before the Effective Date.
13

4. Defendants represent and will provide assurance that the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services will waive any liens on any Class member's or Class Representative's share ofthe Settlement Fund. D. Attorneys Fees and Expenses
1. Class Counsel will petition the Court for the award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of$580,000, all of which shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Mediator, Defendants have agreed not to oppose Class Counsel's application for said award of fees and expenses. The award shall be divided by and among Class Counsel and Class Counsel represent that no one else has any claim to or lien on such award. Class Counsel shall not seek recovery of any additional fees or expenses that they might incur subsequent to the award by the Court and any claim by anyone to the award shall be resolved by the Court, but in no event shall the resolution of the claim result in any additional payment by the Defendants. E. Confirmatory Discovery
1. Defendants will cooperate in reasonable written confirmatory discovery to determine class size and class members' names and addresses. F. Defendants' Option to Withdraw
1. IfDefendants determine in their sole discretion that Requests for Exclusion have been filed by a material portion of the potential Class, Defendants shall have the right to terminate this agreement. Such option shall be exercised, if at all, within three (3) business days of the day the list of Opt-Outs have been forwarded to the Defendants by the Settlement
14

Administrator in accordance with Section V herein. IV. NOTIFICATION TO CLASS MEMBERS A. Responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator
1. The Settlement Administrator shall implement and administer the Notice Program.
2. The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for, without limitation: (i) mailing the Class Notices; (ii) arranging for the publication of the Summary Notice; (iii) responding to requests for Notice; and (iv) otherwise administering the Notice Program. The Notice Program shall comply with all requirements of applicable law. B. Notice
1. Notice will be provided to the Class by direct mailing of Class Notice and a Claim Form to all individuals at their last known or readily ascertainable address and by publication in the Albany Times Union, the Troy Record, and the Schenectady Daily Gazette on at least one day per week for four consecutive weeks commencing on the Notice date.
2. The Settlement Administrator shall also provide a copy of the Class Notice and Claim Form to anyone who requests notice through written communication to the Settlement Administrator, through a dedicated internet website, and through a toll-free telephone number to be established by the Settlement Administrator.
3. There will be no notice broadcast either by radio or television. 4. Defendants will cooperate in Notice Program by providing in electronic form, to the extent possible, the last known addresses of each person believed to fall within the Class
15

Definition, together with any other information (e.g. Social Security Numbers, Dates of Birth) that is in the Defendants' possession and that a third party administrator may need to facilitate proper notice. Paper lists will also be provided for any Class Member whose last known address is not available in electronic form.
5. If, after the initial mailing, the Notice is returned as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator will attempt to locate the Class Member by way of a national locator database or service and, if another address is found, remail the Notice to that new address. The parties agree that this process, when completed and coupled with the publication, above, shall be deemed to be fair and reasonable Notice to the Class Members.
6. The Settlement Administrator shall provide an affidavit to the Court, with a copy to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, attesting to the measures undertaken to provide Notice of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members.
7. The Settlement Administrator (and any person retained by the Settlement Administrator) shall sign a confidentiality agreement in a form agreed to by the Parties, which shall provide that the names, addresses and other information about specific Settlement Class Members and/or specific Settlement Class Members that is provided to it by Defendants, Class Counsel, or by individual Settlement Class Members or individual Settlement Class Members, shall all be treated as confidential and shall be used only by the Settlement Administrator as required by this Settlement Agreement.
8. Within three (3) days after the end of the Claims Period, the Settlement Administrator shall provide to counsel for the parties a list of all Claims made and copies of the
16

returned Claims Forms, which list and forms shall be confidential and not disclosed by either party. V. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION BY CLASS MEMBERS
A. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to any Request for Exclusion. Any Settlement Class Member may make a Request for Exclusion by mailing or delivering such request in writing to the Settlement Administrator. Any Request for Exclusion must be postmarked or delivered not later than the Opt-Out Deadline. Any Request for Exclusion shall state the name, address and telephone number ofthe person requesting exclusion and contain a clear statement communicating that such person elects to be excluded from the Settlement Class, does not wish to be a Settlement Class Member and elects to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to this Settlement.
B. Any Putative Settlement Class Member who submits a timely Request for Exclusion or Opt-Out Notice may not file an objection to the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived any rights or benefits under this Settlement Agreement.
C. Not later than three (3) business days after the deadline for submission of Requests for Exclusion, the Settlement Administrator shall provide an Opt-Out List to Class Counsel and to Defendants' Counsel together with copies of the Request for Exclusion, which list, along with the underlying exclusion requests, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed by either party. VI. OBJECTIONS BY SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
A. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be heard orally at the Final
17

Approval Hearing, or who wishes for any objection to be considered, must file a written notice of objection by the Objection Date. Such objection shall state the name, address and telephone number ofthe person and provide proof of membership in the Settlement Class, as well as a detailed statement of each objection asserted, including the grounds for objection and reasons for appearing and being heard, together with any documents such person wishes to be considered in support ofthe objection.
B. The agreed-upon procedures and requirements for filing objections in connection with the Final Approval Hearing are intended to ensure the efficient administration ofjustice and the orderly presentation of any Settlement Class Members' objections to the Settlement Agreement, in accordance with such Settlement Class Members' due process rights. The Preliminary Approval Order and Class Notice will require all Settlement Class Members who have any objections to file such notice of objection or request to be heard with the Clerk of the Court, and serve by mail or hand delivery such notice of objection or request to be heard, including all papers or evidence in support thereof, upon Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, at the addresses set forth in the Class Notice, no later than the Objection Date. The Preliminary Approval Order will further provide that objectors who fail to properly or timely file their objections with the Clerk of the Court, along with the required information and documentation set forth above, or to serve them as provided above shall not be heard during the Final Approval Hearing, nor shall their objections be considered by the Court. VIT. RELEASE, DISMISSAL OF ACTION, AND JURlSDICTION OF COURT
A. By this Settlement Agreement and the following Release, Defendants, and all of
18

their respective affiliates, predecessors, successor and assigns, officers, agents, representatives, and employees are released from any and all claims or causes of action of any type that were, could have been, or should have been asserted by the named Plaintiffs or any member ofthe Settlement Class who did not file a proper and timely request for exclusion against the Released Persons, or any of them, based upon or related to the actions that are the subject of this Settlement Agreement.
B. This Settlement Agreement and Release does not affect the rights, if any, of Settlement Class Members who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement.
C. The administration and consummation of the Settlement as embodied in this Settlement Agreement shall be under the authority ofthe Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to protect, preserve, and implement the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Release. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction in order to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate in administering and implementing the terms and provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, orders enjoining Settlement Class Members from prosecuting claims that are released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
D. Upon the Effective Date: (i) the Settlement Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for any and all Released Claims of Settlement Class Members; (ii) the Released Parties shall not be subject to liability or expense of any kind to any Settlement Class Members or their successors, predecessors or assigns except as set forth herein; and (iii) Settlement Class Members and their successors, predecessors and assigns shall be permanently barred from initiating,
19

asserting, or prosecuting any and all Released Claims against any Released Party in any federal or state court in the United States or any other tribunal.
E. Tolling of Statute of Limitations. Defendants agree that, with respect to any claims asserted in the Litigation that are subsequently asserted by any member of the Settlement Class who has properly opted out of the Settlement, Defendants shall not assert that any statute of limitations, repose, or laches defense expired during the period June 26, 2002, through the date one year following the date of the preliminary approval order. Further, in the event that the Court does not approve this Settlement Agreement, or the Court's approval of this Settlement Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree that, with respect to any claims asserted in the Litigation that are subsequently asserted or maintained in any existing or subsequently filed class action lawsuit, by any member of the Settlement Class, Defendants shall not assert any statute oflimitations, repose or laches defense that is premised upon the time period of June 26, 2002, through and including the date of the last of the following events to occur: the entry of the Court's order disapproving this Settlement Agreement, the appellate court's decision reversing the Court's order approving this Settlement Agreement, or the termination of this Settlement Agreement. VID. INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
A. Given the efforts of the named Plaintiffs on behalf of the Settlement Class, Defendants will not oppose total awards by the Court to the Class Representatives as follows:
1. Subject to the Court's approval, Class Representative Nathanial Bruce will be awarded $12,000 from the Settlement Amount, such amount to be paid before distributions to
20

the general Class. It is agreed between the parties that Mr. Bruce provided substantial assistance to Class Counsel in their prosecution of this action, and that Mr. Bruce, as lead plaintiff in these
actions, was subject to considerable public scrutiny as a result ofthe filing of his action. 2. Subject to the Court's approval, the ten remaining Class Representatives will be
awarded $6,000 each from the Settlement Amount, such amount to be paid before distributions to the general Class. IX. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTlES AND COVENANTS
A. Class Counsel, who are signatories hereof, represent and warrant that they have the authority, on behalf ofPlaintiffs, to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate all of the transactions contemplated hereby. This Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and constitutes their legal valid and binding obligation.
B. Defendants, through their undersigned attorneys, represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution, delivery and performance by Defendants of this Settlement Agreement and the consummation by them of the actions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Defendants. This Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Defendants and constitutes their legal, valid, and binding obligation. X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. This Settlement Agreement, and the exhibits and related documents hereto, are
21

not, and shall not at any time be construed or deemed to be, or to evidence, any admission against or concession by Defendants with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, or omission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in entry of a Final Judgment as contemplated herein. Any payment of moneys, or any other action taken, by any of the Defendants pursuant to any provision of this Settlement Agreement, shall not at any time be construed or deemed to be, or to evidence, any admission against or concession by Defendants with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, or omission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in entry of a Final Judgment as contemplated herein. Defendants and each of them deny any liability to Plaintiffs and to all Members of the Settlement Class. This provision shall survive the expiration or voiding of the Settlement Agreement.
B. This Settlement Agreement is entered into only for purposes of Settlement. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur for any reason or the Final Judgment is not entered, then this Settlement Agreement, including any releases or dismissals hereunder, is canceled. In the event this Settlement Agreement is cancelled or deemed cancelled, no tenn or condition of this Settlement Agreement, or any draft thereof, or of the discussion, negotiation, documentation or other part or aspect of the Parties' settlement discussions shall have any effect, nor shall any such matter be admissible in evidence for any purpose, or used for any purposes whatsoever in the Litigation or in any other litigation, and all Parties shall be restored to their prior rights positions as if the mediation had never occurred and the Settlement Agreement had not been entered into.
C. The headings of the sections and paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement are
22

included for convenience only and shall not be deemed to constitute part of this Settlement Agreement or to affect its construction.
D. This Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by all of the Parties.
E. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
F. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State ofNew York, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision, or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.
G. Except as otherwise provided in this Settlement Agreement, each party to this Settlement Agreement shall bear his or its own costs of the Litigation.
H. If any clause, provision or paragraph of this Settlement Agreement shall, for any reason, be held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability shall not affect any other clause, provision or paragraph of this Settlement Agreement, and this Settlement Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause, paragraph, or other provisions had not been contained herein.
I. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement reserve the right, by agreement and subject to the Court's approval, to grant any reasonable extensions of time that might be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
23

J. All applications for Court approval or Court orders required under this Settlement Agreement shall be made on notice to Plaintiffs and Defendants.
K. The determination of the terms of, and the drafting of, this Settlement Agreement, including its exhibits, has been by mutual agreement after negotiation, with consideration by and participation of an Parties and their counsel. Since this Settlement Agreement was drafted with the participation of all Parties and their counsel, the presumption that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafter does not apply. Each of the Parties was represented by competent and effective counsel throughout the course of settlement negotiations and in the drafting and execution of this Settlement Agreement, and there was no disparity in bargaining power among the Parties to this Settlement Agreement. In entering into this Settlement Agreement, none of the Parties relied on advice received from any other Party or any other Party's counsel.
L. Integrated Agreement 1. All of the exhibits to this Settlement Agreement are material and integral
parts hereof, and are fully incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Settlement Agreement and the exhibits thereto constitute the entire,
fully integrated agreement among the Parties and cancel and supersede all prior written and unwritten agreements and understandings pertaining to the settlement of the Litigation.
M. Notice: 1. Any notice, request or instruction or other document to be given by any
party to this Settlement Agreement to any other party to this Settlement Agreement (other than class notification) shall be in writing and delivered personally or sent by registered or certified
24

mail, postage prepaid: If to Defendants to:

Thomas O'Connor, Esquire Napierski, Vandenburgh &Napierski, LLP 296 Washington Avenue Ext. Albany, New York 12203
and
Dwight Davis, Esquire King & Spalding, LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-4003

If to Class Counselor Plaintiffs to: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire One Steuben Place Albany, New York 12207
N. Dispute Resolution The Parties agree that any disputes regarding the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Parties' rights and obligations under this Settlement Agreement, and/or the manner in which any issue or dispute arising under this Settlement Agreement shall be submitted to the Mediator, who shall attempt to mediate such dispute, and if such dispute cannot be resolved via mediation, shall decide such dispute. The Mediator's decision shall be final and binding. If for any reason the Mediator becomes unable to serve, the Parties shall attempt to agree on a substitute mediator. If they are unable to do so, any issue or dispute covered by this Section shall be resolved by the Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Plaintiffs and Defendants and their respective counsel have executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date(s) indicated on the lines below.
25

.Ii By:

1»'If.... I. tP f'PlUfd't

Thomas o'Conn&; Esquire

Napierski, Vandenburgh &Napierski, LLP

296 Washington Avenue Ext.

Albany, New York 12203

Dwight Davis, Esquire King & Spalding, LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-4003

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

sqUIre er Robert Keach, ill One Steuben Place Albany, New York 12207
Bruce E. Menken, Esquire Jason J. Rozger, Esquire Beranbaum, Menken & Be-Asher, LLP Three New York Plaza New York, New York 10004
Gary E. Mason, Esquire Charles A. Schneider, Esquire The Mason Law Firm, PLLC 1225 19th StreetN.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Date: .>/10/1' Y

26

EXHIBIT A CLAIM FORM

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE
Please read these instructions and claim form carefully.
You must fill out and send in the attached claim form, postmarked by [insert date] to share in the settlement money.
I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A. To get money from the Settlement Fund in this Litigation, members of the Settlement Class must fill out the Proof of Claim and Release Form. The form is attached at the end of these instructions. The completed and signed Proof of Claim and Release Form must be postmarked by [insert date]. If you fail to send it in on time, it may be rejected and you will not get any money.
B. If you have any questions about how the Settlement Fund will be divided up, you should write or call the Settlement Administrator. Their address and phone number are at the end of these instructions.
C. All Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves are bound by the terms of the Litigation judgment. This is true whether you send in a claim form or not.
D. If you have asked to be excluded, do not submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form.
II. DEFINITIONS
A. "Settlement Class" are the people in the United States who satisfy ALL the following four conditions:
• you were held in the Rensselaer County Jail, and • you were charged with a
./ misdemeanor, or ./ a violation. or ./ a parole violation, or ./ a probation violation, or ./ were held on a Family Court warrant, or ./ were held on a civil court warrant, and • you were strip-searched at the jail, and • you were searched during the period from June 26, 1999 through July 1, 2002.

B. "Defendants" refer to the County of Rensselaer, the Rensselaer County Sheriff, and employees of the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department.
C. "Litigation" refers to the following two cases that were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York: Bruce v. The County of Rensselaer, No. 02-CV-0847 and Kahler v. The County of Rensselaer, No. 03-CV1324.
III. CLAIM FORM INSTRUCTIONS
A. Please type or print all the information that is asked for.
B. By signing this form you are confirming the information you have given is correct. You also agree to give more information to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counselor the Settlement Administrator to support your claim. They may ask you to do this in the future.
C. By signing this form you confirm that you have not filed a claim or a lawsuit about being strip searched at the jail. And you did not ask anyone else to file one for you and you don't know of anyone who might have filed one for you.
D. Please read the instructions carefully. You may be asked to send other documents with this Proof of Claim and Release Form. Your claim will be checked and verified by the Settlement Administrator. You should keep copies of all documents that support your claim while this is going on.
E. If you want money from the Settlement Fund you must fill out Part 1 of the Claim Form and the additional Parts of the Claim Form that apply to you.
F. A claim form will considered to have been "submitted" to the Settlement Administrator if it is mailed in a first-class envelope that is postmarked by the due date. In all other cases, the form will be considered "submitted" when it is received by the Settlement Administrator.
G. The Settlement Administrator will not tell you when they get your form. If you want to make sure the Settlement Administrator got your form, you should send it by certified mail, return receipt requested. It will take some time to process all the forms and send out the checks. This work will be done as fast as possible. but each claim must be checked for accuracy and recorded.
Please write or call the Settlement Administrator if your address changes.

H. The claim form on the next page must be filled out and signed if you want to get money from the Settlement Fund. You should use the enclosed envelope and send it to the address shown below. You can use your own envelope as long as it is correctly addressed and stamped. The envelope must be postmarked by [Insert Date], 2004, for your claim to be considered.
Settlement Administrator
[insert address + 800 number]

IV. CLAIM FORM
Bruce v. The County OfRensselaer Kahler v. The County OfRensselaer
PART 1: IDENTIFICATION
Name:-----------------------------------Street - Address: --------------------------------
City:___________, State:________ Zip Code:_ __
Date of Birth: __________ Date of Arrest, if known (Please indicate if the date you give is an estimate.):
Reason for Arrest, if known (for example: violation of probation, Family Court warrant):
[If you do not know what the charges against you were, but believe you are still a Class Member, you should file a claim. We will get your arrest record from the County. You may still be asked to provide more information about your case.]
Social Security Number: ______ - ____ - ______ __ (If you fail to include this information, your claim may not be paid.) Telephone: ( ) _ _ _ _ _(day), ( ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(evening)
Person to contact if there are questions about this claim:

SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT By signing below, I agree that the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York has the power to rule on my claim as a Settlement Class Member. And that Court has the power to enforce the Release described below.
VERIFICATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information I gave on this form is correct. I also declare I was strip searched when I went into the Rensselaer County Jail. I filled out and signed this Proof of Claim and Release form on
______, 2004, in ______- - = - - - - - - - - - - - -
(City, State)
(Sign your name)
(Type or print your name)

EXHIBITB LONG FORM CLASS NOTICE

Legal Notice United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
If You Entered The Rensselear County Jail From June 26, 1999 Until July 1, 2002 And Were Subject To A Strip
Search, Then Your Rights Could Be Affected By A Proposed Class Action Settlement.
Read This Notice Carefully
A Federal Court Authorized This Notice. It Is Not From A Lawyer. You Are Not Being Sued.
This is a proposed settlement of a class action alleging that corrections officers and others employed at the Rensselaer County Jail engaged in the practice of illegally strip searching all individuals charged with only misdemeanors or minor offenses upon their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail from June 26, 1999 until July 1, 2002. The proposed settlement does not include individuals that were charged with felony offenses at the time of their admission to the Rensselaer County Jail.
The primary benefit of the settlement to class members is the payment of $1,000.00 to each member of class provided the funds allotted for the settlement are not exhausted. If the number of claims at $1,000.00 per person exhausts the money available for such purposes from the Settlement Fund, than every class member will receive their pro rata share of the fund.
The settlement requires the defendants to: (1) establish a Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 to pay all costs, expenses and payments to class members; (2) agree to a court order that prohibits Rensselaer County from conducting strip searches on new detainees brought to the Rensselaer County Jail on misdemeanor or minor criminal charges absent reasonable suspicion that the are hiding contraband on their persons; (3) pay, on behalf of the class, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and litigation costs in an amount to be determined by the Court; (4) pay incentive awards to the class representatives; and (5) pay all of the costs of notifying the class about, and administering all aspects of, this settlement, including distributing payment to members of the class.
Visit the Settlement website at www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com for additional details about the settlement. You may also get additional information by calling 1-800-, or by writing to:
1

Rensselaer County Jail Civil Rights Class Action Administrator P.D.Box

Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read this notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

Submit a Claim Form

You must submit a claim form to receive payment under the settlement. You must submit a claim for by to be included in the settlement.

Exclude Yourself

If you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will not be

bound by the Settlement or judgment and will not be

entitled to a cash payment. You will be free to pursue your

claims against the Defendants. This is the only option that

allows you ever to bring or be part of any other lawsuit

against the defendants in this case about the same legal

claims as are advanced in this case. You must exclude

yourself from the Settlement by

.

Object

If you do not exclude yourself, you may write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement or the request for
. legal fees and costs. You must file an objection by

Go to a Hearing

You may ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement or the request for fees and costs.

Do Nothing

You get !!.2 payment. You give up your right to sue Defendants on these claims later.

These rights and options - and the deadlines to exercise them - are explained in this notice.

The Court in charge ofthis case still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Likewise, payments to class members will be distributed only if the Court grants final approval to the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved.

BASIC INFORMATION

I. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE PACKAGE?
You or someone in your family may have entered the Rensselaer County Jail on misdemeanor or 2

other minor charges from June 26, 1999 until July 1,2002 and been subject to a strip search.
The Court sent you this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed settlement of a class action, and about your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves it and after objections and appeals are resolved, an administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that the settlement allows. You will be informed of the progress of the settlement.
This package explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them.
The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, United States Senior District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy presiding, and the cases involved are know as Bruce v. County ofRensselaer, Case No. 02-CV-0847 and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer, Case No. 03-CV-1324. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs, and the municipality and municipal officials they sued, the County of Rensselaer, its Correctional employees and elected officials, are called the Defendants.
II. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit claimed that the County of Rensselaer illegally strip searched individuals admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail who were charged with only misdemeanors and other minor crimes, in violation of the unreasonable search provisions contained in the United States Constitution. Defendants deny they did anything wrong, and further claim that the bulk of class members are not entitled to any money as a result of being searched.
III. WHY IS THIS A CLASS ACTION?
In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case Nathaniel Bruce, Mark LaBelle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, William Garrity, Charles Linen, Wayne Conine, Harold Bonesteel, Jeffrey Rockefeller, Peter Rupp and Paul Kahler), sue on behalf of all people who have similar claims. All these people are a Class or Class Members. One Court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. United States Senior District Judge Thomas McAvoy is in charge ofthis class action.
IV. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?
The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the costs and risks of a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Class Representatives and their attorneys think the settlement is best for everyone who was alleged to have been illegally searched.
3

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
V. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?
Judge McAvoy decided that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member: All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1,2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, traffic violations, violations of probation or parole or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
The Settlement does not cover individuals charged with felony offenses at the time of their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail.
VI. DO I NEED TO PROVE I WAS STRIP-SEARCHED, AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
No, you do not need to prove you were subjected to such a search. In filling out the claim form, you will affirm, under penalty of perjury, that you were strip searched, and Defendants will accept this affirmation. Provided that your name is detailed in booking records maintained by Rensselaer County, your affirmation will entitle you to payment. If your name is not contained in Rensselaer County's records, you may be asked to provide additional documentation before being allowed to participate in the settlement.
A strip search occurred when you were ordered to take off some or all of your clothes by a Rensselaer County employee, with that employee watching you undress or forcing you to undress out in the open. Some members of the class may also have been forced to bend at the waist or manipulate body parts to allow for a visual inspection. The bulk of Rensselaer County's searches occurred in the shower area of the booking room behind a "half wall." If you were searched in this matter when first booked into the facility, you are a member of the class and entitled to make a claim. You will need to provide an affirmation on the claim form.
VII. I WAS STRIP-SEARCHED AFTER RECEIVING A VISIT AND ALSO WHEN RETURNING FROM COURT WHEN I WAS IN THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL. DOES THIS MEAN I CAN ALSO MAKE A CLAIM?
No. Searches of this type are permissible. You can only make a claim if you were subjected to such a search when you first entered the facility; meaning when your picture and fingerprints were taken and you received the jail uniform.
4

VIII. HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER THE CRIME FOR WHICH I WAS CHARGED UPON ADMISSION TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL QUALIFIES ME FOR INCLUSION IN THE CLASS?
New York law creates three distinct categories of offenses: Felonies, Misdemeanors and Violations. Felonies are the most serious crimes, and are usually punishable by incarceration in state prison. Felony offenses are usually handled by a County Court Judge, and require indictment by a grand jury. Murder, burglary and rape are examples of felony offenses. Anyone charged with a felony upon admission to the Rensselaer County Jail, even if they were also charged with misdemeanors or violations at the same time, is not a member of the class unless they were, on another occasion, admitted to RCJ solely on misdemeanor or violation charges.
Misdemeanors are minor crimes, and are, at most, subject to incarceration in a local jail. Misdemeanor offenses are handled by a City, Town or Village Court Judge, and do not require indictment. Assault in the Third Degree, Petty Larceny and Unlawful Possession of Fireworks are examples of misdemeanor offenses. Anyone charged with a misdemeanor on their admission to the Rensselaer County Jail is a member ofthe class.
Violations are minor infractions, and are not considered criminal conduct. While violations can result in brief incarceration in a local jail, they are generally resolved with a fine. Violations are handled by a City, Town or Village Court Judge, and do not require indictment. Disorderly conduct, Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, traffic violations and city code violations are examples of violations. Anyone charged with a violation on their admission to the Rensselaer County Jail is a member of the class.
The class further allows for individuals to make claims if they were admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail for violating the terms of their probation or parole, or ifthey were subject to a civil commitment. Probation or parole is often provided as a condition of release following a criminal conviction. Parole is only assessed if an individual has served time in state prison. If an individual was charged solely for violating parole or probation, for instance, not honoring their conditions of supervision or violating curfew, they are considered to be a member of the class. If an individual was charged with violating probation or parole and also contemporaneously charged with misdemeanors, they are also a member of the class. If an individual was charged with violating probation or parole and also contemporaneously charged with a felony, they are not a member of the class. A civil commitment is an order from a noncriminal court, usually the Family Court, committing an individual to the Rensselaer County JaiL Individuals admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail on a civil commitment, for example, a commitment for failure to pay child support, are members of the class.
IX. I WAS ADMITTED TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL BUT CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT MY CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE. HOW CAN I FIND THIS OUT, AND HOW DO I KNOW IF THE CHARGE WAS A MISDEMEANOR OR VIOLATION?
5

There a several ways for potential class members to determine the nature of their criminal charges. First, you can review your charging documents, which should reflect both your actual charges and whether the charges were a misdemeanor or violation. For instance, the criminal complaint filed against you may state "Assault in the Third Degree," a "Class A Misdemeanor," or something similar for each separate charge. If you do not have your charging documents and remember the local court where you were prosecuted, the court clerk will also be able to help you find these documents.

If you need additional help in determining whether you are a class member, or if you

have other questions, you can contact the settlement administrator at 1-800-

, as they

may be able to help you directly or have class counsel call you to answer your questions.

You can still make a claim if you do not remember your criminal charges if you believe you are a member of the Class, but you may be asked for additional information.

X. I PLED GUILTY TO A CRIME. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT MY RIGHT TO PARTIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?

If you were admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail solely on misdemeanor or other minor charges, as defined above, you can participate in the settlement regardless of how you resolved your criminal charges. Even if you pled guilty to a crime, you may still recover just like any other class member.

XI. WHAT IF I WAS ADMITTED TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION? CAN I STILL PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?

Yes. Individuals who were admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail on more than one occasion during the class period are members of the class and can recover money. They can only recover one payment, however, meaning that you will not be provided with extra payments if admitted to the RCJ more than one time.

XII. I AM STILL NOT SURE IF I AM INCLUDED.

If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for help. You can call 1800- and the settlement administrator or class counsel may help answer your questions. For more information, you can also visit the website, www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com. Or you can fill out and return the claim form described on page _ , in question _, to see if you qualify.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS - WHAT YOU GET
XIII. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

6

Defendants have agreed to provide a settlement fund amount of$2.7 million to compensate Class Members who have been illegally strip searched, and have agreed to alter their search policies for new detainees to the Rensselaer County Jail. Defendants have also agreed to pay for attorneys' fees and expenses, up to a maximum of $580,000, and provide incentive awards for the eleven class representatives up to a maximum amount of $72,000. Defendants have also agreed to pay all the expenses of notifying the class about, and administering all aspects of, this Settlement, and delivering payments to class members. Attorneys' fees, administration costs and incentive awards are taken out of the settlement fund amount. A complete description of the settlement is provided in the Settlement Agreement and Release. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and Release by visiting www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com. or by calling 1-800-.

XIV. WHAT CAN I GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

The settlement provides that all class members who make claims will receive a payment of up to $1,000.00, depending on the number of valid claims that are made.

If you have any liens in place from the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services, Rensselaer County has agreed to waive those liens as it relates to payments from this settlement.

XV. WHAT IFI WAS STRIP-SEARCHED AFTER JULY 1, 2002?

If you were strip searched after July 1, 2002, you are not a member of this class action and are not entitled to a settlement payment. You are not bound by this settlement for those claims. This means you can pursue your claims separately from this settlement with your own lawyer.

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT - SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM

XVI. HOW CAN I GET A PAYMENT?

MUST To qualify for payment, you

send in a claim form. A claim form is attached

to this Notice. You can also get a claim form on the Internet at

www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, sign

it, and mail it postmarked no later than

, 2004.

You may be asked for additional documentation, and will be contacted in writing.

XVII. WHEN WOULD I GET MY PAYMENT?

The Court will hold a hearing on

, 2004 to decide whether to approve the

settlement. If Judge McAvoy approves the settlement after that, there may be appeals. You will

only receive payment after these appeals are completed. It is always uncertain whether these

appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. Everyone

who sends in a claim form will be informed ofthe progress ofthe settlement. Please be patient.

7

XVIII. WHAT AM I GIVING UP TO GET A PAYMENT OR STAY IN THE CLASS?
Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means you can't sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against Rensselaer County, its employees, or its elected officials about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all ofthe Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you. If you sign the claim form, you will agree to release all claims that you have related to your having been strip searched.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you do not want a payment from this settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Rensselaer County, on your own, about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the settlement. This is called excluding yourself - or is sometimes referred to as "opting out" of the Settlement Class.

XIX. HOW DO I GET OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?

To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying that you

want to be excluded from Bruce v. County ofRensselaer and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer. Be

sure to include your name, address, telephone number and your signature. You must mail your

exclusion request postmarked no later than

, 2004, to:

Rensselaer County Jail Exclusions

You can't exclude yourself on the phone or bye-mail. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue (or continue to sue) Rensselaer County in the future.

XX. IF I DO NOT EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I SUE RENSSELAER COUNTY FOR THE SAME THING LATER?

No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Rensselaer County for the

claims that this settlement resolves. If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that

lawsuit immediately. You must exclude yourself from this Class to continue on your own

lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is

, 2004.

XXI. IF I EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I GET MONEY FROM THIS SETTLEMENT? 8

No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a claim fonn to ask for money. But, you may sue, continue to sue, or be part of a different lawsuit against Rensselaer County.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
XXII. DO I HAVE A LAWYER IN THIS CASE?
The Court approved Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire, Albany, New York, Berenbaum, Menken & Ben-Asher, New York, New York, and the Mason Law Finn, PLLC, Washington, DC to represent you and other Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
XXIII. HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?
Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to $580,000.00, a payment of up to $12,000 for Class Representative Nathaniel Bruce, who both Class Counsel and Defendants agree has provided Class Counsel with substantial assistance in the prosecution of this action and was subject to significant public scrutiny as the lead plaintiff, and payments of up to $6,000 per individual (up to $60,000 total) to each of the ten remaining class representatives. The Court may award less than these amounts. These amounts will deducted from the settlement fund before payments are made to Class Members. Rensselaer County has agreed not to oppose these fees and expenses. The costs of administering the settlement will also be deducted from the settlement fund. The parties have allocated $35,000 from the settlement fund for administration costs.
The Defendants have agreed that up to $2,013,000.00 from the settlement fund is guaranteed to satisfy claims of Class Members.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the settlement or some part of it.
XXIV. HOW DO I TELL THE COURT THAT I DO NOT LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?
If you are a Class Member, you can object to the settlement if you don't like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your Vlews. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to Bruce v. County of
9

Rensselaer and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer. Be sure to include your name, address,

telephone number, your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement. Mail the

objection to these three different places postmarked no later than

, 2004.

COURT
Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse 445 Broadway Albany, NY 12207

CLASS COUNSEL
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire One Steuben Place Albany, NY 12207

DEFENSE COUNSEL
Thomas O'Connor, Esquire Napierski, VanDenburgh & Napierski 296 Washington Avenue Extension Albany,NY 12203

xxv. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBJECTING AND EXCLUDING
MYSELF?

Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the settlement. You can objeCt only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to.

XXVI. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 AM on

,2004 at

the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207 in Courtroom . At

this hearing the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If

there are objections, the Court will consider them. Judge McAvoy will listen to people who have

asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class Counsel.

After the Hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know

how long these decisions will take.

XXVII. DO I HAVE TO COME TO THE HEARING?
No. Class Counsel will answer questions Judge McAvoy may have. But you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will
10

consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.

XXVIII. MAY I SPEAK AT THE HEARING?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you

must send a letter saying that it is your "Notice of Intention to Appear in Bruce v. County of

Rensselaer and Kahler v. County of Rensselaer." Be sure to include your name, address,

telephone number and your signature. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be postmarked

no later than

, 2004, and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel and

Defense Counsel, at the three addresses on page 10, in question XXIV. You cannot speak at the

hearing if you excluded yourself.

IF YOU DO NOTHING
XXIX. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOTHING AT ALL?
If you do nothing, you will get no money from this settlement. But, unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Rensselaer County about the legal issues in this case, ever again.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
XXX. ARE THERE MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE SETTLMENT?
This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in a Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement by writing to Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire, One Steuben Place, Albany, NY 12207, or by visiting www.rensselaercountyjailsettlementcom.

XXXI. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

You can call 1-800- toll free, write to Rensselaer County Jail Civil Rights Class Action

Administrator,

, or visit the website at www.rensselaercountyjailsettlment.com.

where you will find answers to common questions about the settlement, a claim form, plus other

information to help you determine whether you are a Class Member and whether you are eligible

for payment.

11

Dated: - - - - - 2004
12

EXHIBITC FINAL JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NATHANIEL BRUCE, et. ai., both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. aI.,
Defendants.

Index No. 02-CV-0847 (TJM/DRH)

PAUL KAHLER, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. ai.,
Defendants.

Index No. 03-CV-1324 (TJMIDRH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT; AND JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND DECREE

THIS CAUSE commg on for hearing before the undersigned Judge on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2004 pursuant to this Court's Preliminary Approval Order of _ _ _ _ _ _ , in order for this Court to conduct a final Fairness Hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement with Defendants the County ofRensselaer, Daniel Keating, Larry Walraed, Robert Loveridge, Harold Smith, and Kathleen Jimino (hereafter "Defendants") is fair, reasonable

and adequate, and the Settlement Class Members being represented by Class Counsel and Defendants being represented by its attorneys;
AND THE COURT having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, including the Notice Program described therein, and Memoranda submitted by Class Counsel, having received evidence at the hearing, having heard arguments from Class Counsel and the Defendants, and having considered the submissions by Class members, and being further advised in the premises, now makes the following Order:
FINDINGS OF FACTI 1. These actions were commenced on June 26, 2002 and October 31, 2003, as class actions. 2. After intensive litigation between the parties in these related actions, and several months of intensive, arm's-length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defendants, the parties have reached accord with respect to a Settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members, in return for a release and dismissal of the claims at issue in this case against the Defendants ("Settlement Agreement"). The resulting Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on _ _ _ _ __ 3. As part of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, this Court approved a proposed Notice Program and Class Notice, which provided members of the Settlement Class notice of this proposed settlement with Defendants. The Notice Program provided an opportunity for class members to file objections to the Settlement. 4. The settling Parties have filed with the Court a declaration from KinsellaINovak Communications, Ltd., declaring that the mailing ofthe Court-approved Notice, consistent with the
1 Capitalized terms used in this Order have the meaning assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement, Order of Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and this Order.
2

Notice Program, has been completed. 5. The Court finds that the published, direct notice and Internet posting constitute the best
practicable notice ofthe Fairness Hearing, the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and the Summary Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complied fully with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New York and any other applicable law.
6. Any persons who wished to excluded from this Settlement were provided an opportunity to "opt out" pursuant to the Notice. All persons who have validly excluded themselves from this Action have no rights under the Settlement Agreement and shall not be bound by the Settlement Agreement or the final judgment herein.
7. Settlement Class Members are bound by the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and releases contained therein, and the Final Order and Judgment, and do not have any further opportunity to opt-out of the Action.
8. Any Class member who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry ofFinal Order and Judgment, or to Class Counsel's application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval ofSettlement, is deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
9. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation, and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the claims against the Defendants in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 ofthe Federal
3

Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number offactors which the Court has considered in affinning this Settlement, including:
a. The liability issues in this case have been vigorously contested. b. The Court notes that for settlement purposes, this Settlement has the benefit of providing relief to members ofthe class now, without further litigation, under circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously contested among the parties to this litigation. This Settlement provides Settlement Class Members with a substantial benefit, which might not have been available were this litigation to continue. c. This Settlement is clearly a byproduct of hard-fought litigation between the parties, and not a result ofany collusion on the part ofClass Counselor Counsel for the Defendants. 10. Class Counsel submitted to the Court and served on the Defendants their application for reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses consistent with the tenns of the Settlement Agreement. This Court has considered Class Counsel's request and hereby grants the request. 11. The claims procedure established under the Settlement Agreement is fair, a simplified process and workable. In any event, the Court will retain j urisdiction to work out any unanticipated problems. NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. 13. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following Settlement Class is certified for purposes of final settlement:
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer 4

County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
14. The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure are satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for
resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for Class certification under Rule 23 are
present. The Class members are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined. Questions oflaw and
fact common to all Class members predominate over individual issues and should be determined in
one proceeding with respect to all Class members. The Class Representatives' claims are typical of
those of the Class. The class action mechanism is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and
resolving this action.
15. Settlement Class Representatives are entitled to and are hereby awarded a payment of
$72,000, over and above their respective proceeds under the Settlement Agreement and as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, in recognition of the efforts they have undertaken and the risk they
have incurred in connection with this Action.
16. The Court grants final approval ofthe Settlement Agreement, including the distribution of
the proceeds of the settlement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17. The Courts finds that the request for attorneys' fees is reasonable.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
5

18. The Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement is GRANTED. 19. Settlement Class Representatives are entitled to and are hereby awarded an additional payment of $72,000 over and above their claims for damages, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, in recognition of the efforts they have undertaken and the risk they incurred in connection with this Action. 20. The Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses is granted. 21. These Actions and all claims against the Defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice, but the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the Actions, all Parties, and Settlement Class Members, to interpret and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations of this Settlement Agreement. 22. All Class members who have not timely filed a Request For Exclusion are barred and enjoined from commencing and/or prosecuting any settled claim or action against the Defendants. Any Class member who has not timely filed a Request For Exclusion is enjoined from initiating any action, or continuing to prosecute any filed action, in any forum. This the __ day _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2004.
The Honorable Thomas J. McAvoy United States District Court
6

EXHIBITD PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NATHANIEL BRUCE, et. al., both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. al.,
Defendants.

Index No. 02-CV-0847 (TJMlDRH)

PAUL KAHLER, both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et. al.,
Defendants.

Index No. 03-CV-1324 (TJMIDRH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WHEREAS, THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, MEMBERS OF ITS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND KATHLEEN JIMINO, the Duly Elected County Executive of the County of Rensselaer (Defendants) and Plaintiffs have entered into a Settlement Agreement intended to resolve the litigation pending in this Court;
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement, together with supporting materials, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of prejudice of these actions against the Defendants;

1

WHEREAS, the Court has before it the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Joint Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, together with the Settlement Agreement and supporting materials;
WHEREAS, the Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement were the result of good faith, arm's length settlement negotiations between competent and experienced counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Preliminary Approval ofSettlement and Conditional Certification ofthe Settlement Class
1. Capitalized terms used in this Order have the meanings assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement and this Order.
2. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are hereby preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing provided for below. The Court finds that said settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness and that notice of the proposed settlement should be given as provided in this Order.
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 the Court hereby conditionally certifies the following settlement class:
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions and/or civil court commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
2

4. The Court further conditionally finds that the Plaintiffs are adequate class
representatives for the Settlement Class. 5. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs' Counsel are adequate Class
Counsel.
6. The Court approves the Class Notice of Settlement attached hereto as
Exhibit A and the Summary Notice for Publication attached hereto as Exhibit B. The
Court also approves the Notice Program as set forth in Paragraph IV of the Settlement
Agreement.
7. If the Settlement Agreement is terminated or is not consummated for any
reason whatsoever, the conditional certification of the Settlement Class shall be void, the
Defendants shall have reserved all their rights to oppose any and all class certification
motions, to contest the adequacy of Plaintiffs as representatives of any putative class, and
to contest the adequacy of Class Counsel as adequate Class Counsel. Additionally,
Plaintiffs have reserved all of their rights, including their right to continue with any
appeals pending at the time of the settlement.
Notice to Settlement Class Members and Appointment ofSettlement Administrator
8. Counsel for the Class ("Class Counsel") are as follows:
Elmer Robert Keach, III One Steuben Place Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: 518.434.1718 Facsimile: 877.471.3092
Bruce Menken Jason J. Rozger BERENBAUM MENKEN & BEN-ASHER, LLP Three New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212.509.1616
3

Facsimile: 212.509.8088 Gary E. Mason Charles Schneider THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202.429.2290 Telecopier: 202.429.2294 9. Beginning no later than May I, 2004, Class Counsel shall cause to be disseminated the notices, substantially in the form attached as Exhibits A and B hereto, in the manner set forth in Paragraph IV of the Settlement Agreement. Such Summary Notice will be completed expeditiously pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Class members will have Sixty days (60) from the Notice Date to opt out and Ninety days (90) from the Notice Date to file claims. Prior to the Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs and/or the Claims Administrator shall serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the provisions ofthis paragraph. 10. The notice to be provided as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is hereby found to be the best means practicable of providing notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement and the Fairness Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New York and all other applicable laws. The Notices are accurate, objective, informative and provide Class members with all of the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the Settlement and its fairness.
4

13. Class Counsel are authorized to retain Rust Consulting, Inc., 117 Central Avenue North, Suite 200, Fairbault, Minnesota 550212, as a Claims Administrator in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement Class
14. Any member of the Settlement Class that wishes to be excluded ("opt out") from the Settlement Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator, so that it is received by the Claims Administrator at the address indicated in the Notice on or before the close of the opt out period. The Request for Exclusion shall fully comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Members of the Settlement Class may not exclude themselves by filing Requests for Exclusion as a group or class, but must in each instance individually and personally execute a Request for Exclusion and timely transmit it to the Claims Administrator.
15. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the releases, waivers and covenants described in the Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person objected to the Settlement and whether or not such person made a claim upon, or participated in, the Settlement Fund created pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Fairness Hearing
16. A hearing on final settlement approval (the "Fairness Hearing") is hereby scheduled to be held before this Court on no later than one hundred fifteen (115) days from the Notice Date, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the dismissal with prejudice of these Class Actions with respect to
5

the Released Parties that are Defendants therein, and the entry of final judgment in the Class Action. Class Counsel's application for award of attorneys' fees and costs shall be heard at the time of the fairness hearing.
17. The. date and time of the Fairness Hearing shall be set forth in the Notice, but the Fairness Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class other than that which may be posted by the Court.
18. Any person or entity that does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but need not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. Settlement Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented by Class CounseL
19. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but need not, submit comments or objections to the proposed Settlement. Any Class member may object to the proposed Settlement, entry of the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement, and Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses by filing and serving a written objection.
20. Any Class member making the objection (an "objector") must sign the objection personally. An objection must state why the objector objects to the proposed Settlement and provide the basis to support such position. If an objector intends to appear personally at the Fairness Hearing, the objector must include with the objection a notice of the objector's intent to appear at the hearing.
21. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must be filed no later than 60 days from the Notice Date. If Counsel is appearing on behalf of more than
6

one Class member, counsel must identify each such Class member and each Class member must have complied with the requirements of this Order. These documents must be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the following address:
Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk United States District Court
for the Northern District of New York James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse 445 Broadway Albany, NY 12207 22. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must also be mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant at the addresses listed below: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire One Steuben Place Albany, NY 12207 Thomas O'Connor, Esquire Napierski, VanDenburgh & Napierski 296 Washington Avenue Extension Albany,NY 12203 23. Only Class members who have filed and served valid and timely notices of objection shall be entitled to be heard at the Fairness Hearing. Any Class member who does not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement, entry of Final Order and Judgment, or to Class Counsel's application for fees, costs and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order, shall be deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. 24. Persons wishing to be heard at the Fairness Hearing are required to file written comments or objections and indicate in their written comments or objections their
7

intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Settlement Class members need not appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.
25. All members of the Settlement Class who do not personally and timely request to be excluded from the Class are enjoined from proceeding against the Defendants until such time as the Court renders a final decision regarding approval of the settlement and, if the settlement is approved, enters final judgment as provided in the Settlement Agreement. Other Provisions
26. Upon approval of the settlement provided for in this Settlement Agreement, each and every time and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth and shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court.
27. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement Agreement, shall be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:

The Honorable Thomas J. McAvoy Senior United States District Judge

8

Exhibit A - Long Form Notice

Legal Notice United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
If You Entered The Rensselear County Jail From June 26, 1999 Until July 1, 2002 And Were Subject To A Strip
Search, Then Your Rights Could Be Affected By A Proposed Class Action Settlement.
Read This Notice Carefully
A Federal Court Authorized This Notice. It Is Not From A Lawyer. You Are Not Being Sued.
This is a proposed settlement of a class action alleging that corrections officers and others employed at the Rensselaer County Jail engaged in the practice of illegally strip searching all individuals charged with only misdemeanors or minor offenses upon their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail from June 26, 1999 until July 1, 2002. The proposed settlement does not include individuals that were charged with felony offenses at the time of their admission to the Rensselaer County Jail.
The primary benefit of the settlement to class members is the payment of $1,000.00 to each member of class provided the funds allotted for the settlement are not exhausted. If the number of claims at $1,000.00 per person exhausts the money available for such purposes from the Settlement Fund, than every class member will receive their pro rata share of the fund.
The settlement requires the defendants to: (1) establish a Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 to pay all costs, expenses and payments to class members; (2) agree to a court order that prohibits Rensselaer County from conducting strip searches on new detainees brought to the Rensselaer County Jail on misdemeanor or minor criminal charges absent reasonable suspicion that the are hiding contraband on their persons; (3) pay, on behalf of the class, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and litigation costs in an amount to be determined by the Court; (4) pay incentive awards to the class representatives; and (5) pay all of the costs of notifying the class about, and administering all aspects of, this settlement, including distributing payment to members of the class.
Visit the Settlement website at www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com for additional details about the settlement. You may also get additional information by calling 1-800-, or by writing to:
1

Rensselaer County Jail Civil Rights Class Action Administrator P.D.Box

Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read this notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

Submit a Claim Form

You must submit a claim form to receive payment under the settlement. You must submit a claim for by to be included in the settlement.

Exclude Yourself

If you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will not be bound by the Settlement or judgment and will not be entitled to a cash payment. You will be free to pursue your claims against the Defendants. This is the only option that allows you ever to bring or be part of any other lawsuit against the defendants in this case about the same legal
. claims as are advanced in this case. You must exclude
yourself from the Settlement by

Object

If you do not exclude yourself, you may write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement or the request for
. legal fees and costs. You must file an objection by

Go to a Hearing

You may ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement or the request for fees and costs.

Do Nothing

You get!!2 payment. You give up your right to sue Defendants on these claims later.

These rights and options - and the deadlines to exercise them - are explained in this notice.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Likewise, payments to class members will be distributed only if the Court grants final approval to the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved.

BASIC INFORMATION

I. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE PACKAGE?
You or someone in your family may have entered the Rensselaer County Jail on misdemeanor or 2

other minor charges from June 26, 1999 until July 1,2002 and been subject to a strip search.
The Court sent you this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed settlement of a class action, and about your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. Ifthe Court approves it and after objections and appeals are resolved, an administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that the settlement allows. You will be informed of the progress of the settlement.
This package explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them.
The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, United States Senior District Court Judge Thomas 1. McAvoy presiding, and the cases involved are know as Bruce v. County ofRensselaer, Case No. 02-CV-0847 and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer. Case No. 03-CV-1324. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs, and the municipality and municipal officials they sued, the County of Rensselaer, its Correctional employees and elected officials, are called the Defendants.
II. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit claimed that the County of Rensselaer illegally strip searched individuals admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail who were charged with only misdemeanors and other minor crimes, in violation ofthe unreasonable search provisions contained in the United States Constitution. Defendants deny they did anything wrong, and further claim that the bulk of class members are not entitled to any money as a result of being searched.
III. WHY IS THIS A CLASS ACTION?
In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case Nathaniel Bruce, Mark LaBelle, T'Shad Bradley, Natika Miller, William Garrity, Charles Linen, Wayne Conine, Harold Bonesteel, Jeffrey Rockefeller, Peter Rupp and Paul Kahler), sue on behalf of all people who have similar claims. All these people are a Class or Class Members. One Court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. United States Senior District Judge Thomas McAvoy is in charge of this class action.
IV. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?
The Court did not decide in favor ofPlaintiffs or Defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the costs and risks of a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Class Representatives and their attorneys think the settlement is best for everyone who was alleged to have been illegally searched.
3

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
V. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?
Judge McAvoy decided that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member: All persons who were placed into the custody of the Rensselaer County Jail during the period June 26, 1999, through and including July 1,2002, after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, traffic violations, violations of probation or parole or civil commitments and were strip searched upon their entry into the Jail. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
The Settlement does not cover individuals charged with felony offenses at the time of their entry into the Rensselaer County Jail.
VI. DO I NEED TO PROVE I WAS STRIP-SEARCHED, AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
No, you do not need to prove you were subjected to such a search. In filling out the claim form, you will affirm, under penalty of peIjury, that you were strip searched, and Defendants will accept this affirmation. Provided that your name is detailed in booking records maintained by Rensselaer County, your affirmation will entitle you to payment. If your name is not contained in Rensselaer County's records, you may be asked to provide additional documentation before being allowed to participate in the settlement.
A strip search occurred when you were ordered to take off some or all of your clothes by a Rensselaer County employee, with that employee watching you undress or forcing you to undress out in the open. Some members of the class may also have been forced to bend at the waist or manipulate body parts to allow for a visual inspection. The bulk of Rensselaer County's searches occurred in the shower area of the booking room behind a "half wall." If you were searched in this matter when first booked into the facility, you are a member of the class and entitled to make a claim. You will need to provide an affirmation on the claim form.
VII. I WAS STRIP-SEARCHED AFTER RECEIVING A VISIT AND ALSO WHEN RETURNING FROM COURT WHEN I WAS IN THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL. DOES THIS MEAN I CAN ALSO MAKE A CLAIM?
No. Searches of this type are permissible. You can only make a claim if you were subjected to such a search when you first entered the facility; meaning when your picture and fingerprints were taken and you received the jail uniform.
4

VIII. HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER THE CRIME FOR WHICH I WAS CHARGED UPON ADMISSION TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL QUALIFIES ME FOR INCLUSION IN THE CLASS?
New York law creates three distinct categories of offenses: Felonies, Misdemeanors and Violations. Felonies are the most serious crimes, and are usually punishable by incarceration in state prison. Felony offenses are usually handled by a County Court Judge, and require indictment by a grand jury. Murder, burglary and rape are examples of felony offenses. Anyone charged with a felony upon admission to the Rensselaer County Jail, even if they were also charged with misdemeanors or violations at the same time, is not a member of the class unless they were, on another occasion, admitted to RCJ solely on misdemeanor or violation charges.
Misdemeanors are minor crimes, and are, at most, subject to incarceration in a local jail. Misdemeanor offenses are handled by a City, Town or Village Court Judge, and do not require indictment. Assault in the Third Degree, Petty Larceny and Unlawful Possession of Fireworks are examples of misdemeanor offenses. Anyone charged with a misdemeanor on their admission to the Rensselaer County Jail is a member of the class.
Violations are minor infractions, and are not considered criminal conduct. While violations can result in brief incarceration in a local jail, they are generally resolved with a fine. Violations are handled by a City, Town or Village Court Judge, and do not require indictment. Disorderly conduct, Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, traffic violations and city code violations are examples of violations. Anyone charged with a violation on their admission to the Rensselaer County Jail is a member of the class.
The class further allows for individuals to make claims if they were admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail for violating the terms of their probation or parole, or ifthey were subject to a civil commitment. Probation or parole is often provided as a condition of release following a criminal conviction. Parole is only assessed if an individual has served time in state prison. If an individual was charged solely for violating parole or probation, for instance, not honoring their conditions of supervision or violating curfew, they are considered to be a member of the class. If an individual was charged with violating probation or parole and also contemporaneously charged with misdemeanors, they are also a member of the class. If an individual was charged with violating probation or parole and also contemporaneously charged with a felony, they are not a member of the class. A civil commitment is an order from a noncriminal court, usually the Family Court, committing an individual to the Rensselaer County Jail. Individuals admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail on a civil commitment, for example, a commitment for failure to pay child support, are members of the class.
IX. I WAS ADMITTED TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL BUT CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT MY CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE. HOW CAN I FIND THIS OUT, AND HOW DO I KNOW IF THE CHARGE WAS A MISDEMEANOR OR VIOLATION?
5

There a several ways for potential class members to determine the nature of their criminal charges. First, you can review your charging documents, which should reflect both your actual charges and whether the charges were a misdemeanor or violation. For instance, the criminal complaint filed against you may state "Assault in the Third Degree," a "Class A Misdemeanor," or something similar for each separate charge. If you do not have your charging documents and remember the local court where you were prosecuted, the court clerk will also be able to help you find these documents.

If you need additional help in determining whether you are a class member, or if you

have other questions, you can contact the settlement administrator at 1-800-

, as they

may be able to help you directly or have class counsel call you to answer your questions.

You can still make a claim if you do not remember your criminal charges if you believe you are a member of the Class, but you may be asked for additional information.

X. I PLED GUILTY TO A CRIME. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT MY RIGHT TO PARTIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?

If you were admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail solely on misdemeanor or other minor charges, as defined above, you can participate in the settlement regardless of how you resolved your criminal charges. Even if you pled guilty to a crime, you may still recover just like any other class member.

XI. WHAT IF I WAS ADMITTED TO THE RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION? CAN I STILL PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?

Yes. Individuals who were admitted to the Rensselaer County Jail on more than one occasion during the class period are members of the class and can recover money. They can only recover one payment, however, meaning that you will not be provided with extra payments if admitted to the RCJ more than one time.

XII. I AM STILL NOT SURE IF I AM INCLUDED.

If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for help. You can call 1800- and the settlement administrator or class counsel may help answer your questions. For more information, you can also visit the website, www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com. Or you can fill out and return the claim form described on page _ , in question _, to see if you qualify.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS - WHAT YOU GET
XIII. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

6

Defendants have agreed to provide a settlement fund amount of $2.7 million to compensate Class Members who have been illegally strip searched, and have agreed to alter their search policies for new detainees to the Rensselaer County Jail. Defendants have also agreed to pay for attorneys' fees and expenses, up to a maximum of $580,000, and provide incentive awards for the eleven class representatives up to a maximum amount of $72,000. Defendants have also agreed to pay all the expenses of notifying the class about, and administering all aspects of, this Settlement, and delivering payments to class members. Attorneys' fees, administration costs and incentive awards are taken out of the settlement fund amount. A complete description of the settlement is provided in the Settlement Agreement and Release. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and Release by visiting www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com. or by calling 1-800-.

XIV. WHAT CAN I GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

The settlement provides that all class members who make claims will receive a payment of up to $1,000.00, depending on the number of valid claims that are made.

If you have any liens in place from the Rensselaer County Department of Social Services, Rensselaer County has agreed to waive those liens as it relates to payments from this settlement.

XV. WHAT IF I WAS STRIP-SEARCHED AFTER JULY 1, 2002?

If you were strip searched after July 1, 2002, you are not a member of this class action and are not entitled to a settlement payment. You are not bound by this settlement for those claims. This means you can pursue your claims separately from this settlement with your own lawyer.

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT - SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM

XVI. HOWCANIGETAPAYMENT?

MUST To qualify for payment, you

send in a claim form. A claim form is attached

to this Notice. You can also get a claim form on the Internet at

www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, sign

it, and mail it postmarked no later than

, 2004.

You may be asked for additional documentation, and will be contacted in writing.

XVII. WHEN WOULD I GET MY PAYMENT?

The Court will hold a hearing on

, 2004 to decide whether to approve the

settlement. If Judge McAvoy approves the settlement after that, there may be appeals. You will

only receive payment after these appeals are completed. It is always uncertain whether these

appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. Everyone

who sends in a claim form will be informed of the progress of the settlement. Please be patient.

7

XVIII. WHAT AM I GIVING UP TO GET A PAYMENT OR STAY IN THE CLASS?
Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means you can't sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against Rensselaer County, its employees, or its elected officials about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you. If you sign the claim fonn, you will agree to release all claims that you have related to your having been strip searched.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you do not want a payment from this settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Rensselaer County, on your own, about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the settlement. This is called excluding yourself - or is sometimes referred to as "opting out" of the Settlement Class.

XIX. HOW DO I GET OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?

To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying that you

want to be excluded from Bruce v. County ofRensselaer and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer. Be

sure to include your name, address, telephone number and your signature. You must mail your

exclusion request postmarked no later than

,2004, to:

Rensselaer County Jail Exclusions

You can't exclude yourself on the phone or bye-mail. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue (or continue to sue) Rensselaer County in the future.

XX. IF I DO NOT EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I SUE RENSSELAER COUNTY FOR THE SAME THING LATER?

No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Rensselaer County for the

claims that this settlement resolves. If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that

lawsuit immediately. You must exclude yourself from this Class to continue on your own

lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is

, 2004.

XXI. IF I EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I GET MONEY FROM THIS SETTLEMENT? 8

No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a claim form to ask for money. But, you may sue, continue to sue, or be part of a different lawsuit against Rensselaer County.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
XXII. DO I HAVE ALAWYER IN THIS CASE?
The Court approved Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire, Albany, New York, Berenbaum, Menken & Ben-Asher, New York, New York, and the Mason Law Firm, PLLC, Washington, DC to represent you and other Class Members. Together, the lawyers are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
XXIII. HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?
Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to $580,000.00, a payment of up to $12,000 for Class Representative Nathaniel Bruce, who both Class Counsel and Defendants agree has provided Class Counsel with substantial assistance in the prosecution of this action and was subject to significant public scrutiny as the lead plaintiff, and payments of up to $6,000 per individual (up to $60,000 total) to each of the ten remaining class representatives. The Court may award less than these amounts. These amounts will deducted from the settlement fund before payments are made to Class Members. Rensselaer County has agreed not to oppose these fees and expenses. The costs of administering the settlement will also be deducted from the settlement fund. The parties have allocated $35,000 from the settlement fund for administration costs.
The Defendants have agreed that up to $2,013,000.00 from the settlement fund is guaranteed to satisfy claims of Class Members.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the settlement or some part of it.
XXIV. HOW DO I TELL THE COURT THAT I DO NOT LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?
If you are a Class Member, you can object to the settlement if you don't like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to Bruce v. County of
9

Rensselaer and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer. Be sure to include your name, address,

telephone number, your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement. Mail the

objection to these three different places postmarked no later than

,2004.

COURT
Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse 445 Broadway Albany, NY 12207

CLASS COUNSEL
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire One Steuben Place Albany,NY 12207

DEFENSE COUNSEL
Thomas O'Connor, Esquire Napierski, VanDenburgh & Napierski 296 Washington Avenue Extension Albany,NY 12203

XXV. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBJECTING AND EXCLUDING MYSELF?

Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the settlement. You can objeCt only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to.

XXVI. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 AM on

, 2004 at

the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207 in Courtroom . At

this hearing the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If

there are objections, the Court will consider them. Judge McAvoy will listen to people who have

asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class Counsel.

After the Hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know

how long these decisions will take.

XXVII. DO I HAVE TO COME TO THE HEARING?

No. Class Counsel will answer questions Judge McAvoy may have. But you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will
10

consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.

XXVIII. MAY I SPEAK AT THE HEARING?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you

must send a letter saying that it is your "Notice of Intention to Appear in Broce v. County of

Rensselaer and Kahler v. County of Rensselaer." Be sure to include your name, address,

telephone number and your signature. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be postmarked

no later than

, 2004, and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel and

Defense Counsel, at the three addresses on page 10, in question XXIV. You cannot speak at the

hearing if you excluded yourself

IF YOU DO NOTHING
XXIX. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOTHING AT ALL?
If you do nothing, you will get no money from this settlement. But, unless you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Rensselaer County about the legal issues in this case, ever again.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
XXX. ARE THERE MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE SETTLMENT?
This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in a Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement by writing to Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire, One Steuben Place, Albany, NY 12207, or by visiting www.rensselaercountyjailsettlement.com.

XXXI. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

You can call 1-800- toll free, write to Rensselaer County Jail Civil Rights Class Action

Administrator,

, or visit the website at www.rensselaercountyjailsettlment.com.

where you will find answers to common questions about the settlement, a claim form, plus other

information to help you determine whether you are a Class Member and whether you are eligible

for payment.

II

2004

Dated: - - - - - -

12

Exhibit B- Summary Notice

COURT ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE
If you were admitted into the Rensselaer County Jail
between June 26, 1999 and July 1, 2002, you could get a payment from a class action settlement.
A settlement has been proposed in two class action lawsuits about the strip search policies of the Rensselaer County Jail ("RCJ"). The settlement will provide up to $1,000 to each individual who was strip searched upon being admitted into the RCJ while charged with only a misdemeanor, violation, traffic infraction, parole violation, or probation violation, or who was held at the RCJ on Family Court or another civil matter.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement, so that the benefits may be paid.
Who's Included?
You are a Class Member and could get benefits if you were admitted into the RCJ from June 26, 1999, through and including July 1,2002, and you were charged with only a misdemeanor, violation, traffic infraction, violation ofprobation or parole, or had a civil commitment, and you were strip searched upon entry into the RCl
What's This About?
The lawsuit claimed that Defendant Rensselaer County and its officers followed an unlawful policy and practice of strip searching all persons who were admitted into the RCJ during the Class period. Defendants deny they did anything wrong. The Court did not decide which side was right. But both sides agreed to the settlement to ensure a resolution and to provide benefits to Class Members.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
Defendants agreed to create a fund of up to $2,700,000 to pay claims to Class Members, costs of administration of the settlement, nominal incentive awards to the Class Representatives, and attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of your payment will depend upon the number of valid claims that are sent in, but in no event will exceed $1,000 to each Class Member who files a claim. You can only make one Claim, even if you were strip searched more than once.

How Do You Ask For A Payment?
A detailed notice and claim form package contains everything you need. Just call or visit the website below to get one. To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Form. Claim forms are due by _ _, 2004.
What Are Your Other Options?
If you don't want the settlement benefits or don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by _ _,2004 or you won't be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you can't get any benefits from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by _ _, 2004. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.
The court will hold a hearing in these cases (Bruce, et. al. v. County ofRensselaer et. al. case no. 02-CV-0847, and Kahler v. County ofRensselaer et. al. case no. 03-CV-1324) on, __
_ , 2004, to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members (Elmer Robert Keach III, Esq. Albany, NY; Beranbaum Menken & Ben-Asher LLP, New York, NY; and The Mason Law Firm, P.C., Washington, DC) for attorneys' fees and costs. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. For more information, call toll free 1-800-000-0000, visit the website WWW.xxxxx.com. or write to Settlement, P.O Box X, City, State, 00000.
This Notice is only a summary of a Court-approved Settlement Agreement. If you have any questions about the meaning of the terms ofthis Notice and the terms of the Court-approved Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement control.

EXHIBITE SUMMARY CLASS NOTICE

COURT ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE
If you were admitted into the Rensselaer County Jail between June 26, 1999 and July 1, 2002, you could get
a payment from a class action settlement.
A settlement has been proposed in two class action lawsuits about the strip search policies of the Rensselaer County Jail ("RCJ"). The settlement will provide up to $1,000 to each individual who was strip searched upon being admitted into the RCJ while charged with only a misdemeanor, violation, traffic infraction, parole violation, or probation violation, or who was held at the RCJ on Family Court or another civil matter.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement, so that the benefits may be paid.
Who's Included?
You are a Class Member and could get benefits if you were admitted into the RCJ from June 26, 1999, through and including July 1, 2002, and you were charged with only a misdemeanor, violation, traffic infraction, violation of probation or parole, or had a civil commitment, and you were strip searched upon entry into the RCJ.
What's This About?
The lawsuit claimed that Defendant Rensselaer County and its officers followed an unlawful policy and practice of strip searching all persons who were admitted into the RCJ during the Class period. Defendants deny they did anything wrong. The Court did not decide which side was right. But both sides agreed to the settlement to ensure a resolution and to provide benefits to Class Members.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
Defendants agreed to create a fund of up to $2,700,000 to pay claims to Class Members, costs of administration of the settlement, nominal incentive awards to the Class Representatives, and attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of your payment will depend upon the number of valid claims that are sent in, but in no event will exceed $1,000 to each Class Member who files a claim. You can only make one Claim, even if you were strip searched more than once.

How Do You Ask For A Payment?
A detailed notice and claim fonn package contains everything you need. Just call or visit the website below to get one. To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Fonn. Claim forms are due by __, 2004.
What Are Your Other Options?
If you don't want the settlement benefits or don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by __,2004 or you won't be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you can't get any benefits from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by _ _, 2004. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.
The court will hold a hearing in these cases (Bruce, et. al. v. County ofRensselaer et. al. case no. 02-CV-0847, andKahlerv. CountyofRensselaeret. al. case no. 03-CV-1324) on, __ - ' 2004, to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members (Elmer Robert Keach III, Esq. Albany, NY; Beranbaum Menken & Ben-Asher LLP, New York, NY; and The Mason Law Finn, P.C., Washington, DC) for attorneys' fees and costs. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. For more infonnation, call toll free 1-800-000-0000, visit the website WWW.Xxxxx.com. or write to Settlement, P.O Box X, City, State, 00000.
This Notice is only a summary of a Court-approved Settlement Agreement. If you have any questions about the meaning ofthe terms ofthis Notice and the terms of the Court-approved Settlement Agreement, the tenns ofthe Settlement Agreement control.