F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 9 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 02- 1642 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00009 -CV -JTC -3 PETER EVANS, DE TREE JORDAN, Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe lle es , ve rs us DENIS STEPHENS, D ef en da nt- Appe llant,

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ A ppe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (M ay 9 , 200 5) Befo re ED MONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, an d TJOFLAT, ANDERS O N , B IRCH, D U BI N A , BL A CK , CA RN E S, BA RKE T T , H U L L , MA RC U S, W IL SO N a nd PR Y O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. ED MON DS ON , C hief Judge: T his c as e is a

bout a n a rr es tin g off

ic er ' s in ve sti ga tor

y str ip s earc h f

or the purpos e of discovering drugs on persons who h ad been arre sted lawf ully but had b een ar re ste d f or of fe nse s th at

w er e not dr ug c ri m es . Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe lle es , P et er

E va ns and D etree Jor da n, sue d D ef en da nt-2

Appellant, Police Of

ficer De nis S tephens, alleging that Of ficer Stephen s v i olated the ir r igh ts unde r the Fo urth A m en dm en t to the U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n. I n r uli ng on defendants' m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, the district court concluded Of fi cer St ep he ns 's a ct s wer e u nc on st it ut io na l an d n o t p ro te ct edby qua li fie d i m m un it y . A p an el o f t h i s Co u rt re v er s ed t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt 's d ec i s i o n o n q u al i fi ed i m m u n i t y. W e de ci de d to va ca te the pa ne l' s dec isi on and to re he ar the ap pe al

. A ssu m ing P la int if fs ' version of the facts is accura te, we now conclude that the pertinent condu ct violated Plaintiffs' c onsti tutio nal rights and th at qualified im m unity applies to just one alleged vio la tio n. BA CKG RO UND Fo r this ap pe al , the se a lle ge d a nd e vid en ce d f ac ts w ill be sup pose d to be the tr ue f ac ts. Plaintiffs ar e tw o black m ales. The events givin g rise to this appeal occurred on 22 January 1999 ; Plaintiffs w ere then in th eir early and m iddle twenties. T hat nigh t, E vans and Jo rdan we re traveling from Atlanta, Ge or gi a , t o S t atesboro, G eorgia,
w he re both w er e or ha d bee n enr oll ed at G eo rg ia So uth er n Uni ve rs ity

. E va ns dro ve him self and Jordan in a rental car. D espite that Evans had m ade the j ourney betwee n Atlanta and Sta tesboro on m any ear lier occa sions , t h ey b ecam e lost and traveled dow n I nte rs ta te 85 i nst ea d of I nte rs ta te 75. Whil e tr y ing to re tur

n to I nte rstat e 75, E va ns and J or da n pa sse d th ro ugh the City of Z ebulon , G eorgia. Ther e, Of ficer Stephens, a white m ale, stopp ed Evans af ter St ep he ns c loc ke d E va ns' s c ar tr av el ing a t a

spe ed of se ve nty -tw o m ile s per hou r in aEv ans later plea d guilty to reck less d

riv ing and

do es n ot ch alleng e that plea o n ap peal. 1 By this tim e, Steph ens was j oined by an officer fro m

the Pik e C ounty

Sh eriff' s O ffice. 2 3 fo rty -f ive m ile pe r hour

z one . A vid eo c am er a in Ste phe ns' s patr ol c ar r ec or de d th e 1 stop. As S tephens approached Evans, another police offic er f rom the City of Concord Police D epartm ent arrived on the scene. Stephens susp ected E vans m ight h ave been dr ivi ng u nde r the inf

lue nc e, but

E va ns d en ie d do ing so. St ep he ns the n or de re d E va ns out of the car an d se ar ch ed

E va ns' s po ck et s. S te phe ns c la im s he f ound abe er bot tle top in one of E va ns' s pock et s. E va ns d en ie s th e top w as the re , a nd S te phe ns d id n ot show the bottle top to the recording cam era. Evans st a y e d a tt he r e a r

o f t he r e nt a l c a r

w he n O f f i c e r S t e ph e ns app r oa c he d Jordan, w ho rem ained seated in the passeng er s ea t
. Stephens took Jordan's drivers lic en se an d as ke d him to ex it the car as w el l. W ith E va ns' s pe rm iss ion, Ste ph en s searched the c ar f

or about five m inutes. Stephens claim s he saw an open contain er of a n alc ohol ic be ve ra ge in the c ar . E va ns d en ie s it , a nd S te phe ns d id n ot f oll owhis usual practice of showing the container to the recording cam era. 2 Of ficer Stephens c ited Evans for speeding and read him the Ge orgia Im

plied Co nse nt L aw , O
. C. G
. A
. § 40 -6 -3 92( a) (4 ). A ft er S te phe ns a ske d w he the r E va ns
w oul d c onse nt t o a br ea tha ly ze r, E va ns sai d he w an te d to c al l hi s law y er . S te phe ns the n pl ac ed

him und er a rr es t and r ep ea te d th e re que st. E va ns a ga in s ai d that he
w an te d to ta lk t o hi s a tto rn ey . S te phe ns c ha rg ed E va ns w ithD
. U
. I. r ef

usa l and speeding and then placed him in the patrol c ar. A t Stephens's depositi on, he said that Evans had alcohol on hi s breath, bloodsho t ey es, and an uns table dem eanor. O ffice rSteph ens did n ot k noww hat o ffense had led to the outstan dingarrest warran t. The parties ag ree tha t 3 the D etre Jordan in the w arrant w as n ot P laintiff- App ellee Jordan. 4 St ep he ns c onc lud ed

the f ac ts a uth or iz ed the a rr es t of

E va ns. A t the sc en e of

the st op, O ff

ic er S te phe ns, by

r ad io, r eque ste d ase ar chon Jor da n' s nam e to c he ck

f or out standi ng w ar

rants
. T he dis pa tc he r re la y ed to St ep he ns that a "D etre J o rd an " with Plaintiff- Appellant Jordan's date of birth had an outst and i n g ar rest warrant. Ste phens th en arr ested Jordan. A fter plac ing Jo rdan 3
un d e r a rr e s t , S t e p h e n s s e a r c h e dJ o r d a n ' s p o c k e t s ; a n dS t e p h e n s s a i dt h a th e w oul d
re le as e Jor da n if

the w ar rant w as f or som eo ne e lse

. Whil e w ai tin g onthe towtr uc k, St ep he ns and anothe r of

fi ce r se ar ch ed the car an d surr ound ing a re a fo r ap pr oxi m at el y se ve n m inu te s. T his se ar chof the c ar w as the se co nd one tha t r ev ea le d, a cc or din g to Pl ai nti ff s, nothin g. Of ficer Stephens then drove Plaintiffs to the Pike County j ail. Plaint i ff s say tha t on the w ay to the j ai l, Jor da n co nti nue d to ex pla in the w ar rant w as not fo r him
an d to r eque st a

pho ne c al l. B oth m ena lso r ec al l S te phe ns say ing tha t he is the j udge
an d j ur y in Z eb ulo n a nd tha t he de ci de s w ho can m ak e phon e ca lls

. E va ns a lso r ec al ls St ep he ns sayin g t ha t h e wou ld "s en d you ni gg ers away fora lo ng ti m e." Ac cording to Plainti ffs, Of ficer Stephens patted them

down again before they entered the county

j ail build ing. Stephens inform ed the j ailer on duty , O ffice r A ndre D aw son, of

the ch ar ge s aga ins t Pla int if fs

. D aw son re ca lls re vie w ing the re port onthe "J or da n" in the w ar

rant and c oncl udi ng tha t i t w as not the P la int if

f; D aw son en co ur ag ed

S te phe ns t o r el ea se Jor da n.Acco rdingto Ev ans, the chok ehold occurred after Ev ans was in the roo m and after J ordandes cribed 4 th e or de r to tak e of

f hi s un de rw ear as "s om e bu ll sh ita nd Ia in ' t g oi ngto p ul l m

y dra w er s. " P la in ti ff s de sc ri be th e ba to n- li k e ob ject a s a co ld , b la ck

c y li nd ri ca l, o bjec t. W e us e th e te rm 5 "baton- lik e ob

j ect" or "baton" to de scribe wha tev er O fficer S tephen s alleg edly use d to hit an d p robe Plaintiffs. 5 O ff ic er S te phe ns be cam e an gr

y an d w al ke d Jo rd anto a ro om tha t a ppe ar ed to be asup ply

c los et or m op s tor ag e ro om . T he re , St ep he ns pe ste re d Jo rd anw ithr ac ist language and ordered Jo rdan to place hi s hands on the wa ll and to rem ove his sh oes an d sh irt. Jor da n c om

pli ed

. St ep he ns the n orde re d Jord an to ta ke of f his r em ai nin g cl oth es . Whe n aske d to low er his unde rw ea r, Jor da n prot es te d by tur

nin g a ro und an d
sa y ing tha t Ste phe ns had the w ro ng p er son. Jor da n say s th at S te phe ns the n pu t hi m in a choke hold an d held him against the wall until Jordan began to gag. Jordan 4 fa ce d th e w al l a ga in; an d the n E va ns w as thr ow n int o the ro om , hit tin g Jo rd ana nd
ca usi ng b oth m en

to fa ll. A s Jor da n tr ie d to stand, St ep he ns hit Jor da n' s si de w itha ba ton -l ike "c old

bla ck " o bj ec t. 5 E va ns sa y s that , onc e he w as in the r oom a nd s ta ndi ng a ga ins t the w al l, Stephens again ordered Jordan to take off his underwear . Acc ording to Jordan, after O ff ic er S te phen s—i n E va ns' s pr es en ce —pu lle d Jo rd an ' s un de rw ea r to h is ankl es , St ep he ns u se d th e sa m e "c old bla ck " o bj ec t t o se pa ra te Jor dan's bu tt ch eeks a nd "s tu ckm e in m

y an us ." A ft er se ar ch ing Jor da n, S te phe ns t ur ne d to E va ns. E va ns sa y s St ep he ns t old him to rem ove h i s u n d erw ear and then—in Jordan's presence—place d "the [sam e] sti ck in m y a ss. " A cc or din g to E va ns, S te phe ns a lso use d th e ba ton to lif t Ev an s' s a nd Jor da n' s te sti cl es . E va ns t es tif ie d a t hi s depo sit ion tha t Ste phe ns use d the sa m e ba tonOfficer Steph ens tells a com pletely differen t story : h e did

no t perfo rm

a pat d own

search ou tside th e 6 j ail; h e did

no t place Ev ans and J ordanin a su pply close t, b ut a trustee c ell. He recalls as k ing Ev ans and J ordanto tak e off their clo thing , b ut no t touc hingor tauntingthem

. Officer Steph ens also s ay s that neither Plaintiff re sisted th e strip search. 6 on b oth P la int if

fs a nd tha t S te phe ns d id n ot c le anor w ipe dow n the ba tondur ing the str ip s earc h. Whil e co nduc tin g th e str ip se arch, S te phe ns t au nte d bo th P la int if fs w ith laught er , r acis t langu ag e an d th re at s of pr iso n—w he re S te phe ns p ro m ise d to se nd P l a i n t i f f s . Af t e r th e s t r i p s e a r c h , E v a n s a n dJ o r d a n we r e mad e t o d r e s s qu i c k l y. Pl ai nti ff s w er e the n hand cu ff

ed to the be nc h in f

ro nt o f the j ai le r; th ey

the n sp en t the nig ht i n th e ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ion

. 6 O ff ic er S te phe ns s ai d he ha d a re as ona ble sus pic ion tha t P la int if fs ha d dr ugs ba se d onthe ir

de m eanor

( ne rv ousn es s a t the r oa dsi de sto p) a nd the ir sto ry of be ing los t. T his sus pic ion , S te phe ns c la im s, j ust if ie d th e str ip s earc h f

or dr ugs. Plaintiffs brought su it in the United States D istrict Co u rt for the Northern D istri ct of G eo rg ia , cl ai m ing in par

t, tha t Ste phe ns viol at ed the ir ri ght s to th e Fo urth, Fi fth and Fo urte en th A m en dm en ts t o th e U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n, a s w el l a s T itl e VI I of the 1965 Civil Righ ts Act. In the light of Def endants' m o t i o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm en t, the c la im s w er e na rr ow ed to one s base d on the Fo urth A m en dm en t. T he district court decided, if P laintiffs' story wa s true, that the strip search violated E van's
an d J or da n's co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d t ha t St ep he ns was e nt it le d to no imm un it y . A pa ne l of thi s C ourt a gr ee d th at

the Co nstitu tio n w as vio la te d, be ca use ( 1) S te phe ns lacked rea sonable su spicion to perform the strip search; and (2) the m anner in which he co nd uc te d th e st rip se arch was un reas on ab le

. E va ns v. Ci tyof Ze bul on, 351 F
. 3dPlaintiffs' counsel urg e us to accept a m ixed descriptio n o f ev ents. Plain tiffs spec ifically argue th at 7 we shou ld cred it Office r Step hens' s statem ent th at Jordan in no w ay resisted or protested

the strip search, but th at w e sh ould also b eliev e P laintiffs' dep iction o f the m anner of the search , in cludingthe chok e ho ld. For sum m ary judg m ent, we believ e the ev idence of the no nm ov ant (at least w hen, as here, the nonm ov ant' s testim ony

is n ot do ubtlessly

incred ible an d the m ov ant se em s co m petent to g iv e testim ony ). 7 48 5, 4 97 (11 th Cir .20 03 ), va ca te d byE va ns v . Ci tyof Ze bul on, 364 F. 3d 1 298 (1 1th Cir. 2004 ). T he pan el al s o concluded that qu alified im m unityapplied to Office r St ep he ns forbo th vi ol at io ns . Id

. ST ANDARD OF

REVIEW W e rev ie w den ia ls of s umm ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Kesin ge r e x re l. E sta te of Kesin ge r v . H

errin gto n, 38 1 F.3 d 1243, 124 7 ( 11th C ir

. 2004 ). W e do n ot m ak e cr ed ibi lity

de te rm ina tio ns, but

ins te ad be lie ve the "e vid en ce of the non -m ovant .
. . a nd al l j ustifiable inferences ar e to be draw n in his favor. " Stewart v. B ooker T. W as hi ng to n In s., 232 F.3d 844, 848 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (c itations om itted). A s we sa id i n D rape r v . R ey nolds, 369 F. 3d 1 270, 127 2 ( 11th C ir

. 2004 ), a nd Rowe v. Ft. Lauderdal e, 279 F
. 3d 1 271, 127 9 n. 9 ( 11th C ir

. 2002 ), w e acc ep t the
nonm ovant' s ve rs ionof

the ev en ts w he n re vie w ing a dec isi on on sum m ar y j udgm en t. Whe n th e nonm ovant h as te sti fi ed to ev en ts, w e do n ot ( as ur ge d by P la int if fs '
co unse l) pic k a nd c hoos e bit s f ro m oth er w itn es se s' e sse nti al ly

inc om pa tib le a cc ount s (i n e ff ec t, de cl ini ng t o c re dit

som e of the non m ovant' s ow n te sti m ony ) an d th enstr ing tog ethe r tho se portio ns o f the r ec or d to f orm the sto ry tha t w e de em

m ost he lpf ul t o the non m ov an t. Inste ad , w he n c onf lic ts ari se be tw ee n th e fa ct s e vid en ce d by the 7 pa rt ie s, w e cr ed it the non m ovi ng p ar ty ' s ve rsi on. O ur duty to re ad the re co rd in the
nonm ovant' s f

av or sto ps s hort of

not c re dit ing the non m ovant' s te sti m ony in w hol e8

or p art: the courts owe a nonm ovant no duty to disb elieve his sworn testim ony which he c hoos es to subm it fo r use in the c as e to b e de ci de d. DIS CUS SI ON W e m ai nly

m ust de ci de tw o is sue s. Whe the r the str ip s earc he s pe rf orm ed on Plaintiffs violated their rights under the United States C onsti tutio n and, if so, whether tha t r igh t— giv enthe c ir cu m stanc es f ac ing O ff ic er S te phe ns—

w as al re ady

so c le ar ly established th at every

objec tively

rea sonable officer w ould have k n o wn th at De fendant wa s viola t i n g fe d er al lawat the tim e. W e conclude that the strip search he re vio la te d tw o r igh ts o f Pl ai nti ff s, bo th ari sin g un de r the F our th A m en dm en t. First, the strip searches—as a post-arrest cr im inal investig ation—were unreasonable, be ca use the y w er e not supp orte d by a re as ona ble sus pic ion of the ex ist en ce of dr ug ev ide nc e. S ec ond, e ve n if som e str ip searc h m igh t have be enlaw fu l, the m an ne r in
w hic h th es e str ip s earc he s w er e pe rf orm ed wa s a lso unr ea sona ble a s am at te r of fe de ra l l aw . I n a ddi tio n, we co nc lu de that the r igh t t o be f re e al tog ethe r of

astr ip
se ar chw as , und er the ci rc um stanc es , not al re ady cl earl y es ta bli she d at the tim e of

the incident, but that the Fourth Am endm ent itself provided , a t the tim e, sufficient notice that the m anner of these particular searches w as "unreasonable" in the consti tutio nal
sense. 1. Th e Co nst itu tio nal V iolati ons. T he pa ne l op ini on i n th is c as e inc lud ed the se w or ds: "A rr es te es w ho are to be deta ine d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ionc anc onst itu tio na lly be sub j ec te d to astr ip
se ar chonl y

if the se ar chis supp orte d by r ea sona ble sus pic ion tha t suchase ar chw ill9

reveal weapons or co ntraband." E va ns v . Ci tyof Ze bul on, 351 F. 3d 4 85, 490 ( 11th Cir. 2003 ) va ca te d by E

va ns v. Ci tyof Ze bul on, 364 F
. 3d 1 298 (1 1th Ci r. 2004 ). A nd the se w or ds d oubt le ssl y

c ontri but ed

to ca usi ng s om e j udge s to vot e fo r enba nc re he ar ing

. Mos t of us are unc er

ta in tha t j ai le rs a re r equir ed to ha ve ar ea sona

ble sus pic ion of w ea pons or c ontra ba nd b ef or e str ip s earch in g—for se cu ri ty a nd s af

ety purpos es—arr estees bound for the genera l ja i l popu lation. For bac kgroun d, see Cu es ta v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 285 F
. 3d 9 62, 969 n. 6 ( 11th C ir

. 2002 ) (s tr ip s earc h po lic y

a t j ai l) ; W

ils on v . J ones, 25 1 F.3d 13 40, 134 3 ( 11th C ir

. 2001 ) (s am e) ; Sk

urs te nis v . J

ones, 236 F.3d 678, 682 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (sam e) ( solitary
co nf in em en t). Nev er h as th e Su pr em e Co ur t i m po se d s uc h a req ui rem en t. Se e B el l
v. W olf ish , 4 4 1 U
. S
. 5 2 0 , 5 5 9

- 6 0 , 9 9 S
. C t
. 1 8 6 1 , 1 8 8 4

- 8 5 , 6 0 L
. E d

. 2 d 44 7 ( 1979 ) (rej ecting claim

that strip search policy

at a f ederal j ail for m ostlypretrial detainee s vio la te d the Fo urth A m en dm en t pe r se ); U nit ed Sta tes v . E

dw ards , 415 U
. S. 800 , 808 n. 9, 94 S.C t. 1234, 1239 n. 9, 39 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1974) (reser ving whether

"custodial searches incident to incarcer ation" m ight violate the Const itutio n in either "num ber
or .. . m anner of perpetr ation"). Bu t, on r ef

le ct ion , thi s ca se pr ovi de s no oppo rt uni ty to de ci de the que sti on o f when j ailers—for se curity and safety

purposes—m ay

law fully conduct strip searches of persons a

bout to bec om e inm ates in the general j ail popu lation. T his case raises
no qu es ti on s ab ou t t he ne ces si ti es of jai l ad m in is tra ti on . Cf

. B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 55 9- 61, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 84- 86. T his c as e inv olv es adif fe rent ki nd of

se ar cha lto ge the r: a10

post -arr es t i nve sti ga tor

y str ip s earc h by

the pol ic e look in g f

or e vid en ce ( an d no t
w ea pons ). Of fi ce r St ep he ns—

w ho wa s not a ja ile r—

te sti fi ed ( w ith out c ontra dic tio n f r om othe r s) t ha t he str i p- se a r c he d P l a i nt i f f s be c aus e he ( a s t he a rr e st i ng officer) believed them

to be in pos session of illegal drugs: the search w as part of a crim inal investig ation loo king for evidence. N ev er ha s th e Su

pr em e Co urt e xpl ic itl y

a ddr es se d th e standard

appl ie d to determ ine if a post-arr est investig atory strip search ( aw ay

from the com plicated context of the nation 's borders) violat es t h e Fo urth Am endm ent. S everal c ases pr ovi de gui da nc e, inc lud ing Maryland v. B uie, 494 U
. S. 325 , 110 S
. Ct
. 109 3, 108 L
. E d. 2d 2 76 ( 1990 ); B el l, 441 U
. S. at 520, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 61; E dw ards , 415 U.S . a t 800, 94 S
. Ct
. a t 12 34; U nit ed Sta tes v . R obi nson , 414 U
. S. 218 , 9 4 S
. Ct
. 467 , 38 L
. E d. 2d 4 27 ( 1973 ), a nd G ustafs on v . F lor ida , 414 U
. S. 260 , 94 S.Ct
. 488 , 38 L. Ed. 2d 45 6 (1973). B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 56 0, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 85, 60 L
. E d. 2d 44 7, does i nvol ve str ip
se arch es . B el l

c onc lud ed

tha t su chse ar ch es , of

inm at es in a j ai l f

or se cu ri ty pur pose s,
w er e pe rm iss ibl e w ith out pr oba ble c au se ; bu t it doe s no t a ddr es s w ha t st an da rd is necessary for investigative searches outside B el l ' s j ai l se cu ri ty c ont ex t. When we balance the n ee d fo r investigativ e strip searc hes for evidence that
m igh t be hid de n onthe a rr es te e' s bo dy ag ai nst the intru siv en es s in he re nt i n astr ip search, we believe Buie, 494 U.S . at 325, 110 S.Ct. at 1093, provides th e analytical fram ewo rkth at , at

a mi ni mum, w oul d ap ply to str ip se ar ch es fo r ev ide nc e. T he re , the Co urt a ddr es se d apos t- ar re st p ro te ct ive sw ee p se ar chof th e arre st ee' s ho use . T heWe stress that w e are not d ecidingthat this stan dard applies to strip searches for other purpo ses, 8 su cha s, s earc he s co nd

uc te d by jai le rs o n ar

re st ee s bo un d fo r a jail ' s g en er al p op ul at io n as p art o f a sa fe ty or sec urity

rou tine o f the j ail. I n this case , w e are also n ot de aling w ith a search for w eapon s that m ig ht pose a threa t to the sa fety of law officers o r othe rs. By the way , w e no te that Officer Steph ens testified th at he believ ed th e leg al stan dard neede d fo r the 9 se ar chw as th at

o f re as on ab le s us pi ci on . O f co ur se , O ff ic er S te ph en s' s su

bjec ti v e in te nt io ns a nd

b el ie fs in co nduc ting the strip search are im m aterial to the F ourth Am endm ent an aly sis. See Gra ham v. C onno r, 490 U. S. 386, 39 7, 109 S.C t. 1 865, 18 72, 10 4 L .Ed .2d 44 3 (1 989). U lterior m otiv es w ill not m ak e an otherw ise law ful search unlaw ful. 11 Co urt r el ie d, in pa rt , on Te rryv . O hio , 392 U
. S. 1, 88 S.C t. 186 8, 20 L
. E d. 2d 8 89 (1 96 8) (ad dr es si ng pa t do wn se arch es of p ers on s)

. Id., 494 U.S . a t 331, 110 S.Ct. at 10 97
. B uie c onc lud ed tha t se ar ch es of pr ope rty inc ide nt t o a rr es t m

ust be j ust if ie d by "art ic ula ble f ac ts w hic h, ta ke n to ge the r w iththe ra tio na l i nf er en ce s f ro m tho se f ac ts,
w o u l dwa rr a n tar e a s o n ab l y p r u d e n to f f i c e r i n b e l i e v i n g " t h e s e a r c h w a s n e c e s s a ry. 494 U.S . a t 334, 110 S.Ct. at 1098. Put differe ntly , we are confident that an officer
m ust ha ve a t l ea st a

r ea sona ble sus pic iontha t the st rip se ar chis ne ce ssary f or ev ide nti ar

y r ea sons . P er

ha ps the a ct ua l st an da rd

is hig he r than r ea sona

ble sus pic ion , 8
e s p e c i a l l y w h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e s e a r c h i n c l u d e s t o u c h i n g g e n i t a l i aa n dp e n e t r a t i ng anuse s. B ut b ec au se O ff ic er S te phe ns— in the li ght

of the sup pose d f

ac ts— did not
m ee t e ve n th e m ini m

um pos sib le standard

of r ea sona ble suspic ion , w e ne ed

not decide if the ac tual s t an d ar d is som ething even hi gher to decide whether Of ficer St ep he ns f

ai le d to c om

ply w iththe Co nst itu tio n. 9 Whether an office r has a reasonable s uspicio n is an objective question vi ew ed f r o m t he st an dp oi nt of a reas on ab le po li ce o ffi cer a t t he sce ne . O rn e l as v . U nited Sta tes, 517 U
. S. 690 , 696 , 116 S
. Ct
. 1657 , 1 661- 62, 134 L
. E d. 2d 9 11 ( 1996 ). I t i s ba se d on th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , Garrett v. Athens-Clarke C ount y, 378 F
. 3d12

1274 , 1279 (1 1th Ci r. 2004 ), an d is a que sti on of la w to be re vie w ed de no vo. O rne las , 517 U
. S. a t 69 6- 97, 116 S
. Ct
. a t 16 62. O ff ic er S te phe ns c ont en ds tha t P la int if fs ' ne rv ousn es s, the ir

sto ry about be ing los t, a nd the ir

tr av el ing in a re nta l c ar e sta bli she d r ea sona

ble sus pic ionof

dru gs ca pable of j ust if

y ing the se ar ch

. A ft er the ev en ts unde rl y ing thi s ca se ha d oc cu rr ed , w e re j ec te d an ana log ous ar gum en t i n United States v. B oyce, 351 F. 3d 1 102, 110 9 (11th Cir.2003), when the governm ent attem pted to use sim ilar fa cts to provid e law enforcem ent officer s with a r easonable susp icion for a prolong ed traff

ic stop to s earc h fo r dr ugs. I n th e ca se nowbe fo re us, P la int if fs w er e ar re sted no t fo r dr ugs, but

f or DU I re fusal and an o u t s t anding arr est warrant ( for an unspecified offense)

. N ev er the le ss, e ve n if

the a dj unc ts o f thi s st op and arr es t m igh t have in it ia lly supp orted a reasonable sus picion o f drugs, the strength of that suspi cion was unde rm ine d by

oth er e ve nts be fo re the str ip s earc h go t st ar te d. O ff ic er S te phe ns s earc he d P la int if fs ' car fo r ove r te n m inu te s, a nd t ak ing the fa ct s m ost

f av or ab le to Pl ai nti ff

s, he f ound nothin g a

bout dr ugs. I n a ddi tio n, St ep he ns s earc he d th e area sur ro undi ng the c ar

a nd f ound nothin g a

bout dr ugs. Furtherm ore, Plaintiffs testified that Stephens ha d ch ec ked their pockets and twice patted down each of them before he strip-searched them in the j ail. These se arches al so re ve al ed nothin g. T his la ck of re ve al ed ev ide nc e unde rm ine s th e re as ona ble ne ss of Offic er St ep he ns 's b el ie f th at Pla in ti ffs po ss es se d d ru gs . See Brent v. Ashley, 247 F. 3d 12 94, 1302 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (a ddre s sing s trip search by custom s agents). Mor eo ve r, S te phe ns d id n ot o bse rv e Pl ai nti ff s a tte m pti ng t o hi de a nythi ng o n th ei rOfficer Steph ens ack now ledg ed th at he did n ot su spect Plaintiffs had weap ons in the ir pos session

. 10 This v iew was the o bjectively reaso nable one. A t his depo sition, Steph ens ag reed that w hatev er re as on ab le s us pi ci on

h e ha d, it w as f or dru g s an d "n ev er

f or w ea po ns . " 13 pe rs on . Se e Kr aush aar v. F lan iga n, 45 F
. 3d 1 040, 104 6 ( 7th Ci r. 1995 ) (a ddr es sin g strip se arch at ja il). Thus, w e decide, bearing all the circ um stances in m ind, that Of ficer Stephens violated Plaint i ff s ' ri ght to be fre e fr om

an unreasonable search
w he n he pe rf

orm ed an in ve sti ga tor

y strip se arch for

dr ugs: he w as w ith out

the necessary rea sonable su spicion that Pl ai n t i ff s (arr ested on oth er c harges) had dr ugs— the a sse rt ed

gr ound f or the se ar ch es —onthe ir

pe rs on. 10 W e al so con cl ude the m an ne r in w hic h O ff ic er S te phe ns c ondu ct ed

the str ip
se ar chvio la te d P la int if

fs ' co nst itu tio na l rig hts

. T houg h not dire ct ly appl ic ab le to thi s c a se , B el l a c k n o w l e d g e dt h a te v e n c o rr e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s i n aj a i l c a n n o tp r o p e r ly conduct strip searches of incarce rated inm ates in "an abusive fa shion ." 441 U.S . a t 560, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 85 ( int er na l c ita tio ns o m itt ed ). Abuse cannot be co ndon ed

. Whil e se ar ch es ne ed

not be de lic at el y co nduc te d in the le as t intr usi ve m an ne r, the y

m ust be conducted in a re asonable m anner. V ie w ing the f

ac ts i n th ei r tot al ity an d ta kin g th e fa ct s m ost f av or ab le to Plaint i f f s' ve r si on , w e c on c l ud e t ha t S t e ph e ns c on du c t e d t he se str i p se a r c he s i n an uncons titutio nal m anner. Plaintiffs were taken to and searched in an abnorm al place (thus, capable of exciting m ore fe ar): a broom closet or supplyroom , not a dedicated
se arch cel l, m ed ic al ex am in at io n roo m , or ev en a ba th ro om . See Jus tice v. Pe achtree City, 961 F. 2d 1 88, 193 ( 11th C ir

. 1992 ) (a ppr ovi ng o f pr iva te r oom ); Skursteni s v. J o n es, 2 3 6 F.3d at 678 , 682 (11th Cir.2000) (bathroom ). L ittle respect for privacyToday , w e do no t say that body

cav ity search es tha t pen etrate o rifices are per se un constitutio nal. 11 See, e. g., Isby v. Duc kwo rth, 17 5 F .3d 10 20 (7th C ir.199 9) (un

publish ed). I n th e pa tr ol c ar , O ff

ic er S te ph en s sa id

th at h e w as "ju dg e an d jury " i n Z eb ul on a nd th at h e w ou ld 12 de ci de w he th er

P la in ti ff s co ul d m ak e a ph on e ca ll f ro m th e jail

. H e al so to ld

P la in ti ff s th at h e w ou ld "send y ou nig g ers aw ay

for a lon g tim e." Onc e in the ro om w here the strip search

occ urred, Step hens called Ev ans a sm art aleck and a sm art ass. H e told

Jordan th at he didn' t lik e "y ou boy s in m y tow n. I don' t w ant n ig g ers he re anyway ." Steph ens told another officer a lleg edly in the ro om

that Ev ans and J ordanm ade "m

y jail cell sm ell[ ] lik e [P laintiffs]," and that h e w ould send Plaintiffs to priso n fo r the 14 wa s observed. E ach Plainti ff was forced to disrobe, rid iculed, and penetrated by an o b ject i n fr on t o f th e o th er. See Justice, 9 6 1 F
. 2 d a t 1 9 3 ( n o t i n g t h a t a rr es te e an d officer s wer e the only

people in room ). The phy sical as pects of the searc hes are a lso dis turbing

. Unnecessar y force
wa s used. Evans wa s thrown into Jordan, causing both m en to c ollapse. As Jordan tried to stand back up , O ffice r Stephens hit him with a baton-like ob

j ect. It m atters tha t a body c av ity se ar ch w as unde rt ak en . In ad dit ion , w hil e con duc tin g th e se ar ch , Stephens inserted the sam e b aton or clu b—without intervening sanitation—i n each Plaintiffs' anus and u sed the sam e baton or club to lift each m an's testi cles. Apart 11 fro m ot he r is su es , th is las t p ract ic e is hi gh ly uns an it ary. Se e B oni tz v
. F air , 804 F
. 2d 164, 173 (1st Cir. 1986 ) (acknowledging non-hy gienic m anner of searc h) overruled
on o the r gr ound

s byU nw in v

. Ca m

pbe ll, 86 3 F.2 d 12 4, 12 8 (1 st Cir .19 98 ), overruled byJ ohns on v . J

ones, 515 U.S . 304, 115 S. Ct. 2151 , 132 L. Ed. 2d 23 8 (1995). In considering th e totality of the ci rc u m s tances, we also consid er O ffice r St ep he ns 's l an gu ag e. B row n v . Ci tyof H ial ea h, 30 F.3d 1 433, 1436 (11th Cir.1994). Se e als o B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 56 0, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 85 ( ci tin g Le vi , 43 9 F. Supp. at 147). Fr om t h e t i m e P l a i n t i f

f s w e r e s e c u r e d i n t h e p a t r o l c a r u n t i l t h e e n d o f the se ar ch , Stephens used th reate ning and racist language. W e acce pt that such language has 12rest of their liv es. While he p enetrated Plain tiffs' anu ses w ith the baton, he said th at Pla intiffs ha d "better g et u se d to th is , th is is h owit is in th e bi g h ou se , th is is w he re y ou [ si c] g et ti ngr ea dy

to g o. S om eb od

y is g oingto be b utt fuc k ing y ou for the nex t twe nty y ears, all bec ause y ou g ot a sm art m outh. " We un derstand

that law officers s om etim es u se h arsh w ords as a k ind o f v erbal "sh ock and awe" tactic to deter arrestees fro m cau sing troub le that m ig ht cau se v iolent in j ury to the of fi ce r or s om eo ne e ls e. W e do n ot s ay th is kin d of

p ra ct ic e is inhe re nt ly

unl aw fu l o r co m

m on ly w il l h el p to c au se a cc om

pany in g s earc he s or

s ei z ur es to b e un la w fu l. In th is c as e, P la in ti ff s conten d the y

w ere under police control and in cu stody and po sed no threat to O fficer S tephen s who , a t the tim e of the se arch, w as at a jail and in the com pany of anothe r officer. Plaintiffs arg ue th at Ste phen s acted ou tside h is auth ority

w hen he s trip searc hed Plaintiffs, bec ause 13 the p olice c hief v erbally

pro hibited Steph ens from perfo rm ing strip searches

. We disag ree. C hief Lum m is' s instru ction was lim ited to roadsid e strip searches and did not a ddress other strip searches. 15 anim pa ct on p eo ple a nd c ount s to w ar ds the unr ea sona ble ne ss of the m an ne r of

the
se ar ch es . W e do not im

ply tha t w or ds al one can m ak e the m an ne r of an other w ise pr ope rl y co nduc te d sea rc h unco nst itu tio na l unde r the Fo urth A m en dm en t. B ut i n th is case, the totality

of the circ um stances—for exam ple, the phy sical f

o rc e, anal pe ne tr at ion , uns an itari ne ss of the pr oc es s, te rr if

y ing langua ge , a nd l ac k of privacy —collectively

establish a constit ution al violation , e specially when the search
w as be ing m ad e in the abse nc e of e xig ent c ir cu m stanc es r equir ing the kin d of im m ed ia te a ct iontha t m igh t m ak e oth erwise que sti ona ble pol ic e co nduc t, a t l ea st arguably , r easonable. 2. Q ual ifi ed

I m m uni ty Q ua lif ie d im m uni ty is ana ff irm at ive de fe nse a va ila

b l e t o p u b l i c of fi ce rs a ct ing wit hi n t he sco pe of th ei r di sc ret io na ry au th or it y . H

arbe rt I nt' l I nc . v . J am es , 157 F
. 3d 1271 , 128 1 (1 1th Ci r. 1998 ). It shi el ds publ ic of fi ce rs fr om lia

bil ity so lon g as the 13 transgressed right, given the circum stances, wa s not alr eady clear ly established, "that is ' w he the r it w oul d be cle ar to a re as ona ble of fi ce r that hi s c ondu ct

w as unl aw fu l i nWhen case law is nee ded, on ly case s from

the Sup rem e C ourt, our Circuit or the hig hest c ourt o f 14 the p ertinent state clearly estab lish the lawin the C ircuit for qualified im m unity ana ly sis. Marsh, 26 8 F.3 d at 1033 n. 10
. 16 the situatio n he confronted.' " G roh v. R am ire z, 540 U
. S. 551 , 563 , 124 S
. Ct
. 128 4, 1 2 9 3 , 1 5 7 L
. E d

. 2 d1 0 6 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g Sa uc ie r v . Ka tz, 533 U
. S. 194 , 202 , 121 S. Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001)). The applicable law is clearly established if the " ' pr ee xis tin g law dic ta tes, tha t i s, tr uly c om pe l[ s] , ' the c onc lus ionf

or a ll reasonable, sim ilarly

situated pub lic officials that w hat Def endant was doing vi olated P l a i nt i f f s' f e de r a l r i gh t s i n t he c i r c um st a nc e s. " Marsh v. B utler Coun ty, 268 F
. 3d 10 14 , 10 31 (11 th Cir .20 01 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . In ra re c i r c u ms t an ces , a "r igh t m ay

be so c le ar

f ro m the te xt of the Co nst itu tio n or f ed er al sta tut e tha t no pr ior decision is necessary

to give clear notice of it to an official. " Rowe v. Ft. Lauderdal e, 279 F. 3d 1 271, 128 0 n. 10 ( 11th C ir

. 2002 ) (c ita tio n om itt ed ). Insuc h c ir cu m stanc es , the vio la tio n is obv iou s. A pos t- ar

re st i nve sti ga tor

y str ip s earch di d not

obv iou sly

vio la te the F ourth Am endm ent on its face in 1999. In additio n, in 199 9, no applicable cases provided
a pol ic e of

fi ce r w ithf

ai r not ic e tha t he m

ust ha ve , at le as t, a re as ona ble sus pic ionto cond u ct a p o s t -arrest investig atory strip search of an adult and with fair notice that the f ac ts b ef or e O ff ic er S te phe ns w er e ins uf

fi ci en t t o m ak e his sus pic ionr ea sona ble fo r the se ar ch

. T he law w as not se ttl ed f or w hat st an da rd a

ppl ie d to pos t- ar

re st 14 inv es t i g a t o ry

s t r i p s e a r c h e s , a n dS up r e m e C o u rtp r e c e d e n tw a s v e ry d e f e r e n t i a l to po st -arr es t in ve st ig at io ns . Se e, e . g. , U nit ed Sta tes v . E

dw ards , 415 U
. S. 800 , 807 -0 9, 94 S. Ct
. 1234 , 1239 -4 0, 39 L. E d. 2d 7 71 ( 1974 ); G ustafs on v . F lor ida , 414 U
. S. 260 ,17

265- 66, 94 S
. Ct
. 488 , 491 -9 2, 38 L
. E d. 2d 4 56 ( 1973 ); U nit ed Sta tes v . R obi nson , 414 U.S. 21 8, 2 35 -3 6, 9 4 S .Ct. 4 67 , 47 7, 3 8 L.Ed .2d 42 7 (1 97 3)

. Ju s t i ce v. Pe achtree City, 961 F
. 2d 1 88, 192- 93 ( 11th C ir

. 1992 ), c oul d no t squa re ly gov er n th is c as e: it ad dr es se d astr ip s earc h of aj uve nil e ar

re st ed f or m ino r of

fe nse s ( loi te ri ng and tr ua nc y ), an d it ac know le dge d tha t uni que co nc er ns ar ise w ith str ip sea rching y ou ng st ers . Se e ge ne ral ly, Br os seau v . H auge n, - -- U
. S. - -- -, 125 S
. Ct
. 596 , 160 L
. E d. 2d 5 83 ( 2004 ). A nd Unit ed States v. B oyce, 351 F
. 3d 1 102, 110 9 ( 11th Ci r. 2003 ), w as de ci de d f

our y ears a ft er

the inc ide nt in ques tio n. So , O ff ic er S te phe ns is p ro te ct ed

by qua lif ie d im m uni ty ins of

ar as the c la im

is one f or c ondu ct ing astr ip
se ar cha t a ll. Q ua li fie d im

m uni ty , how ev er , doe s no t sh ie ld S te phe ns f ro m P la int if fs '
se pa rate cl ai m tha t the m an ne r of the str ip s earc h vi ola te d th ei r ri ght s un de r the Fo urth A m en dm en t. N o pr ee xis tin g c as e la w e sta bli she d th is v iol at ionor

m ad e it ob vi ou sl y cle ar. Justice a nd B el l

w er e the onl y

appl ic ab le c as es to addr es s stri p se ar ch es , a nd the y

c oul d not squa re ly gove rn thi s ca se . Bo th w er e m at er ia lly dif fe re nt fr om thi s c as e, a nd b oth uph el d stri p se ar ch es . Bu t the te xt of the Fo urth A m en dm en t pr ohi bit s "un re as ona ble" se arches. Seldom does a general stand ard su ch as "t o act reasonably " put officer s on notice that
c e rt a i n c o n du c t w i l l v i o l a t e f e d e r a l l a w g i v e n t h e p r e c i s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s b e f o r e t h e m: Fo urth A m en dm en t law is int en se ly fa ct spe ci fi c. Bu t we co nc lud e the sup pose d f ac ts of this case take the m anner of the sear ch es well bey ond th e "hazy border" that
so m et im es se pa rat es la wfu l con du ct fro m un la wfu l co nd uc t. See g enerally, Priester18

v. Ci tyof R iv ie ra B each , 208 F.3d 919, 926 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). T he violatio n was obvi ous. E ve ry obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble of fi ce r w oul d have know n that , w he n c ondu ct ing
a str ip s earc h, it is unr ea sona ble to do so in the m an ne r de m onstra te d by the sum of the f ac ts al le ge d by

P la int if fs

. T he tot al ity

of the f ac ts a lle ge d he re m ad e thi s violatio n—on th e day

of the sear ch—clear

from the term s of the Constitu tion its elf: N o ob j ec tiv el y r ea sona ble pol ic em anc oul d ha ve be lie ve d th at the de gr ad ing a nd fo rc ef ul m an ne r of

thi s stri p se arch (es pe ci al ly in the li ght

of the c om ple te la ck of ci rc u m s t an ces that m ight h ave called f or im m ediate action to condu ct a search without the tim e for c ool and calm thou ght about how t o proceed) w as "rea sonable" in the consti tutio nal sense. A ccordingly , the decision of t he district court is affir m ed in p ar t, r ev er se d inpa rt , a nd r em an de d. AFFIR MED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, an d R EMANDED. CARNES, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g s pe ci al ly, in whi ch DUBINA an d HULL, Ci rc uit Jud ge s, j oin : I co nc ur in al l of the Co urt' s op ini on but wr ite se pa ra te ly fo r tw o re as ons. O ne is t o e xpl ic at e a hol din g of the Co urt, a nd the oth er is to off er m y vie w s on aniss ue tha t w as br ie fe d a nd arg ue d bu t w hic h th e Co urt do es not r ea ch

. I. Inhis de posi tio n one of the pla int if

fs , P et er E va ns, m ad e a num

be r of sta te m en ts tha t su

ppor te d hi s c la im s bu t on e sta te m en t tha t w as not favor ab le to his
own case. An o t h er witness offer ed testim ony on that specific point that wa s m ore favor ab le to the pla int if

fs

. T he Co urt c or

re ct ly hol ds tha t f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t19

pur pose s w e ac ce pt a non- m ovant' s ow n te sti m ony w ar ts and a ll, ins te ad

of sni ppi ng fr om tha t t es tim ony

the pa rt s th at

a re le ss fav or ab le than w ha t so m e oth er w itn es s sa y s. T he re is good

r ea son tha t, a s th e Co urt a ptl y pu ts it , " [o ] ur

duty to re ad the record in th e n o n m o vant's favor stops sho rt of not crediting the non m ovant's te sti m ony in w hol e or

pa rt : the c ou rts owe a nonm ovant n o du ty to dis be lie ve his sworn testim ony

which he chooses to sub m it for use in the case to be decided." A nte at 221 7. T he goo d r ea son is tha t, abse nt s om e e x tr a o r d i n ar y c i r c u m s t an c e , n o r ea sona

ble jury w ou ld be li ev e th at a pa rty was lyin g when he sa id so m et hi ng ha rm fu l t o h is own ca se . R ea sona

ble j ur ie s kn owtha t is no t how h um anna tur e, inf lue nc ed by
se lf -i nte re st, w orks. A nd w he n w e de ci de w he the r sum m ar y j udgm en t i s w ar

rante d,
w e vie w the ev ide nc e in the non -m ovant' s f av or , but onl y to the e xte nt tha t i t w oul d be reas on ab le f

o r a ju r y to res ol ve th e fac tu al is su es th at way . A nde rso n v . L ibe rty Lo bb y, In c., 477 U
. S. 242 , 252 , 106 S
. Ct
. 250 5, 251 2, 91 L
. E d.2d 20 2 (1 986) ( to de fe at sum m ar y j udg m en t "t here m

ust be e vid en ce on w hic h th e j ur y c oul d
re as ona bly f ind f or the pla int if

f" ); Gr a ha m v. St at e Far m Mut . Ins . Co., 193 F
. 3d 1274 , 1282 (11th Cir .1999) ("[T ] here m ust be sufficient evidence on which the j ury co uld r ea sona bly f ind f or the pla int if

f

. . . . ") ; id. ("The n onm ovant need not be giv en the be ne fi t of ev er

y inf er en ce but

onl y of e ve ry r ea sona ble inf er en ce . " ( la ngua ge f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt' s or de r, a tta ch ed as Appe ndi x A a nd a dopt ed by the Co urt) ); Brown
v. Ci tyof Cl ew ist on, 848 F.2d 1534 , 1 5 4 0 n . 1 2 (11th Cir.1988) ("T he summ ary j udgm en t st an da rd

r equir es tha t w e re solve all r ea sona ble doubts in favor

of the20

non-m ovin g party , but it does not require us to resolv e all do ub ts in su ch a m an ne r." (quotation and ellipsis om itted)). II. One of the issues we h ad t h e p arties brief and orally

argue is: "Whether
ar re ste es w ho are to be de ta ine d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ionc an co nst itu tio na lly be subj ec te d to astr ip s earc h onl y if the search is supported by rea sonable su spicion that
suc h a se arc h w ill r ev ea l w ea pons or c ontra ba nd. " W e al so r ec ei ve d anum be r of
am icus briefs on that issu e, som e o f which we re helpful. The opin ion for the Court not es tha t: "M ost of

us are unc er

ta in tha t j ai le rs a re r equir ed to ha ve ar ea sona

ble
sus pic ionof w ea

pons or c ontra ba nd b ef or e str ip s earc hin g—f

or se cu ri ty a nd s af ety purpos es—arr estees bound for the genera l j ail pop u l at ion." A nte a t 22 18. N one the le ss, the Co urt pr ope rl y de te rm ine s that thi s is not the c as e in w hic h to de ci de that issu e. It is not, beca use the strip searches in t h i s case w ere undertaken by law
en fo rc em en t of

fi ce rs loo kin g f

or e vid en ce of

ac ri m e tha t ha d be enc om m itt ed , ins te ad of by the of fi ci al s a t the c ounty

j ai l a ct ing f

or ge ne ra l se cu ri ty

r ea sons . Eve n t ho ug h t he is su e can no t be de ci de d in th is cas e, I o fferm y pre se nt vi ews on it for whatever

they m ay be worth. T his expressio n com es with the re alization that "di ct a in o ur

opi nio ns i s no t bi ndin g on a ny one f or a ny pur pose , " b ut a lso w iththe hope that th is will b e o ne of t hose occasions in which dicta serves a useful purpo se. Se e M cD onal d' s C orp. v . R obe rts on, 147 F.3 d 13 01, 131 4- 15 ( 11th C ir

. 1998 ) (Car nes, J. , c oncurring sp ecially ). A.21

My present view is that reasonable s uspicio n is not necessary for a strip search of a n a rr es te e w ho i s to be de ta ine d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pu lati on, if tha t se ar chis
co nduc te d pu rs ua nt t o a ge ne ra lly

appl ic ab le , r ea sona

ble j ai l po lic y

de sig ne d to prom ote safety

and security

by guarding agains t the sm

uggl ing of we apons and other contraband into a detention facility . This view is contrary to the current cir cuit law on the sub j ec t, a t l ea st i nsof

ar a s m isd em eanor

a rr es te es a re c onc er

ne d. I n W

ilson v. Jo nes, 251 F
. 3d 1 340 (1 1th Ci r. 2001 ), inv olv ing the str ip s earc h of am isd em eanor ar re ste e, apa ne l of

thi s C ourt he ld tha t the c ounty 's st ri p se ar chpol ic y vio la te d th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t beca us e it di d n ot req ui re rea so na bl e su sp ic io n. Id

. a t 13 42- 43;
se e als o Sk

urs te nis v . J

ones, 23 6 F. 3d 6 78, 682 ( 11th C ir

. 2000 ) (u phol din g astr ip
se ar chof am isd em eanor ar

re ste e bec au se the re w as r ea sona ble sus pic ion , but

sta tin g in d ic tatha t a

pol ic y of str ip s earc hin g a ll de ta ine es in the abse nc e of r ea sonabl e susp icion do es not com

port with the Fourth Am endm ent's requirem ents). O ur c ir cu it la w is the sa m e as tha t of e ve ry oth er c ir cu it to ad dr ess the iss ue insofar as those detained o n n o n -felony charges ar e concerned. E ach of the other ci rc uit s to spe ak

on the m at te r ha s c onc lud ed tha t a pe rs on arr es te d onam isd em eanor ch ar ge m ay no t be str ip s earc he d up on b ei ng p la ce d inthe ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at ion unless th ere is reasonable susp icion to believe that he is concealing a weapon or other
co nt rab an d. M

ast er s v. Cr ouc h, 872 F. 2d 1248, 125 5 ( 6th Ci r. 1989 ); W att v . Ci tyof R ic hard son P oli ce D ep '

t, 849 F
. 2d 1 95, 198 -9 9 ( 5th Ci r. 1988 ); W eb er v. D el l, 804 F. 2d 796, 802 ( 2d C ir

. 1986 ); G iles v . A ck erm an, 746 F. 2d 61 4, 615 (9th Cir.1984),
ov errul ed on o the r gr ound

s byH odge rs-D urgi n v . de la V ina , 199 F
. 3d 1 037 (9 thSom e of the o ther circu its, a t least, reco g niz e that reasona ble su spicionis n ot req

uired whe re the 1 arrestee beingdetain ed is charg ed w ith a felony or a v iolent c rim e. See, e. g., Masters, 87 2 F .2d at 1 255 ( di s t i ngu i s hi ng Dufr in v. Sp reen, 71 2 F .2d 10 84 (6th C ir.198 3), whe re the court uphe ld a strip search policy for a pre trial detain ee ch arg ed w ith a felony w ithout reasona

ble su spicionor proba

ble ca use, from th is c as e w he re th e § 19 83 p la in ti ff w as a rr es te d on

aw ar ra nt f or f ai lure to a

pp ear inc ourt ); Ma ryB et h G. , 7 23 F
. 2d

a t 1 27 2 (d is ti ngui sh in g th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity o f stri p se ar ch es w he re th er e is n o pr ob ab le cause or reas onab le sus picion for pre trial detain ees h eld o n "inh erently dan g erous" crim es from un co ns ti tu ti on al ity

o f stri p se ar ch es o f "m in or o ff en de rs "). Part o f this Court' s op inion in W ilson, by contrast, m ig ht be read

to apply to those charg ed w ith felon ies as well as tho se ch arg ed w ith on ly m isdem eanors, see W

ilson, 25 1 F .3d

at 1342

- 43, altho ug h tha t prob ably w ould be d icta sinc e the facts o f the case did n ot pre sent th e issue as it applies to felo ny - charg ed d etainees, see W atts v. Be llSouth Teleco mm ., Inc., 31 6 F .3d 1203 , 1 207 (11th Cir.2 003) ("Whatev er their opinio ns say , judicial d ecisions canno t m ak e law be y on d th e fa ct s of

th e ca se s inw hi chth os e de ci si on s ar e anno un ce d. "); United States v. Agu illard, 21 7 F .3d

13 19, 13 21 (11th Cir.2 000) (per curiam ) ("The hold ing s of a prio r dec ision can reach only

as far as the fac ts and

circum stances presente d to the co urt in the ca se w hich produ ced that d ecision. " (citations and internal m ark s om itted)). 22 C i r . 1 999) ; M

aryB et h G

. v . Ci tyof Ch ic ago, 723 F.2d 1263 , 1273 (7th Cir.1983); Logan v. Shealy, 660 F
. 2d 1 007, 101 3 (4t h Ci r.19 81 ). A str ong ar gum en t c anbe
m ad e tha t a ll of

tho se de ci sio ns, a nd o ur

ow n de ci sio n in W

ils on, a re w ro ng. 1 T he pr obl em

is tha t a ll of

the se de ci sio ns s ee m

to re ad B el l v

. W

olf ish , 441 U.S
. 520, 99 S
. Ct
. 1861 , 60 L. E d. 2d 447 (197 9) , as im posi ng a re qui re m en t of

r ea sona ble
sus pic ionf

or de te nti on f

ac ili ty str ip se ar ch es . A s am aj or ity of the pr es en t e n banc Cour t n o t es , a lbeit in di cta, neither B el l nor a ny oth er S upr em e Co urt de ci sio n im po se s s uc h a req ui rem en t. A nte at 2218 ("Never has the Suprem e Court im posed such a requirem ent."). So, all of t he decisions that require reasonable susp icion seem to be based on a false prem ise. In m isinterpreting th e B e ll de ci sio n, w e an d othe r co urts h av e fo cu se d ona sin gle se nte nc e of

the opi nio n in tha t ca se to the e xc lus ionof vir tua lly e ve ry thi ng e lse it sa y s. In tha t one se nte nc e the Su pr em e Co urt sa id: "B ut w e de al he re w it h the que sti on w heth er visu al body -c av ity ins pe ct ion s a s c ont em

pla te d by the [ fa ci lity ' s]23

rules can ever be conducted on less th an probable cause." B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 56 0, 99 S. Ct
. a t 18 85 ( em

pha sis om itt ed ). T he Co urt answ er ed "y es , " but nei the r the que sti on nor the a nsw er

c om pe ls the c on cl usi on tha t " le ss tha n pr oba ble c au se " m eans "reasonable suspicion ." The a bsence of rea sonable su spicion is also "less than pr ob ab le cau se ." T he S upr em e Co urt si m

ply did not say in B el l tha t bef

or e a v isu al body -c av ity ins pe ct ionc an be pe rf

orm ed on an ar

re ste e w ho i s be ing put

int o ade te nti on f

ac ili ty the re m ust be r ea son able sus pic ionto be lie ve tha t de ta ine e is c ar ry ing aw ea

pon or other contraband. T o infer that re quirem en t from one sentence of the B el l opi nio n put s m or e w ei ght

on the se nte nc e than it

w ill be ar . I t a lso ign or es the r es t of the
m aj ority 's opinion as w ell as th e in terpretation o f th at o pinio n put forw ard by Justice Po well in hi s di ss en ti ng op in io n, id. at 5 63, 9 9 S. Ct. at 1886, an interpretation which
w e n tu n c h a l l e n g e db y t h e maj o r i t y. B el l inv olv ed ac la ss a ct ionsui t br ough t by pr etri al de ta ine es be ing he ld a t the fe de ra l M etro pol itan Co rr ec tio na l C en te r in N ewY ork C ity

. T he MC C r equir ed a ll inm at es , inc lud ing pr etri al de ta ine e s , " c o n v i c t e d i n m at e s wh o a re a w ai tin g se nte nc ing
or tr an spor ta tio n to fe de ra l pr iso n, " "c onvi ct ed pr iso ne rs w ho h av e be enlod ge d a t the fa ci lity und er w ri ts o f habe as co rp us .. . iss ue d to en sur e the ir pr es en ce a t up co m ing trials, w itnesses in p rotective custody , and persons incarce rated for contem pt," id. at 524, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 1866 , "t o ex pose the ir body c av iti es f or vis ua l i nspe ct iona s apa rt of
a str ip s earc h c ondu ct ed

a ft er e ve ry c ont ac t vi sitThe S up re m e C ourtd es cr ib ed th e MC C s tr ip s earc h as f ol lo w s: " I f th e in m at e is am al e, h e m us t l if t 2 his g enitals and bend

ov er to spread his b uttock s for v isual in spection

. The v ag inal an d an al cav ities of fem ale inm ates also are v isually insp ected. The inm ate is not to uched by security perso nal [sic] at any tim e during the visual

s ea rc h pr oc ed

ur e. " Id. at 5 58 n. 39, 99 S. Ct. at 1 884 n. 39. N on e of th e de ci si on s inth is a re a, in cl ud in g o ur o w n, s ee m

to d is ti ngui shb etw ee n stri p se ar ch es in 3 g eneral and "v isual b ody

- cav ity insp ections" as the pro cedure w as d escribed in B el l. I do n' t either. 24 with a per son from

outsid e the institut ion," id. a t 55 8, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 84. 2 The pre trial detainees alleged in their com plaint th at th e MCC's strip search pol ic y vio la te d th ei r Fo urth A m en dm en t ri ght to be fr ee fr om unr ea sona

ble se ar ch es . 3 T he dis tr ic t co urt a gr ee d, a nd e nj oin ed MC C f ro m c ondu ct ing the se ar ch es abse nt ind ivi dua liz ed

pr oba ble c au se to be lie ve tha t the de ta ine e w as c onc ea lin g a w ea pon orot he r co nt rab an d. Id

. The Seco nd Cir cu it affi rm ed

. Id

. T h e qu e s t i o n t h e S up r e me Court had before it w as this: "whether visual body -cavity inspection s as co nte m pla te d by the MC C r

ule s c an ever

be co nd uc te d o n l es s t ha n pro ba bl e cau se ." Id

. a t 56 0, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 1885. T he S upr em e Co urt answ er ed "y es , " a ft er

"[ b] al an ci ng the signi ficant and legitim ate security interests of the instit ution against the privacy interests of the inm ates." Id

. ; se e als o id

. a t 55 9, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 84. Instr iki ng tha t ba la nc e, the Co urt w ei ghe d " the pr iva cy int er ests of the inm ates," id. at 560, 99 S. Ct
. at 1885 —" the sc ope of the pa rt ic ular intru sion, the
m anner in which it is conducted,

.. . and the place in which it is conducted," id. at 559 , 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 84— ag ai nst "the sig nif

ic an t and l eg itim at e se cu ri ty int er es ts o f the instit ution ," id. at 560, 99 S. Ct. at 1885. In the end, the B el l Co u rt co n cl u d ed that tho se se cu ri ty

int er es ts o f the de te nti on fa ci li ty o utw ei ghe d th e pr iva cy int er es ts o f th e p ret ria l d et ai ne es . Id

.25

While the Court did "not underestim ate the degree to w hich these searches m ay inv ad e the pe rs ona l pri va cy of inm at es " or igno re the f ac t " tha t onoc ca sio n ase cu ri ty guard m ay conduct the search in an abu s i v e f as h i o n," id., there w as a far m ore com pelling interest on the other side of the scale. A s the Court explained: "A de te nti on fa ci lity

is a uni que pla ce f

ra ught w ithse ri ous se cu ri ty

da nge rs . S m

uggl ing of m on ey , dru gs , weap on s, an d o th er co nt rab an d i s all to o comm on an oc cu rren ce." Id

. at 559, 99 S.C t
. at 1 884. The Court deem ed that a w eighty consideration even tho ugh the re co rd ind ic at ed onl y one ins ta nc e in thr ee y ears "w he re anMC C i nm at e was di sc ov ered at te m

pt in g to sm

ug gl e co nt rab an d i nt o t he in st it ut io n o n h is pe rs on ." Id

. a t 55 9, 99 S. Ct
. at 1885
. T he Co urt be lie ve d th at f ac t " m ay be m or e a te stam en t to the e ff ec tiv en es s of

thi s searc h tec hni que as a det er re nt tha n to a ny

la ck of int er es t on the pa rt

of the inm at es to se cr et e an d im port su chit em s w he n th e oppo rt uni ty arises. " Id

. T he Su pr em e Co urt i n B el l

too k ac at eg or ic al appr oa ch , de ci din g w he the r the de te nti on f

ac ili ty ' s stri p se ar chpol ic y ge ne ra lly

was r ea sona

ble und er the F ourth Am en dm en t, no t whet he r it was reas on ab le in an in di vi du al cas e. Se e id. a t 56 0, 99 S. Ct
. a t 18 85; se e also H udso n v . P alm er

, 468 U
. S. 517, 538, 104 S. Ct
. 319 4, 320 6, 82 L
. E d. 2d 393 (1 984) (O ' Co nnor , J. , c onc ur ri ng) ( ci tin g B el l

for the propositio n that "[ i] n so m e co nte xts , . . . the Co urt ha s r ej ec te d th e ca se -by -ca se appr oa chto the

' re as ona ble ne ss' inquir

y in fa vor of a n a ppr oa chtha t de te rm ine s th e re as ona ble ne ss of contested practices in a ca tegorical fashion"). The m ost ov erlooked part of the B el l de ci si on is Ju st ic e Po well 's di ss en t. He26

dis se nte d f

or one a nd o nly

one r ea son, w hic h is tha t the m aj or ity did not re q u ire
re as ona ble sus pic ionf

or c ondu ct ing the str ip s earc he s intha t cas e. H is c onc ise d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n s t a t e s i n i t s e n t i r e t y:

I j ointhe opi nio n of

the Cour t ex cept

the dis cu ssi on and h old ing w ith respec t t o b ody -cavity

searc hes. I n view of the ser ious in trusion on one's privacy occasioned by

such a searc h, I think at least som e level of c ause, such as a re asonable sus picion, shou ld be required to justify the anal and genital searches descr ibed in th is case. I there fore dissent on thi s issue. B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 56 3, 99 S. Ct
. at 188 6 ( Po w el l, J. , c onc ur

ri ng i n part

a nd d iss en tin g in p ar t)

. T he "s earc he s de sc ri be d inthi s c as e" a re the str ip searc he s per fo rm ed on a ll MCC pre trial d etainees, not j ust those charged with felonies. The detainees who we re se ar ch ed inc lud ed tho se ch ar ge d w ith m isd em eanor s or vio la tio ns, an d ev enth ose ch ar ge d w ithno w ro ng d oin g a t a ll but w ho w er e be ing he ld a s w itn es se s in pr ot ect iv e cu st od y . Se e id. a t 52 4, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 66. Jus tic e Po w el l' s dis se nti ng opi nio n is ev ide nc e tha t w e an d oth er ci rc uit s have m isread the B el l m aj ority opin ion as requi ring reasonable suspicion before deta inees can b e st rip searched. If the B el l m aj or ity ha d he ld w ha t w e an d othe r ci rc uit s say it did , the re w oul d ha ve be enno d iss en tin g op in io n fro m Jus tic e Po w el l. G rante d, it can b e ri s k y to place too m uch reliance on dissentin g opin ions b ecause they
som etim es follow a C hicken Little or doom sday appr oach, e xaggerating the nature
an d e xte nt o f the m aj or ity opi nio n inor de r to a ssa il it. Jus tic e Po w el l' s di sse nt i n B el l
cannot r ea sona bly be vie w ed

a s th at ty pe of disse nt, how ev er , be ca use it s on ly dis ag re em en t w iththe m aj or ity is ab out the one spe ci fi c poi nt i t r ai se s. I f the m aj or ity ha d not pe rm itt ed str ip se ar ch es of pr etri al de ta ine es w ith out re as on ab le suspic ion ,27

Jus tic e Po w el l w oul d no t have dis se nte d a t a ll. T he poi nt i s th at , f

ro m his pe rs pe ct ive in si de the Co urt, Jus tic e Po w el l ha d a be tte r se nse of

the m aj or ity ' s hol din g in B el l than a ny c ir cu it co urt of

appe al s c oul d,
an d he und er sto od the hol din g to pe rm it str ip s earc he s w ith out r ea sona ble sus pic ion

. Not only that, but if the m aj ority had not intended to per m it strip searches of pre trial de ta ine es w ith out re as ona ble sus pic ion , it w oul d ha ve be en a sim ple m at te r to note that in the op inion in answer to Jus tice Pow ell's pointed statem ent that the Court was
a l l o w i n g t h e m. T he c ourts, inc lud in g ou r ow n, tha t have r ea d ar equir em en t of r ea sona ble susp icion into the B el l decision have m isinterpreted a sen tence of that opin ion. T hey al so h av e ign or ed

Jus tic e Po w el l' s di sse nti ng o pin iona nd th e m aj or ity ' s f ai lur e to deny the sole poin t of that dissent

. In t er p retin g the B el l de ci sio n a s no t r equir ing
re as ona ble sus pic ionis a fa ir er

r ea din g th anint er

pr et ing the de ci sio n to r equir e it. B. T he pa ne l i n W

ils on appe ar s to ha ve int er pr et ed B el l

to re qui re r ea sona

ble
sus pic ion , a t l ea st f

or str ip s earc he s in vol vin g no n- fe lon y de ta ine es , but it se em s to
m e that under B el l

the re is a th ree- st ep a na ly sis f or de ci din g w he the r a de te nti on fa ci lity ' s po lic y

is co nst itu tio na l. T he fi rs t ste p is to de te rm ine w he the r the de te nti on fa ci lity ha s astr ip s earc h po lic y pe rm itt ing suc h se ar ch es w ith out r ea sona ble
su sp ic io n. B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 55 8, 99 S
. Ct
. at 18 84
. A bse nt s uc h apol ic y , the de te nti on f

ac ili ty doe s ne ed

ind ivi dua liz ed

r ea sona ble sus pic ionto co nduc t a str ip
se arch on a de ta in ee. See Jus tice v. City of P eachtree City, 961 F
. 2d 1 88, 193 ( 11th28

Cir. 1992 ). If the de te nti on f

ac ili ty doe s have a po licy

pe rm itt ing str ip s earc he s w ith out
reason ab l e s u s p icion, the second step of the B el l a na ly sis is to b al an ce the ins tit uti ona l i nte re sts of

the f ac ili ty a ga ins t the pr iva cy

int er es ts o f the de ta ine e to de te rm in e whe th er the po li cy is reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. B el l, 441 U
. S
. a t5 6 0 , 9 9 S
. C t
. a t1 8 8 5
. T h e S up r e m e C o u rth e l din Bell that MCC' s visu al body -cavity

searc h poli cy was "reasonable" under the Fourth Am endm ent even thou gh there wa s "onlyone instance where an MCC inm at e wa s discov ered attem pting to sm

uggl e contraband into the instit ution on his person." Id

. a t 55 9, 99 S. Ct. at 1885. The Court did so based on testim ony from "[c] orrections officials" that "vi sua l c av ity

se ar ch es w er e ne ce ssary not onl y to dis co ve r but al so to det er the
sm uggl ing of weapons, drugs, and oth er c ontraband in to the inst itutio n." Id

. at 558 , 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 84. If the de te nti on f

ac ili ty ' s se cu ri ty int er es ts o utw ei gh the pr iva cy int er es ts o f the de ta ine e, the thi rd

ste p is to de te rm ine w he the r the str ip s earc h wa s " co nduc te d ina r e a s o n ab l e man n e r , " wh i c h mea n s i n c o mp l i a n c e w i t h th e f a c i l i t y's r e a s o n ab l e p o l i c y. Id

. a t 56 0, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 85. C. U sua lly , it

w ill be sim

ple e noug h to det er

m ine w he the r the de te nti on f ac ili ty ha s astr ip s earc h po licy

( the f ir st s te p) , a nd w he the r the pol ic y w as f oll ow ed in a pa rt ic ular ca se ( the thi rd ste p)

. Mo st c as es w ill turn on th e se co nd s te p of the
an al y sis

. O ur

ow n W ils on decision did , and so d id all of the decisions of other29

ci rc uit s th at

ha ve a lr ea dy

be enc ite d. F or

tha t r ea son, the se co nd ste p of the a na ly sis
m er its c los er

a tte nti on. Dete nt io n fa ci li ti es are " un iq ue pl ace[ s] frau gh t wi th s eri ou s s ecu rit y da ng ers ." Id

. at 559, 99 S. Ct. at 1884. Many of those who are being deta i n ed h ave been convicted of, or char ged with, c omm itting violent felonies. Even a s to the oth er de ta ine es , asig nif

ic an t perc en ta ge ha ve "p ri or f el ony c ri m ina l hi sto ri es or

ga ng af fi lia tio ns, w hic h m igh t m ak e the m gr ea te r se cu ri ty r isk s th anthe c ha rg es pe ndi ng ag ai nst them

indicate[ ] ." Dodge v. County of Orange, 2 8 2 F
. S up p . 2 d4 1 , 48 (S.D.N.Y.20 03 ), re v'

d on oth er

gro unds 103 Fe d. A ppx. 688 ( 2d C ir

. 2004 ). T ha t i s tr ue of tho se ar

re ste d for m isd em eanor s as we ll as tho se ar re ste d on fe lon y

c ha rg es . The gang af

filiati o n o f in m ates, in particular, is a "serious security risk." Id

. At the county j ail invo lved in th e D odge case ther e w ere at least fif ty gang m em

bers be in g h el d o n a ny giv en da y . Id

. N ot surprisin gly , "[ g] ang m em bers are often m ore vio le nt, da nge ro us, a nd m an ipu la tiv e than othe r inm at es , r eg ar dle ss o f the na tur e of the c ha rg es ag ai nst the m . T he y ar e al so m or e lik el y than oth er inm at es to at te m pt t o co er ce f am ily m em be rs or to co er ce , c aj ole , or

int im ida te le ss er viol at or s in to
sm uggl ing cont raband into th e fa cility ." Id

. (citations om itted). Co ntr ab an d po se s th e gr ea te st se cu ri ty r isk f or of fi ci al s a t de te nti on f

ac ili tie s. A s on e exp er

t expl ai ne d, "on e of the pr im ar y obj ec tiv es of

a ny c or re ct ion al f

ac ili ty
m ust be to pr ev en t the intro duc tio n of ' co ntr ab an d' int o a corre ct ion al fa ci lity due to the dangers that contraband presents in a corr ectio n al setting." Id

. a t 46 ( ci tin g th e te sti m ony of G eo rg e Ca m

p, a le ad ing co rr ec tio ns fa ci lity e xpe rt a nd a c onsu ltant t oA secon d rea son for strip searches is th at it allo ws officials to iden tify g angm em

bers, who often 4 hav e tattoo s or identify ing m ark s on their bodies

. Findin g the g angm em bers e arly pu ts the officials o n notice that the se p eople are serio us se curity risk s an d sh ould be s eparated from the g eneral popu lation whe re they

can cau se h arm . Othe rwise, all th e de tention facility has to g o o n is the crim e for whic h the indiv idual is charg ed, whic h m ay no t reflect the d ang er the person po ses. Id. at 4 7- 48. 30 fo rty -e igh t st at es on the a dm ini str at ionof de te nti on f

ac ili tie s)

. "C ontra

ba nd" is "anythi ng tha t an in m at e is not per m itt ed to hav e in a cor

re ct ion al f

ac ili ty , " i nc lud ing
o b v i o u s t h i n g s , l i k e we ap o n s , a mm u n i t i o n , o r d r

u g s , a n d " l e s s e r " i t e ms , l i k e mo n e y, ci ga ret te s, o r "ex ces s pr is on is su e it em s" (e.g . c lo th in g a nd li ne ns ). Id

. at 4 6- 47 . Of
co ur se , w ea

pons a nd o bj ec ts t

ha t ca n be m ad e int o we ap ons pose the m ost dir ec t and obvi ous thr ea t t o se cu ri ty w ith in a de te nti on f

ac ili ty , a nd w ith in the c ourtho use s to
w hic h th e de ta ine es a re ta ke n f or he ar ing s or

tr ia ls. N on- w ea pon cont raband i s a lso ba d be ca use it "c anbe use d by

inm at es to barter, and thus be held over the heads of other inm ates." Id

. a t 47
. B ar

te ri ng " te nds to d isr upt pr iso n op er at ion s by al lo w ing c er ta in i nm at es , or

gr oups of

inm at es , to
ex er ci se auth or ity

in co m pe tit ionw ithc or

re ct ion al sta ff

, " w hic h in tur

n " inc re as e[ s] the le ve l of

vio le nc e an d e ndange r[ s] the he al th, sa fe ty , a nd w el l- be ing of inm ate s, st aff, an d c iv il ia ns in [th e] corre ct io na l fa ci li ty." Id

. 4 O f co ur se , de te nti on f

ac ili ty of fi ci al s have a le ga l ob lig at ionto en sur e, to the
ex te nt r ea sona

bly fe as ibl e, tha t the ir fa ci lit ie s ar e sa fe not onl y fo r thos e de ta ine d bu t al so f or tho se w ho w ork the re an d tho se w ho vis it. A s th e Su pr em e Co urt ha s pu t i t, "central to all other cor

rections goals is t h e i n s titutio nal consideration o f internal security within the correc tions facilities them selves." P el l v

. P roc uni er , 417 U.S
. 8 17 , 82 3, 9 4 S .Ct. 2 80 0, 2 80 4, 4 1 L.Ed .2d 49 5 (1 97 4) , quoted in B el l, 441 U.S . a t31

546-47 , 99 S. Ct. at 1878. It is for th at reason th e Suprem e Court has held that "even whe n a n i ns ti tu ti on al res tri ct io n i nf rin ge s a s pe ci fic co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te e," we
m us t ev al ua te th at pr act ic e in li gh t of th is cen tra l ob jecti ve . B el l, 441 U
. S. at

547 , 99 S. Ct
. at 1878
. "P ri son adm ini str at or s the re fo re shou ld be ac co rd ed wid e- rangi ng de fe re nc e in the a dopt iona nd e xe cu tio n of pol ic ie s a nd p ra ct ic es tha t i n th ei r j udgm en t are ne ed ed

to pr es er

ve int er na l or de r an d di sc ipl ine a nd t o m ai nta in instit ution al security ." Id

. Those w ho run detenti on facilities are convin ced that strip search policies are essential to m aintaining safety in their facilities. Experts agree th at s trip searches "are the be st way to m ai nta in the se cu ri ty le ve l ne ce ssary

f or ke ep ing se ri ous an d da ng ero us co nt rab an d ou t" of de te nt io n fa ci li ti es . Dodge, 282 F. Su pp. 2d at 49. T he Su pr em e Co urt w as c onvi nc ed of the sa m e thi ng i n B el l, w he re it co nclu de d that , giv enthe "s er iou s se cu ri ty da nge rs " p re se nt in dete nti on f ac ili tie s, apol ic y

of
co nduc tin g vi sual b ody -c av ity se ar ch es on a ll inm at es a ft er a ny vis it w ithape rs on fr om the out sid e is a

r ea sona ble w ay to sto p th e "[ s] m

uggl ing of

m one y , dr

ugs,
w ea pons , a nd o the r co ntr ab an d" tha t e ro de the or de rl y a nd s af e adm ini str at ionof

the faci li ty. B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 55 9, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 84. A ff or din g c onsi de ra

ble dis cr et ionto tho se w ho h av e the duty to ru n de te nti on fa ci lit ie s sa fe ly is no t an ab dic at ionof the j udi ci ar

y ' s r es pons ibi lity

to pr ote ct

the
r i g h t s o f i n c a r c e r a t e di n d i v i du a l s . I ti s i n s t e a dar e c o g n i t i o n

— w h a t t h e S up r e me Court has called a "healthy sense of realism "—that "courts are ill e quip p ed t o d eal wit h t he in crea si ng ly urg en t p ro bl em s o f pr is on ad mi n i s tra ti on an d re fo rm ."32

P roc uni er

v . M art ine z, 416 U
. S. 396 , 405 , 94 S
. Ct
. 1800 , 1 807, 40 L
. E d. 2d 2 24 (1 97 4) , quot ed

in B el l, 441 U.S . a t 548 n . 30, 99 S.C t. a t 1879 n. 30. To have judges
se co nd- gue ss d et en tio n f ac ili ty of fic ials ab out

the ne ed f or pr oc ed ur es li ke str ip searches is al s o in tension with the principle that "the operation of our correctional fa ci lit ie s is pe cu liarl y the pr ovi nc e of the L eg isl at ive an d E xe cu tiv e Br an ch es of our Governm ent, not the Judicial." B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 54 8, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 79. Fo r the se r ea sons , astr ong argu m ent c anbe m ad e tha t the se co nd p ar t of the thr ee -p ro ng B el l an al y sis favor s perm itt ing de te nti on fa ci lity adm ini str at or s to a dopt a strip searc h poli cy

that applies to all a rr es t ee s being adm itted into the fac ility

. If the re is suc h apol ic y

( the f ir st p ro ng) an d if it is not ap pli ed in anabusi ve w ay ( the thi rd pr ong) , the re w ill be no F ourth A m en dm en t vi ola tio n. D. O ne oth er poi nt is w orth s om e dis cu ssi on. I n j udgi ng the c onst itu tio na lity of strip searches for detainees, som e other circ uits draw a distinction between w hether the pe rs on h as be ena rr es te d onaf el ony c ha rg e or

j ust f or a m is de m eanor. O ur ci rcu it law i s u nc le ar ab ou t t ha t. Se e ant e at 2224 n. 1. In an y e ve nt, I thi nk a

str ong argum ent can be m ade that such a distinctio n is wit h o u t constitu tional sig nificance
an d f ind s no sup port i n th e re al w or ld o f de te nti on. While M ast er s v . Cr ouc h, 87 2 F.2d 12 48 ( 6 t h C ir.1 98 9) , W att v . Ci tyof R ic hard son P oli ce D ep art

m en t, 84 9 F .2d 19 5 (5 th Cir .19 88 ), W eb er v . D el l, 804 F
. 2d 79 6 (2 d C ir.1 98 6) , G iles v . A ck erm an, 74 6 F .2d 61 4 (9 th Cir .19 84 ), ov errul ed on oth er grou nds byH

odge rs-D urgi n v . de la V

ina , 19 9 F.3 d 10 37 (9 th Cir .19 99 ), M ary33

B et h G

. v . Ci tyof Ch ic ago, 723 F
. 2d 1 263 (7 th C ir

. 1983 ), a nd Logan v. Shealy, 660 F. 2d 1 007 (4 th C ir

. 1981 ), va ry in de ta il ar ound

the e dge s, the pic tur e the y pa int is
es se nti al ly

the sa m e: T he a rr es te e is c ha rg ed w ithc om

m itt ing am isd em eanor

or som e le sse r vio la tio n a nd, w hil e be ing a dm itt ed to th e de te nti on f ac ili ty , she is subj ec te d to a str ip se ar ch pur suant to the fa ci lity ' s pol ic y . T he pla in ti ff s ue s the of fi ci al s a sse rt ing tha t the se ar chw as unc onst itu tiona l be ca use the guard s di d no t ha ve a ny r ea sona ble ba sis fo r be lie vin g that she w as hid ing co ntr ab an d on he r pe rs on. Se e, e . g. , L ogan , 660 F
. 2d a t 10 09- 11. I n e ac h cit ed ca se , the c ourt of appe al s ho lds tha t be ca use the plai nt iffs w er e "m ino r of fe nde rs w ho w er e not

inh er en tly dangerous," Mar

y Bet h G., 723 F. 2d at 1272 , de te nti on of fi ci al s ne ed ed

"r ea sona ble
sus pic iontha t the arr es te e is c onc ea lin g w ea pons or oth er c ontra ba nd b as ed

on the crim e char ged, the particular chara cteristics of the ar

restee, and/or the circum stances of the arr est," W

eb er , 804 F
. 2d at 802. Be ca

use re as ona

ble sus pic ionw as la ck ing in
ea chc as e, the se ar chis he ld t o vi ola te the F ourth A m en dm en t. T he S upr em e Co urt m ad e no d is ti nctio n in B el l be tw ee n de ta ine es ba se d on whether they

had b ee n ch arged w ith m isdem eanors or fe lonies. Instead, the policy that the Court treated categorically , and upheld , provided that "[i] nm ates at all B ureau of P ri son fa ci lit ie s, inc lud ing the MC C, a re r equir ed to ex pose the ir

body c av iti es f or vis u a l i n s p e c t i o n a s a p a rt o f a s t r i p s e a r c h c o n du c t e d a f t e r e v e ry c o n t a c t v i s it w ith a person from

outsid e the institut ion." B el l, 441 U
. S. a t 55 8, 99 S.Ct . a t 18 84. Am ong th e "[i] nm ates at all B ureau of Pr ison faciliti es , including th e MCC, " we re de ta ine es f

ac ing onl y

m isd em eanor

c ha rg es , peopl e inc ar ce ra te d f or c ont em pt o fThe facility inv olv ed in

the B el l case w as n ot so m e sp ecial so rt of seethingcau ldron of crim inality

. 5 The S up re m e C ourtd es cr ib ed th e fa ci li ty

th is w ay : "MC C d if

fe rs m ark ed ly

f ro m th e fa m il ia r im ag e of

a jail ; th er e ar e no b ar

re d ce ll s, d an k , c ol or le ss c or ri do rs , o r cl an g in g s te el g at es . I t w as in te nd ed to in cl ud e th e m os t a dv an ce d an d in no v at iv e fe at ur es o f m od er

n de si g n of

d et en ti on

f ac il it ie s. " B el l, 44 1 U. S. at 52 5, 99 S.C t. at 1866
. I n the three y ears MC C strip searched all inm ates b efore th e trial in B el l, t he r e wa s on l y one instan ce o f sm ug g led co ntraban d. Id. a t5 5 9 , 9 9 S. C t
. a t1 8 8 5
. Ye t , t h e Su p r e me Court foun d tha t "serious security dan g ers" w arranted the strip search po licy at a ll federal detention facilities, includin g MCC
. Id. at 5 59, 99 S. Ct. at 1 884- 85. 34 co u rt , a n d w i t n e s s e s i n p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y w h o h a d n o t b e e n a c c u s e d o f doi ng an yth in g wro ng . Se e id. a t 52 4 & n. 3, 99 S
. Ct
. a t 18 66 & n. 3. T he MC C w as ha rd ly a fac il it y whe re al l of th e de ta in ees were "awa it in g tri al on se rio us fed eral ch arg es ,"
as som e of the opinion s of other circuits seem to indicate. It is on that basis that they dis tin gui sh w ha t the y de sc ri be as the "e xa gge ra te d" ne ed f or str ip s earc he s a t c ounty faci li ti es fro m th e "re al " need at fed eral faci li ti es . Se e, e.g ., Mar y Bet h G., 723 F
. 2d at 127 2. 5 T he ne edf

o r s t r i p s e a r c h e s a tc o u n t y j a i l s i s n o te x a g g e r a t e d

. E m p l o y e e s, vis it or s, an d those w ho are the m se lve s de ta ine d f ac e a re al thr ea t of

vio le nc e, a nd adm ini str at or s m

ust be c onc er

ne d onada ily

ba sis w ith the sm

uggl ing of

c ontra ba nd on the pe rs on o f tho se a cc use d of m isd em eanor s a s we ll as tho se ac cu se d of f el oni es . Dodge, 282 F.Supp.2d at 46-49. E ven som e of the cir cuits th at h ave re quired reasonable suspicio n for sear ches of those a rr ested for m isdem eanors concede that there hav e b een in stances wher e contraband wa s sm uggl ed into a ja il by

detainees faci ng on ly m is de m ean oror l es se r ch arg es . Se e, e . g. , G iles, 746 F
. 2d a t 61 7. Then there is the fact that gang m em bers co m m i t m isdem eanors as w ell as fe lon ie s. I n on e co unty j ai l, f or e xa m ple , f if ty pe rc en t of

tho se be in g he ld on "m is de m ean oror l es se r ch arg es " were ga ng m em be rs . Dodge, 282 F. Su

pp. 2d a t 4835

(c iti ng f igu re s fr om 2002 ). "G an g m em be rs a re of

te n m or e vio le nt, da nge ro us, a nd
m an ip ula tiv e than othe r inm at es , r eg ar dle ss o f the na tur e of the c ha rg es a ga ins t t h em. " Id

. N o t o n l y t h a t , b u t " o f

f i c i a l s a t a c o u n t y j a i l

. . . u s u a l l y k n o w v e ry li ttl e ab out the ne w inm at es the y

r ec ei ve or

the se cu ri ty

r isk s th ey

pr es en t a t the ti m e of their arr ival." Id

. Mo reover, som e g ang m em bers "attem

pt to coerce fam ily

m em bers
or to co er ce , c aj ole , or int im ida te le sse r viol at or s in to s m uggl ing c ontra

ba nd i nto the facility ." Id

. T he se r ea sons sup port the e xpe rt opi nio n th at

a ll of tho se w ho are to be de ta in edin th e g en eral po pu la ti on of a de te nt io n fa ci li ty sho ul d b e st rip sea rch ed

. See id. at 4 9. The Suprem e Cou rt h as i nstructed us that detention fac ility adm inistrators "shou ld be acc or de d w i de -ranging defere nce in the adoptio n and execution o f policies
an d pr ac tic es tha t i n th ei r j udgm en t are need ed to pr es er

ve int er na l or de r an d disci p l i n e and to m aintain inst itutio nal security ." B el l, 441 U.S . a t 547, 99 S.Ct. at 1878
. I t ha s a lso e xpl ai ne d th at "j udi ci al de fe re nc e is a cc or de d no t m er el y be ca use the adm inistrator or dinarily will, as a m atter of fact in a particular ca se, have a better gr as p of his dom ai n th anthe re vie w ing j udge , but a lso be ca use the ope ra tio n of

our co rr ec tio na l f

ac ili tie s is pe cu liarl y

the pr ovi nc e of the L eg isl at ive a nd E xe cu tiv e Branches of our G overnm ent, not the Judicial." Id

. a t 54 8, 99 S. Ct
. a t 18 79 ( ci tin g M art ine z, 416 U
. S. a t 40 5, 94 S. Ct
. at 1807 ). D ec isi ons tha t c ar ve out m isd em eanor arre stees for special treatm ent do not seem to affor d those who run detention facilities the "w ide -r an gin g de fe re nc e" the S upr em e Co urt ha s m an da te d. E.36

To sum m arize , the e n banc Court is correct to note th at t he Suprem e Court has
ne ve r re qui re d r ea sona

ble sus pic ionf

or str ip s earc he s of

a rr es te es bou nd f

or the ge ne ral jail po pu la ti on . A nte at 2218
. The contrary rea ding of the Suprem e Court's B el l de ci sio n th at

le d to the hol din g in W ils on v . J ones, 251 F.3d 1 340 (1 1th Ci r. 2001 ), is m ist ak en . Whe n w e ha ve ac as e tha t squa re ly pr es en ts the iss ue f

or review , w e ought to take it en banc in order to re consider our W ils on de ci sio n. F. J u d g e B a rk et ts u g g es t s t h at i n t h e p ro ce s s o f e x p re s s i n g i n t h i s o p i n i o n my views, which are critical of t he posit ion she stated in the W ils on case, I have violated Arti cl e III. P ost

at 2235 n.1. H er theory

is t h at t h e s t at emen t of dicta in a j udicial opin ion "int rudes upon the constitu tional restraints o n the jurisdiction of the federa l courts." Id

. T his nove l the or

y ap pa re ntl y did not co m e to m ind w he n she w as w ri tin g the W ils on opini on b ro ad ly

e noug h to inv al ida te ade te nti on s earc h po lic y in its entirety even thoug h that case did not p resent the issue of wheth er t he policy wa s va li d as ap pl ie d t o t ho se arres te d o n fe lo ny char ge s. Se e W ils on, 251 F. 3d at

134 2- 43. T he ide a t h a t d i c t a i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a l s o m u s t n o t h a v e c o m e t o h e r m ind
w he n Ju dge Bark et t wa s auth or ing the opi nio n of thi s C ourt i n A ron v. U

nit ed Sta tes, 291 F. 3d 708 (1 1th Ci r. 2002 ). T he f ac ts i n A ron w er e tha t the pe tit ion er w ho s ough t the be ne fi t of equ ita

ble tol lin g ha d e xe rc ise d du e dil ige nc e be fo re the e na ctm en t of 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( 4) , whi ch is th e AEDPA's s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . Id

. a t 71 0. Nonetheless, Judge Bar

kett purported to "hold" for th e Court that "a petitioner's fa ilu re to ex er ci se due dil ige nc e be fo re A E D PAw as en ac te d cannot supp ort a fi ndi ng37

that a petition fails to satis fy the tim eliness r equirem ent." Id

. a t 71 3. T ha t w as c la ssi c dic ta , a s I poi nte d ou t i n ac onc ur ri ng o pin ionin A ron. I

d. at 7 16 -1 8 (C arn es , J., concurring). It took thi s Court onlytwo m onth s to issue an opin ion in anoth er c ase,
w hose fa ct s did pre se nt the pr e- A E D PA dil ige nc e iss ue , r ec ogni zi ng tha t st at em en t on the iss ue in A ron was d ic ta an d dec li ni ng fo r th at reas on to be bo un d b y it

. Drew v. Dep 't o f Co rr s., 297 F.3d 1278 , 1290-92 n. 5 (11th Cir.2002). T o be f ai r, Jud ge Bark et t i s by

no m eans the onl y

m em be r of thi s C ourt t o so w dicta in her opin ions. Indeed, when one look s for it, dicta appears t o b e s ca t t ered
a c r os s t he o pi ni on s of

t hi s C ou rtl i ke w i l df

l ow e r s i n as pr i ng m e a do w . A b a ke r 's doz en e xa m ple s sh oul d su ff

ic e to p ro ve the poi nt: U nit ed Sta tes v . W

illiam s, 340 F. 3d 1 231, 1234 -3 7 (1 1th Ci r. 2003 ) (s ta tin g tha t ap pe lla te c ourts are obl ige d to appl y a "du e de fe re nc e" standard of r ev ie w to a se nte nc ing j udge ' s a ppl ic at io n of

the
se nte nc ing gui de lin es to the f ac ts i n apa rt ic ular ca se , w hic h wa s re co gni ze d a s di ct a as it related to s i t u at i ons ot her than a challenge to the district court's grouping of a defen da nt's of

fe nse s in U

nit ed Sta tes v . M

ira nda, 348 F
. 3d 1 322, 133 0 n. 8 ( 11th Ci r. 2003 )) ; Uni te d St at es v. DBB, Inc., 180 F. 3d 1277, 1281 (1 1th Ci r. 1999 ) (s ta tin g tha t " [w ] e w ill onl y loo k be y ond the pla in l an gua ge of asta tut e at

e xtr ins ic m at er ia ls to determ ine the co n g ressional intent if[, am ong o ther things ,]
.. . ther e is clear
ev ide nc e of

c ontrary le gis la tiv e int en t, " w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in CB S Inc.
v. Prim eTim e 24 Joint Venture, 245 F. 3d 1 217, 122 7 ( 11th C ir

. 2001 )) ; B abi cz v . Sc h. Bd., 135 F.3d 1420 , 1422 n. 10 (11th Cir.1998) (per cu riam ) (stating that
com pensatory dam ages are not available u n der the Individuals with D isabiliti es38

E duc at ionA ct , w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in Ort eg a v . Bib b C ou nt y Sc h. Dist ., 397 F. 3d 1 321, 132 6 ( 11th C ir

. 2005 )) ; G JR I nv s. , I nc . v . Co unt

y of E sc am bia , 132 F. 3d 13 59, 1 367 (11th Cir. 1998 ) (stating that a heightened pleadin g standard applies to al l § 1983 ac tio ns, w hic h wa s re co gni ze d a s di ct a in Sw ann v. S. H ea lth P art

ne rs, In c., 388 F. 3d 8 34, 838 ( 11th C ir

. 2004 )) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . Ca rte r, 110 F
. 3d 7 59, 761

- 62 ( 11th C ir

. 1997 ) (p er

c ur iam ) (s ta tin g th at

ase nte nc ing j udge m

ust giv e re as ons fo r his ruli ng on t he app l i c abi l i t y of t he 18 U
. S
. C
. § 35 53 ( a ) f a c t or s, w hi ch wa s re co gni ze d a s di ct a in U

nit ed Sta tes v . E

gge rsd orf , 126 F
. 3d 1 318, 132 2 & n. 4 ( 11th Ci r. 1997 )) ; Gra

ys on v. K Mar t Co rp ., 79 F
. 3d 1086 , 1100 (1 1th Ci r. 1996 ) (s ta tin g tha t the pr e- Ci vil Ri ght s Ac t sta tut es of lim ita tio ns app ly to A D E A ac tio ns w he re the challenged condu ct occurre d prior to the enactm ent of the Civi l Ri ghts Act, w hich
w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in Browning v. A T& T P arad yne, 120 F
. 3d 2 22, 225 n. 7 ( 11th Ci r.1997) (p er

c ur ia m )) ; Hil l v. Dek

al b Reg 'l Y

ou th Det. Ct r., 4 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 6, 118 6 (1 1th Ci r. 1994 ) (s ta tin g th at "[ a] findi ng o f de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e ne ce ssari ly precludes a finding of qual i f i e d i m m un i ty , " ( qu ot at i on

om itted) which w as rec ogni zed
as dic tain Mar

sh v. But le r C

ou nt y, Ala ., 268 F. 3d 1014 , 1030 n. 8 (11th Cir.2001)); Ve rnon v. FD

IC, 981 F. 2d 1230 , 1233 -3 4 (1 1th Ci r. 1993 ) (s ta tin g th at the c om m on la w D' Oe nch doc tr ine doe s not oper at e "to ba r fr ee standi ng tort cla im s that ar e not
re la te d to aspe ci fic as se t ac qui re d by the F D IC , " w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in both O P S Sh op pi ng C tr. , I

nc . v . FD IC, 992 F. 2d 3 06, 310 ( 11th C ir

. 1993 ), a nd Reso lu ti on Tru st

Co rp . v. Dun mar

Co rp ., 4 3 F.3d 587, 597 n. 7 (11th Cir.1995)); U nit ed Sta tes v . H

arr is, 990 F
. 2d 5 94, 5 97 (1 1t h Ci r. 1993 ) (s ta tin g th at "i t i s39

ina ppr opr ia te to im

pr iso n or ex te nd the te rm of im pr iso nm en t of

af ed er al de fe ndant for the p u rp o s e o f p ro v i d i n g h i m wi t h re h ab i l i t at i v e t re at m en t ," wh i ch wa s rec ogni zed
as dic tain U

nit ed Sta tes v . A gui lla rd, 217 F.3d 1319 , 1321 (11th Cir.2000 ) (per
cu ri am )) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ni

xo n, 918 F. 2d 89 5, 903 n. 6 (11th Cir.1990) (stating that anticipatory

searc h warrants are only appropriate "wher e the contraband is on a ' sure co ur se ' to a know n de sti na tio n, " w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in U ni t e d Stat es v. Santa, 236 F
. 3d 6 62, 672 n. 14 ( 11th C ir

. 2000 )) ; Wil kinson ex rel. W ilkinson v. B ow en , 847 F
. 2d 6 60, 662 ( 11th C ir

. 1987 ) (p er cu ri am) (s ta tin g in a So ci al S ec ur ity case that " [ i ] n or de r

t o m e e tal i st i ng , t he c l a i m a nt m us t ( 1) h a ve ad i a gn osed
co ndi tio n th at

is inc lud ed

in the li st in gs a nd ( 2) pr ovi de obj ec tiv e m ed ic al r ep orts doc um en tin g th at

thi s c ondi tio n m ee ts the spe ci fi c cr iteria of the appl ic ab le li sti ng an d the dur at ion re qui re m en t, " w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in Shi nn exre l. Shi nn
v . Comm'r

of So c. Se c., 391 F
. 3d 1 276, 128 5 ( 11th C ir

. 2004 )) ; Se l f v . G re at L akes Dre dg e & Dock

Co ., 832 F
. 2d 1 540, 154 7 (1 1t h Cir

. 1987 ) (s ta tin g ar ule f or contributi on and settlem ent bar in m aritim e action s for personal injur ies, w hich was
re co gni ze d a s di ct a in G re at Lak es D re dge & D oc k Co

. v . T ank er R obe rt W att M ill er , 957 F. 2d 1575, 1578 ( 11th C ir

. 1992 )) ; and F air le y v. P att er

son, 493 F. 2d 598, 603

- 04 (5th Cir.1974) (stating th at voters in a d istrict that wa s less over-repre sented than oth er dis tr ic ts h ad

standi ng t o su e, w hic h w as re co gni ze d a s di ct a in W right v. Dou gh er ty Co un ty, Ga., 358 F.3d 1352 , 1356 (11th Cir.2004)). If our ow n op ini ons did

not de m onstra te tha t the use of dic tais co nst itu tio na lly pe rm iss ibl e, pr oof posi tiv e can be foun d in the fa ct tha t the ult im at e ar bit er of A rt ic le40

II I an d a ll oth er

c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio ns n ot i nf re que ntl y sow s it s ow n op ini ons w ith dic ta
. T he re ar e m an y

e xa m ple s, but a n e ve n te n w ill do: Mer te ns v. Hewi tt Ass oc s., 508 U.S . 248, 256, 113 S. Ct. 2063 , 2069, 124 L. Ed. 2d 16 1 (19 9 3) (stating that restitution is a cate gory

of relief that is ty

pically av ai l ab l e in equity , w hich was
re co gni ze d a s di ct a in G re at- W

. L ife & Ann ui ty In s. Co

. v . Kn udso n, 534 U
. S. 204 , 215, 122 S. Ct
. 708, 715, 151 L
. E d. 2d 6 35 ( 2002 )) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . J

am es , 478 U.S
. 597, 605, 106 S.Ct. 3116 , 3121 , 92 L .E d.2d 483 (1986) (stating that "[i] t is thus clear fr om [ 33 U
. S. C. ] § 70 2c ' s pl ai n langua ge tha t the te rm s 'fl ood' a nd ' fl ood w at er s' ap ply to al l w at er s c ont ai ne d inor c ar ri ed thr ough a fe de ra l fl ood co ntr ol p ro j ec t f or purpos es of or re lated to flood control," which wa s recognized as dicta and disavo we d in Ce nt. G re en Co

. v . U

nit ed Sta tes, 531 U
. S. 425, 430- 31, 121 S. Ct
. 1005 , 100 8- 09, 148 L
. E d. 2d 9 19 ( 2001 )) ; B e rk e m e r v . Mc Carty, 468 U
. S. 420 , 439 -4 0, 104 S
. Ct
. 3 1 3 8 , 3150 , 82 L .E d.2d 317 (198 4) (stating that, in the context of a Te rry st op , a de ta ine e is n ot o bli ge d to r es pond to qu estio ns, w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in H iib el v . Six th J udi ci al D ist

. Co urt

, 542 U
. S. 177 , 124 S
. Ct
. 2451 , 245 9, 159 L
. E d. 2d 292 (2 004) ); M

ic higan v. L ong, 463 U
. S. 1032 , 1036 n. 1, 103 S
. Ct
. 346 9, 347 3 n. 1, 77 L
. E d. 2d 1 201 (1 983) ( sta tin g, in the c ont ex t of asit ua tio n w he re the de fe ndant
ex ite d hi s ve hic le b ef

or e the of fi ce rs ini tia te d c ont ac t, tha t the of fi ce rs c oul d ha ve perm issib ly

searc hed the defend an t 's vehicle had they arr ested him , w hich was
re co gni ze d as dic tain Th ornt on v. U nit ed Sta tes, 541 U
. S. 615 , 124 S
. Ct
. 212 7, 213 1, 158 L
. E d. 2d 9 05 ( 2004 )) ; Bil l Jo hn so n's Rest s., In c. v. NLRB, 461 U
. S. 731, 747, 103 S. Ct
. 216 1, 217 2, 76 L
. E d. 2d 277 (1 983) (s ta tin g the standard fo r the N L RB to use41

in order to declare a com ple t ed law suit un lawf

ul und er the N LR

A, which w as r e c o g n i z e d a s d i c t a in BE & K Co ns tr . Co. v. N LRB, 536 U
. S. 516 , 527 , 122 S
. Ct
. 2390 , 239 7, 153 L
. E d. 2d 4 99 ( 2002 )) ; Don ov an v. Penn Sh ip pi ng Co ., 429 U
. S. 648 , 649, 97 S.Ct. 835, 837, 51 L. Ed. 2d 11 2 (1977) (per curiam ) (stating that "[t] he proper role of the trial and appellate courts in the federa l sy stem in review ing the size of j ury ve rd ic ts is ..

. a m at te r of fe de ra l law , " wh ic h wa s re co gni ze d a s di ct a in Gasperini v. Ctr. for H

um ani ties , Inc ., 51 8 U
. S. 415 , 447 n. 6, 116 S
. Ct
. 221 1, 222 9 n. 6, 135 L.Ed.2 d 659 ( 1996 )) ; Ca le ro -To le do v. Pear so n Y ac ht Lea si ng Co ., 416 U
. S. 663 , 689, 94 S.Ct. 2080 , 2094-95, 40 L. Ed. 2d 45 2 (1974) ( stating in a forf eiture ca se that "i t w oul d be dif

fi cu lt to re j ec t the co nst itu tio na l cl ai m of an ow ne r . . . w ho p ro ve d no t onl y tha t he w as uni nvol ve d ina nd una w ar e of the w ro ngf ul a ct ivi ty , but

a lso tha t he ha d do ne a ll tha t r ea sona bly c oul d be e xpecte d to pr ev en t the pr osc ri be d us e of his pr ope rty , " w hic h w as r ec ogni ze d a s di ct a in B en nis v . M ic higan, 516 U
. S. 442 , 449

- 50, 116 S.Ct
. 994 , 999 , 134 L
. E d. 2d 6 8 ( 1996 )) ; B rade n v . 30t h J udi ci al Circ uit Co urt , 410 U.S . 484 , 495 , 93 S. Ct. 112 3, 11 30, 3 5 L. Ed. 2d 443 (197 3) (stating that "[ s] o lo ng a s the cu sto dian can be re ac he d by se rv ic e of pr oc es s, the c ourt c aniss ue a w ri t ' w ith in i ts j ur isd ic tio n'
. . . e ve n if th e pr is oner

him se lf is co nf ine d ou tsi de the
co urt' s te rr ito ri al j ur isd ic tio n, " wh ic h wa s re co gni ze d a s di ct a in R um sfe ld v

. P adi lla ,

-- - U
. S. - -- -, 124 S
. Ct
. 271 1, 272 3, 159 L
. E d. 2d 5 13 ( 2004 )) ; B oui e v. Ci tyof Co lum bia , 378 U
. S. 347 , 353 -5 4, 362 , 84 S
. Ct
. 169 7, 170 2, 170 7, 12 L
. E d. 2d 8 94 (1 964) ( sta tin g th at

"[ i] f a sta te le gis la tur e is bar re d by the E x P ost

F ac to C lause f

ro m pa ssi ng . . . alaw , it

m ust f oll owtha t a

S tate Su pr em e Co urt i s barr ed

by the D ue42

Pro ces s C la us e fro m

ach ie vi ng pre ci se ly the same resu lt by j ud ic ia l co ns tru ct io n,"
w hic h w as r ec ogni zed as di ct a in Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U
. S. 451 , 458 -5 9, 121 S.Ct. 169 3, 169 8, 149 L
. E d. 2d 6 97 ( 2001 )) ; and A m . F i r e & C a s . C o . v . F i nn, 341 U. S. 6, 16, 7 1 S. Ct
. 5 3 4, 541, 95 L. Ed. 702 (195 1) (stating that dis trict court j udgm en ts c an be uphe ld, de spi te an im pr ope r re m ova l, w he re the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have had original jurisdiction at the tim e of trial or of the entry of j udgm ent, w hich
w as r ec ogni ze d a s " w el l- know n di ct a" in Ca te rpi lla r I nc . v . L ew is, 519 U
. S. 61, 71- 72, 117 S.Ct. 467, 474, 136 L.E d.2d 437 (199 6)). A ll of the se e xa m

ple s sh owtha t i t i s to o la te in th e jud ic ia l day f or a ny sugg es tio n th at

the use of

dicta am ount s to the iss ua nc e of a n a dvi sor

y opi nio n in violatio n of Article III's ca se or controversy requirem ent. A s one com m entator has
correc tly noted: "Essentially , an adviso ry opini on consi sts of form al, bind ing advi ce from a court of l aw to other governm ent officials o r th e g eneral pub lic in the absence of ali ve c as e or

c ontro ve rs y

pe ndi ng b ef

or e the c ourt. T his defin it ion w oul d no t
en co m pa ss o the r fo rm s of

j udi ci al a dvi ce , inc lud ing dic ta , a lte rn at ive hol din gs, a nd the li ke , w hic h a re a dm it tedly in som e se nse pr ec at or y in na tur e. " R ona ld J

. Kro to sz yni sk i, J r., Constitu tiona l Flares: On Judges, L egislatu res, and Dialogue, 83 Mi nn. L
. Re v. 1, 8 n. 27 (N ov. 1998 ). The se lf -d es cr ibe d di ct a in m

y c onc ur ri ng o p i n i o n d o e s n o tp u r

p o rtt o b e " b i n d i n g a d v i c e . " I ti s me r e l y t h e s t a t e me n to f my vie w s a t this tim e on an iss ue tha t w as br ie fe d an d ar gue d but is not be ing de ci de d in this case. The opinion its elf explicitly acknowledges that these views bind no one, in cl ud in g m e. A nte a t 22 24.43

St at ed som ew ha t di ff

er en tly , e ve n if

the se vie w s a re se ena s " advis or y " i n th e co ll oq ui a l s e n s e , t he ir e xp res si on do es no t v io la te Arti cl e III. See Evan T sen Lee , D ec onst itu tio nal izi ng Ju sti ci abi lit y: Th e E xa m ple of Mo ot ne ss, 105 H ar v. L
. Re v. 603, 648 -4 9 ( Ja n. 1992 ) (" It is cl ear tha t di ct a—

w he the r or

not c ourts d ee m

it to constitu te an 'a dviso ry

opini on'—ru n af

oul of no con stitut ional or jurisdictional ba rri er . ") ; id. a t6 49 ( " [ W ] he t he r t o e ng a ge i n di c t ai s am a t t e r f or t he considered discretion of a court, and calling it an 'a dviso ry opini on' changes that not o ne whit. "). T he re a re sou nd r ea sons w hy dic tais not

bin din g, but

the re c ana lso be goo d r ea sons fo r it s o ccas io na l u se . Se e McDo na ld 's C or p., 147 F. 3d at 1314 -1 5. Whe the r thi s is a proper occa sion for the use of dicta is a prudential decision for the w riting judge. It is not a constitu tional iss ue. BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , c onc ur

ri ng i n part

a nd d iss en tin g inpa rt : I concur in the m aj ority 's conclusions t h at both th e initiation and the m anner of the str ip s earc he s inthi s c as e w er e unc onst itu tio na l, an d th at qua lif ie d im m uni ty shou ld h av e b e e n d e n i e d a s t o t h e m a n n e r o f t h e s e a r c h

. H o w e v e r , I b e l i e v e t h a t i t
w a s u n q u e s t i o n ab l y c l e a r i n 1 9 9 9 t h a ta n i n v e s t i g a t o ry strip search conducted
w ith out r ea sona ble sus pic ionis unc onst itu tio na l. T hus, a lth oughit m ay m ak e no pr ac tic al dif

fe re nc e he re , I w oul d de ny qua lif ie d i m m uni ty a s it r el at es to the ini tia tio n of

thi s stri p se ar chw ith out

r ea sona ble sus pic ion

. Finally , I would also note that th e assertion that "m ost" m em bers of the Court "are unc er

ta in tha t j ai le rs a re r equir ed to ha ve ar ea sona

ble sus pic ionof w ea

pons or co nt rab an d b efo re s tri p s earc hi ng ... arres te es bo un d fo r th e g en eral jail po pu la ti on ,"A rti c le I I Ir e qu ir e s th a t w e c o n s id e r o n ly th o s e " qu e s ti o n s p r e s e n te d in ana dv e r s ar

y c o n te xt 1 andin a for m h is to ri cal ly vi ewedas capab le o f res ol ut io n t hro ugh t he j ud ici al p roce ss ." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S.C t. 1942, 20 L .Ed.2d 947 (1968). Thus, stakingout a position that re a so na ble su sp ic ion

is n ot r e qu ir e d f

or str ip s e arc he s und e r c ir c ums tanc e s n ot a t is su e in t

his case , as Judge Car

nes does, intrude s upon the constitutional restraints on the jurisdiction of the fe de ra l c ourt s. Ev e n th e ma jor ity ' s su g g e sti on

that " mos t" me mbe rs of

the c ourt are un c e rt a in about the re asonable suspicion require ment should occur in a fac tually rele vant ca se whe re resolution of that question is nece ssary to the outcome of the dispute. 44 is d ic tain thi s c as e, w hic h, a s th e m aj or it yc onc ed es , "p ro vid es no o ppor tun ity to de ci de th e q ue st io n...." 1 Ste phe ns I s N ot E nti tle d to Q ual ifi ed

I m m uni tyfor

the I nit iat ion of the Str ip Search A s a n in iti al m at te r, the m aj or ity ' s dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n th e ini tia tio n of the str ip
se ar cha nd the m an ne r of the se ar chappe ar s to ha ve no p ra ct ic al e ff ec t he re . T he ini tia tio n of

the strip se arch is c er

ta inl y one of the f ac tor s pe rt ai nin g to the ove ra ll constitu tio na lity

of the se ar ch , a s is the m an ne r of the se ar ch , but

it sho uld not be
a d d r es se d s ep arat el y

forpu rp os es of a qu al ifi edimm un it y an al y si s. See B ell v. W olf ish , 441 U
. S. 520, 559, 99 S. Ct
. 1861 , 60 L
. E d. 2d 447 (1 979) (d es cr ibi ng a tot al ity -o f- the -c ir cu m stanc es an al y sis w hic h take s in to a cc ount "the sc ope of

the pa rt ic ular i n tr

u s ion , the m an ne r in w hic h it is co nduc te d, the j ust if

ic at ionf or ini tia tin g it, and the pla ce in w hic h it is co nduc te d")

. H ow ev er , as sum ing the appr opr ia te ne ss of suc h adi st in ct ion , the law w as c le ar ly e sta bli she d th ro ugh Schmerber v. Ca lif orni a, 384 U
. S. 757, 86 S. Ct
. 1826 , 16 L
. E d. 2d 9 08 ( 1966 ), a nd United States
v. H im m el wr igh t, 551 F.2d 991 ( 5 t h Ci r. 1 977), that the initiation of a strip sear ch without reasonable susp icion w as uncons titutio nal. Thus, Stephens w as not entit led to qua lif ie d im m uni ty fo r ei the r the ini tia tio n of the se ar chor the m an ne r in w hic h it45

w as c ondu ct ed

. In Sc hm er be r, the Co urt c onsi de re d w he the r ana rr es tin g of fi ce r vio la te d th e Fo urth A m en dm en t by ex tr ac tin g an arr es te e' s bl ood w ith out aw ar rant a ft er va lid ly
arre st in g h im

fordri vi ng un de r th e in flu en ce. Se e Sc hm er be r, 384 U
. S. at 758- 59, 86 S. Ct
. 182 6. T he Co urt note d that se ar ch es inc ide nt to arr es t are ge ne ra lly va lid , but
ex pl ai ne d t ha t " th e m ere fa ct of a lawf ul arres t" was n ot co nc lu si ve in th is cas e. Id

. at 76 9, 8 6 S .Ct. 1 82 6. In par tic ula r, the pol ic y co nsi de rat ion s whi ch sup port the
va lidityof se arc hes in ci de nt t o arrest "h av e lit tle ap pl ic abi lit y wi th r es

pe ct to
se arc hes invo lv ing

int rus ion s be yo nd t he bod y' s su rfa ce . " I

d. ( em pha sis a dde d)

. T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d it s r ea soni ng a s f oll ow s: T he int er es ts i n hu m andig nity a nd p ri va cy

w hic h th e Fo urth A m en dm en t protects forbid an y

such intrusi ons on the m ere chance that desired evidence m ight b e obtaine d

. In t h e absence of a clear indication that in fact such evidence will be found , these fundam ental hum an interests require lawofficer s to s uf fe r the r isk

tha t su ch ev ide nc e m ay dis ap pe ar unl es s ther e is an i m m ed ia te se ar ch

. Id

. a t 76 9- 70, 86 S
. Ct
. 182 6. The Schmerber

Co urt di d pr oc ee d to f

ind tha t ba se d on the "s pe ci al f ac ts" of that case, the searc hing officer "m ight reasonabl y h ave believed that he wa s confronted with an em ergency " because the per ce n t ag e of alcohol in the arrestee' s blo od w oul d ha ve dim ini she d be fo re the of fi ce r co uld

ha ve obt ai ne d a w ar

rant, especially because th e in vestigatio n of t he accident s cene and the trip to the hos pital ha d a lre ad y

de la y edth e b lo od tes t. Id

. Bo th Schmerber an d this ca se co nc er n unusua lly inv as ive inv es tig at or y body searches incident to arre st—ind eed, a st rip search like this represe nts an even m ore46

invasiv e and degrading p ro ce d u re than a blo od draw—and in both cases the object
o f t h e s e a r c h wa s o s t e n s i b l y t o d i s c o v e r e v i d e n c e r e t a i n e dwi t h i n a n a rr e s t e e ' s b o d y. U nli ke the of

fi ce rs in Sc hm er be r, however, Stephens c an not argue that this searc h
w as pr ec ipi ta te d by an y em er ge nc y . N or did he ha ve a ny

r ea son to b el ie ve tha t the strip se ar ch wou ld reveal re levant evidence, w hile the Schmerber of fi ce rs did ha ve reas on to be li ev e th ey wou ld fin d al co ho l in th e arre st ee's bl oo d. Se e id. at 768 -6 9, 86 S. Ct. 182 6. Thus, the f eatures of the Schmerber

se ar chtha t save d it

f ro m vio la tin g the Fourth Am endm ent are absent in thi s case. Mor eo ve r, e ve n in b o r der searches the re w as ac le ar ly e sta bli she d m ini m um
re qui re m en t

of rea sonable su spicion for investigatory strip searches by

1999
. In U nit ed Sta tes v . H

im m el wr igh t, the f

orm er F if th C ir cu it he ld tha t the F ourth A m en dm en t re qui re d re as ona ble sus pic ion be fo re an inv es tig at or y str ip searc h at the border, f indin g that "the 're asonable suspicion' standard is flexible enough to afford the full m easure of protection which th e fou rth am endm ent com m ands." 551 F.2d at 995. The court "hasten[ed] to add that 'rea sonable su spicion ' in th is context in cludes
a re qui re m en t tha t c ust om s of fi ci al s have c au se to susp ec t tha t contra ba nd exi sts in the particular place which th e officia ls decide to search. " Id.; see also United States
v. M ont oy a de H

ernand ez , 473 U.S . 531, 541, 105 S. Ct. 330 4, 87 L. Ed. 2d 381 (198 5). If , be fo re 199 9, the F ourth A m en dm en t i m pose d ar ea sona

ble su spi ci on re quirem ent on border

strip searches, wher e authority to search is less constrained than it is in an ordinary

dom estic searc h incident t o ar re s t , it is unquestio nable that at l ea st the sa m e de gr ee of sus pic ion w as re qui re d to co nduc t the str ip se ar ch es in thi s47

cas e. Schmerber

a nd H im m el wr igh t cl earl y

e sta bli she d be fo re 199 9 th at

r ea sona ble
sus pic ionw as re qui re d to co nduc t an inv es tig at or y str ip se ar ch

. Ba se d on the f ac ts of this case, no r easonable officer could have believed that a strip sear ch wa s justified sim ply because the ar

restees w ere nervous when stop ped by the police and claim ed to b e los t.