Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9954
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:31:01+00:00

Document:
This case, Streit v. the County of Los Angeles, was one of many cases filed against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department [LASD] in the late 1990s and early 2000 that challenged various alleged policies and/or practices of the LASD and the operation of its Jail. The suit in Streit was filed on November 30, 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Streit alleged that she was subject to "overdetention" - that she were detained in the L.A. County Jail after all legal justification for her detention ended, in violation of both federal and state law.
Defendants moved to dismiss the case on various grounds. Presiding District Judge William J. Rea denied the motion. Defendants appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a consolidated appeal, with the opinion being written by Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw. Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that Los Angeles County would be subject to liability under § 1983; the sheriff's department was "public entity'' that could be subject to suit; and sheriff's department was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
On February 27, 2001, the district court stayed further action in the case while the parties pursued settlement negotiations. Eventually, Streit was consolidated with the lead case, Williams v. Block, Case No. CV-97-03826-WJR (C.D.Cal.) [JC-CA-33].
Four settlement status reports were filed with the district court. The LASD entered into a global settlement agreement, filed in November 2001, that resolved issues in the Streit case and some dozen other lawsuits pending in federal and state court. Plaintiffs in those suits fell into three classes: 1) "overdetentions" (i.e., persons not released from custody from the Los Angeles County jails within a reasonable period of time after they became entitled to release); 2) strip and/or visual body cavity searches of persons who had been returned to jail from court to be processed for release; and 3) wrong warrant arrests and detentions (persons arrested on a warrant that in fact was for another person, and held for an unreasonable period of time before being released). As part of the settlement, LASD eventually agreed to pay $27 million in damages and also agreed to institute major injunctive-type reforms. The class damages portion of the settlement was handled by the court in Williams v. Block [See JC-CA-33 for a case summary]. The injunctive component was resolved and approved in the state court case, Riley v. the County of Los Angeles. [See JC-CA-56 for a case summary].
We have no information reflecting any post-settlement activity in the case.
Plaintiff Description Consolidated cases contain three classes of situations to which individuals had been subjected that would make them eligible to join the class action: (1) Overdetentions, (2) Body Cavity Search, (3) Wrong Warrant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v.