Opinion ID: 429227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fourth Amendment Ground.

Text: 11 The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution, deemed incorporated into the fourteenth amendment and applicable to the states, provides that: 12 [t]he right of the people to be secured in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause .... 13 Because the prohibition announced by the fourth amendment extends to unreasonable searches, our task is to decide whether the strip search policy of the City as applied to these plaintiffs-appellees was unreasonable under established fourth amendment principles. 14 The Supreme Court has adopted the position that searches of the person are generally impermissible absent a search warrant, which is to issue only on probable cause. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2862, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1980) (It is a first principle of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that the police may not conduct a search unless they first convince a neutral magistrate that there is probable cause to do so.). The court has recognized, however, that a warrantless search may be reasonable if the exigencies of the situation compel an exception. Id. 15 The City argues that its strip search policy is valid under two recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. One exception allows warrantless searches incident to custodial arrests. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). A second exception permits warrantless searches incident to the detention of persons lawfully arrested. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. at 804-05, n. 6, 94 S.Ct. at 1238 n. 6. The two exceptions are related; both stem from the arrest process for which the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court has observed, however, that the factors justifying a search of the person and personal effects of an arrestee upon reaching a police station but prior to being placed in confinement are somewhat different from the factors justifying an immediate search at the time and place of arrest. Illinois v. Lafayette, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2609, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). 16 The search incident to arrest exception arose because of the need to remove any weapons that [the arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape and the need to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040. Initially, the Supreme Court attempted to tie strictly the scope of the search to  'the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible,'  id. at 762, 89 S.Ct. at 2039 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)), but the Court subsequently rejected that position in United States v. Robinson. The majority in Robinson was unwilling to place on the arresting officer the burden of deciding in each case whether or not there [is] present one of the reasons supporting the authority for a search of the person incident to a lawful arrest. 414 U.S. at 235, 94 S.Ct. at 476. It recognized that a police officer's determination as to how and where to search the person of a suspect ... is necessarily a quick ad hoc judgment, and that the danger of concealed weapons alone provides an adequate basis for treating all custodial arrests alike for purposes of search justification. Id. Consequently, the Court held that once an arrest based on probable cause has been made, no further examination into probable cause for the scope of the search is necessary; it concluded that the foundation of the search incident to arrest exception flows automatically from the fact of arrest: 17 A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment. 18 Id. 19 Robinson establishes, therefore, that a police officer does not have to assess the likelihood that the individual arrestee is possessing a weapon or concealing evidence but may undertake a full search of an arrested person aimed toward the discovery of weapons, instruments of escape, and evidence that could otherwise be concealed or destroyed. It is worth noting, however, that in reaching this conclusion the Court was concerned mainly with whether a search calculated to disarm the suspect and to preserve evidence on the suspect's person could be undertaken, regardless of the reason for the arrest, not with the intensity of the particular search itself. The Court did not suggest that a person validly arrested may be subject to any search the arresting officer feels is necessary. 6 The majority merely concluded that because each arrest brings with it certain factors--dangers to and the need for ad hoc judgments by the police--the application of a straightforward rule that always permits a concomitant full search incident to custodial arrest aimed toward the discovery of weapons and contraband would conclusively be presumed to be a reasonable one. Police thus would be relieved of the responsibility of having to decide whether they could search a particular arrestee for weapons or contraband in the first instance. Under Robinson, a full search is the maximum intensity of the search allowable to achieve that end, unless specific reasons exist that justify intensifying the search. In characterizing what constitutes a full search incident to arrest, the Robinson Court quoted with approval language from Terry that describes a reasonable search incident to arrest as one involving a relatively extensive exploration of the person, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 25, 88 S.Ct. at 1882, quoted in United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. at 227, 94 S.Ct. at 473. The majority specifically noted that it would be willing to find unconstitutional a search that was extreme or patently abusive. 414 U.S. at 236, 94 S.Ct. at 477. 20 Although the time at which the plaintiffs-appellees in the cases before us were searched extends beyond what laypersons would probably consider incident to the arrest, the Supreme Court has defined the arrest procedure broadly enough to include searches at the place of detention, since that is no more than a continuation of the custody inherent in the arrest status. Illinois v. Lafayette, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2609, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). Thus, in United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974), the Court held that authorities could exchange and search, with or without probable cause, the clothing of an arrestee who remained in custody overnight. The Court stated that exchanging and searching the arrestee's clothing and subjecting it to laboratory tests on the day after his arrest was no more than taking from [him] the effects in his immediate possession that constituted evidence of crime. This was and is a normal incident of a custodial arrest, and reasonable delay in effectuating it does not change the fact that [the arrestee] was no more imposed upon than he could have been at the time and place of the arrest or immediately upon arrival at the place of detention. Id. at 805, 94 S.Ct. at 1238. The Court also observed that not only was the search a normal incident of a custodial arrest, but that it followed the established and routine custom of permitting a jailer to search the person who is being processed for confinement under his custody and control and that little doubt has ever been expressed about the validity or reasonableness of such searches incident to incarceration. Id. at 804-05 n. 6, 94 S.Ct. at 1238 n. 6. In fact, the Court more recently has stated that 21 [t]he governmental interests underlying a stationhouse search of the arrestee's person and possessions may in some circumstances be even greater than those supporting a search immediately following arrest. Consequently, the scope of a stationhouse search will often vary from that made at the time of arrest. Police conduct that would be impractical or unreasonable--or embarrassingly intrusive--on the street can more readily--and privately--be performed at the station. For example, the interests supporting a search incident to arrest would hardly justify disrobing an arrestee on the street, but the practical necessities of routine jail administration may even justify taking a prisoner's clothes before confining him, although the step would be rare. This was made clear in United States v. Edwards.... 22 103 S.Ct. at 2609. In Lafayette, however, the Court stated that [w]e were not addressing in Edwards, and do not discuss here, the circumstances in which a strip search of an arrestee may or may not be appropriate. Id. at n. 2. Indeed, the focus in Edwards, as in Robinson, once again seems to have been on the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest; the Court accepted the proposition that the scope of the search at the stationhouse could be at least as broad as that at the time of the arrest, thus approving the search of items that were on the arrestee at the time of arrest. Edwards, however, also reaffirms the controlling principle that custodial searches incident to arrest still must be reasonable ones: Holding the Warrant Clause inapplicable in the circumstances present here does not leave law enforcement officials subject to no restraints. This type of police conduct 'must [still] be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.'  415 U.S. at 808 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. at 1239 n. 9 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. at 1879). 23 In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), the Supreme Court explicitly explored the scope of permissible searches incident to incarceration. The challenged searches in Wolfish involved visual body cavity searches of federal pretrial detainees at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. The searches were made after every contact visit a detainee had with a person from outside the institution. To evaluate the reasonableness of these searches, the Court employed a balancing test that has now become a touchstone for fourth amendment analysis: 24 The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted. 25 Id. at 559, 99 S.Ct. at 1884. Recognizing that a detention facility is a unique place fraught with serious security dangers, id., and that the strip search policy might act as an effective deterrent to the smuggling of weapons or contraband into the institution, the Court held that the searches, in this instance, could be conducted on less than probable cause despite the significant privacy interests of the inmates. Id. at 560, 99 S.Ct. at 1885. 26 Absent precedent that is clearly controlling, it is incumbent on us to examine independently the searches conducted here in light of the requirement of the fourth amendment that they not be unreasonable. We cannot say that the breadths of the exceptions relied on by the City clearly extend to the circumstances that exist in these cases. In none of the arrest situations presented here was a routine search incident to arrest conducted by the arresting officers; evidently, the arresting officers felt these women did not pose a danger to their safety. Even if a routine search incident to arrest had been undertaken, we believe that it would have been limited to the full search approved in Robinson, such as the thorough hand search performed there; the Robinson Court simply did not contemplate the significantly greater intrusions that occurred here. Similarly, the searches in the cases before us are qualitatively different from the delayed custodial searches upheld in Edwards. The authorities who exchanged and searched the arrestee's clothing in Edwards had probable cause to believe the articles of clothing the arrestee was wearing were themselves material evidence of the crime for which he had been arrested. United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. at 805, 808 n. 9, 94 S.Ct. at 1238, 1239 n. 9. Although Edwards also confirms the authority of the police to exchange the arrestee's clothing for jail clothes and to keep the arrestee's clothing in official custody and search it even without probable cause, id. at 804, 94 S.Ct. at 1237, the intensity of such an intrusion--exchanging and searching one's clothes--is substantially less than that associated with the strip searches involved here. 7 27 Wolfish is also not controlling because the particularized searches in that case were initiated under different circumstances. We have observed previously that the balancing test prescribed in Wolfish does not validate strip searches in detention settings per se. Tikalsky v. City of Chicago, 687 F.2d 175, 181-82 & n. 10 (7th Cir.1982); Bono v. Saxbe, 620 F.2d 609, 617 (7th Cir.1980); see also Salinas v. Breier, 695 F.2d 1073, 1085 n. 1 (7th Cir.1982) (Cummings, C.J., concurring). But see Clements v. Logan, 102 S.Ct. 284, 70 L.Ed.2d 461 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, 1981) (temporary stay pending hearing on cert. petition), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982). Although the majority in Wolfish did uphold the strip searches conducted there on less than probable cause, the detainees were awaiting trial on serious federal charges after having failed to make bond and were being searched after contact visits. In the cases before us, however, plaintiffs-appellees are minor offenders who were not inherently dangerous and who were being detained only briefly while awaiting bond. 8 In light of the substantial nature of the intrusions involved, we believe these differences are sufficiently significant to compel our own inquiry as to whether the strip searches conducted by the City were reasonable under the fourth amendment. 28 Our starting point is the balancing test announced in Wolfish, beginning with the magnitude of the invasion of personal rights. In Tinetti v. Wittke, 620 F.2d 160 (7th Cir.1980), we adopted the opinion of Judge Warren, 479 F.Supp. 486 (E.D.Wis.1979), who quoted language from an oral decision, Sala v. County of Suffolk (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 1978) (unpublished decision), describing strip searches involving the visual inspection of the anal and genital areas as demeaning, dehumanizing, undignified, humiliating, terrifying, unpleasant, embarrassing, repulsive, signifying degradation and submission .... 479 F.Supp. at 491. The testimony given by the plaintiffs-appellees in the district courts here ratifies this description. Even the Supreme Court has stated that a strip search and visual inspection instinctively gives us the most pause. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 558, 99 S.Ct. at 1884; see also 441 U.S. at 576-77, 99 S.Ct. at 1892 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (the body cavity searches of MCC inmates represent one of the most grievous offenses against personal dignity and common decency); 441 U.S. at 594, 99 S.Ct. at 1902 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (The body-cavity search--clearly the greatest personal indignity--may be the least justifiable measure of all [the security practices at the institution].). In short, we can think of few exercises of authority by the state that intrude on the citizen's privacy and dignity as severely as the visual anal and genital searches practiced here. 29 Balanced against this invasion of personal privacy is the governmental interest in conducting the particular searches in question. 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. at 1884. In these cases, the governmental interest alleged by the City to justify these particular strip searches was the need to maintain the security of the City lockups by preventing misdemeanor offenders from bringing in weapons or contraband; the need was apparently felt to be so great that women misdemeanants were strip searched even when there was no reason to believe they were hiding weapons or contraband on their persons. 30 The evidence the City offered to demonstrate the need for requiring strip searches of women minor offenders to maintain jail security, however, belies its purported concerns. The affidavits of the lockup personnel, which lack specificity, suggest that only a few items have been recovered from the body cavities of women arrested on minor charges over the years. In the only analytical survey submitted by the City, conducted over a thirty-five day period in June and July of 1965, all of the items found in the body orifices 9 of the 1,800 women searched during that period were taken from women charged with either prostitution (7 items), assault (1 item), or a narcotics violation (1 item) (Ex. 7). These are the kinds of crimes, unlike traffic or other minor offenses, that might give rise to a reasonable belief that the woman arrestee was concealing an item in a body cavity. Although a detention center may be a place fraught with serious security dangers, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. at 1884, the evidence does not support the view that those dangers are created by women minor offenders entering the lockups for short periods while awaiting bail. Here, the need for the particular search, id., a strip search, is hardly substantial enough, in light of the evidence regarding the incidence of weapons and contraband found in the body cavities of women minor offenders, to justify the severity of the governmental intrusion. 31 Balancing the citizen's right to be free from substantial governmental intrusions against the mission of law enforcement personnel to ensure a safer society is often a difficult task. While the need to assure jail security is a legitimate and substantial concern, we believe that, on the facts here, the strip searches bore an insubstantial relationship to security needs so that, when balanced against plaintiffs-appellees' privacy interests, the searches cannot be considered reasonable. Logan v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982). The reasonableness standard usually requires, at a minimum, that the facts upon which an intrusion is based be capable of measurement against 'an objective standard,' whether this be probable cause or a less stringent test. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) (footnotes omitted). The more intrusive the search, the closer governmental authorities must come to demonstrating probable cause for believing that the search will uncover the objects for which the search is being conducted. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 18 n. 15, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 n. 15, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Based on these principles, we agree with the district court in Jane Does that ensuring the security needs of the City by strip searching plaintiffs-appellees was unreasonable without a reasonable suspicion by the authorities that either of the twin dangers of concealing weapons or contraband existed. Doe v. Renfrow, 631 F.2d 91, 93 (7th Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1022, 101 S.Ct. 3015, 69 L.Ed.2d 395 (1981) (strip search of a minor student without reasonable cause to believe she possessed contraband on her person violates any known principle of human decency and exceed[s] the 'bounds of reason' by two and a half country miles); Tinetti v. Wittke, 620 F.2d 160 (7th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (strip searches of persons arrested and detained overnight for nonmisdemeanor traffic offenses without probable cause to believe that detainees are concealing contraband or weapons on their bodies are unconstitutional). Accordingly, because the court and jury below could reasonably conclude that the strip search policy of the City as applied in these cases was unreasonable under the fourth amendment, we uphold their determinations on this issue. 32