Opinion ID: 854572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Strip Search Claims

Text: In Powell III, this Court, en banc, (1) assumed that the Fourth Amendment protects pre-trial detainees from unreasonable searches, and (2) concluded it does not violate the Fourth Amendment for a pre-trial detention facility to maintain a policy “requir[ing] that searches be conducted on every inmate after each contact visit [with someone from outside of the facility], even without the slightest cause to suspect that the inmate [is] concealing contraband.” 541 F.3d at 1306; see id. at 1305–14. We held that visual strip searches of detainees—without reasonable suspicion and prior to the detainees’ entering the general jail population—are constitutional. Id. at 1314. Later, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 566 U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), a case involving similar facts. It concluded that “[c]orrectional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough search as a standard part of the intake process.” 566 U.S. at —, 132 S. Ct. at 1518. There are only two types of strip search claims still remaining in the case but 11 Case: 12-11422 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 Page: 12 of 14 they both involve strip searches in connection with entry or reentry into the Jail’s general population, and thus those claims fail to show a Fourth Amendment violation. As to the first type, Plaintiffs Powell and Matkin 6 entered the Jail upon arrest and were held in the intake area prior to their first appearance hearings conducted inside the Jail. At their hearings they were granted bond or ordered released. These inmates were not strip searched prior to their hearings. Rather, after their hearings, they were placed in the general Jail population and strip searched then. While the Plaintiffs waited in the general Jail population, the Jail staff completed the late or delayed booking process and then, as part of the release process, searched for other detention holds, warrants, or other holds. As to the second type, Plaintiffs Evans and Wolfe were transported to state court at the Fulton County Courthouse for a hearing or other proceeding, then ordered released by a judge, and then returned to the Jail where they were strip searched before reentering the general Jail population. They were returned to their prior assigned housing units in the general Jail population to retrieve any personal belongings. The Plaintiffs had gone outside the Jail, where they potentially came into contact with providers of contraband or with possible items not allowed in the 6 Defendant Barrett argues that Plaintiffs made an over-detention claim for named Plaintiff Matkin but not a strip search claim for him. We need not resolve that issue because Matkin’s strip search claim fails in any event. 12 Case: 12-11422 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 Page: 13 of 14 Jail. 7 In both types of claims above, the strip searches were done before, and because, the inmates were being placed into, or back into, the general Jail population. The strip searches were not part of the release process. Further, Plaintiffs do not dispute they entered or reentered the general Jail population after these strip searches. Rather, what Plaintiffs are in effect saying is that they should not have been taken back into the general Jail population but they should have been segregated in a separate holding area in the Jail while all of the release process procedures took place, such as waiting for the court paperwork to be sent to the Jail, the Jail employees’ then checking for warrants and holds, and having any personal items located and returned. Plaintiffs’ challenge is really to the decision to place them in the general Jail population. However, there is no constitutional right, much less a clearly established one, to be held in a particular cell or a separate area of a Jail and not be placed back in the general Jail population.8 Further, to the extent Plaintiffs are arguing that they were placed in the general Jail population and held too long, the district court correctly concluded 7 Defendant Barrett articulated at least legitimate reasons for returning inmates to their assigned housing units in the general Jail population. 8 We also question whether Plaintiffs have shown that this overcrowded Jail even had adequate, separate facilities wholly apart from the general Jail population to house inmates who may be released. We need not however resolve this separate-housing issue because there was no clearly established constitutional right to separate housing shown here. 13 Case: 12-11422 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 Page: 14 of 14 that was an over-detention issue not a strip search issue.9 At the end of the day, each Plaintiff here—whether after a first appearance hearing at the Jail or after court returns—was actually placed in the general Jail population and the challenged strip searches occurred due to their entering for the first time or reentering the general Jail population; thus, we conclude Plaintiffs have not shown a violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Under both Florence and Powell III, jailers do not violate detainees’ Fourth Amendment rights by visually searching them for legitimate safety and penological reasons prior to admitting or readmitting them to the Jail’s general population.