LawyersUSA

A plaintiff may recover damages for being strip searched after her arrest for marijuana possession, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in reversing a U.S. District Court.

The plaintiff was driving her pickup truck when she was stopped by a police officer because her truck was missing a rear license plate.

The driver's side window on her truck was broken, so she opened the door to speak to the officer. Through the open door, the officer saw a stem of a marijuana plant on the floor. He picked it up and told her that if she showed him all the marijuana in the truck she would not be arrested.

The plaintiff answered that there might be some other bits of marijuana in the truck. The officer then handcuffed her and searched the truck. He found some bits of marijuana; he never asked the plaintiff if she was carrying any marijuana or other contraband on her person.

At the police station, she was strip searched by a female officer. She was "crying hysterically" during the search.

She then noticed that a video camera was trained on the area of the cell in which she had been searched. She asked the officer if the monitor had been on during the search, and he said it had.

The plaintiff sued, alleging violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

She argued that because the strip search violated clearly established law, the officers responsible for the search were not entitled to qualified immunity, and that because the search was conducted pursuant to a municipal policy of searching all female detainees, the town was also liable.

The court agreed, ruling that she was entitled to recover damages.

"[I]f the facts of this case amount to reasonable suspicion, then strip searches will become commonplace. Given the uniquely intrusive nature of strip searches, as well as the multitude of less invasive investigative techniques available to officers confronted by misdemeanor offenders, that result would be unacceptable in any society that takes privacy and bodily integrity seriously."

U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. Hartline v. Gallo, No. 06-5309-cv. Oct. 8, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 993-83. Click here for the full text of the opinion.