RapidScan virtual strip search of a prison visitor required hearing on reasonableness

RapidScan search at a mental health prison that is a virtual strip search raised sufficient questions that they could not be resolved here on summary judgment, and a hearing would be held on whether the use here was reasonable under Bell v. Wolfish. From the FAQs on the maufacturer’s website:

Q: How are persons scanned?

A: A person faces the Secure 1000 and a front scan is generated. The person turns around and a rear scan is generated. Within seconds, a computer-aided image of the subject appears on the monitor revealing any objects concealed under or within the subjects clothing.

Q: What is the operating principle of the Secure 1000?

A: A narrow, low energy X-ray beam is scanned over the body surface. The reflection or backscatter of the beam is detected, digitized and computer stored. The data is then enhanced, using state-of-the-art imaging techniques to create a display of the person and any concealed objects.

Zboralski v. Monahan, 616 F. Supp. 2d 792 (N.D. Ill. 2008):

While the foregoing gives us some basis upon which to rule regarding reasonableness, we do not believe that it is enough, given the fact that this issue has never before been addressed. Several important questions remain that cannot be answered on this record. For instance, we have very little evidence of how the Rapiscan actually works and the quality of images it produces. Examples and experts in the field would be helpful to better understand body scan technology. We would also appreciate testimony on how reasonable persons would feel being subjected to such a scan. Is it psychologically similar to, or even less intrusive than a pat-down because the person cannot view his or her own image and no touching is involved? Or is the thought that another person might be viewing a detailed naked image enough to make a person feel as violated as they would during a manual strip search? Finally, we are unsure whether the level of detail affects whether or not the search is closer to a pat-down or a strip search. Will every body scan search need to comport with the same standard of reasonableness regardless of the level of detail in the image? Or will factual determinations need to be made in each case depending on how the machine was calibrated at the time of the search? How was the machine calibrated in this case? We do not have that evidence. Because we do not believe the record is sufficiently developed to allow us to rule on this issue of first impression, we request that a hearing be held and the parties confer so that we may discuss the logistics of such a hearing.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.