W.D.Pa.: Strip search incident

Defendant’s strip search incident was based on reasonable suspicion that drugs would be found hidden in defendant’s buttocks because of his ten year drug history and being known to carry a gun. The search occurred in an interrogation room and not the jail. United States v. Derrick, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13551 (W.D. Pa. February 17, 2010):

Strip searches are considered invasive, but are not per se unconstitutional. Police do not have indiscriminate authority to conduct strip and visual body cavity searches. See, Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991). The test to determine if a strip search violates the Fourth Amendment is whether the strip search is reasonable under the circumstances. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558-59 (1979).

“No Supreme Court case discusses the constitutionality of strip searches incident to arrest, which appear to fall between the ‘full searches’ considered by Robinson and the ‘intrusions beyond the body’s surface. …” Allison v. GEO Group, Inc., 611 F. Supp.2d 433, 442 (E.D. Pa. 2009). However, several Circuit Courts have found “that to be reasonable under Wolfish, strip … searches must be justified by at least a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing contraband. …” Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1997).

Officers’ suspicions must be based on specific objective facts and rational inferences “that they are entitled to draw from those facts in light of their experience. The standard requires individual suspicion, specifically directed to the person who is targeted for the strip search.” Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2008)(quoting Varrone v. Bilotti, 123 F. 3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1997).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.