E.D.Mich.: Ptf’s jail strip search on camera after contact visit was reasonable

Plaintiff’s jail strip search after a contact visit was reasonable, and the fact it was on camera doesn’t make it unreasonable. Parker v. Robert J. White Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48519 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2025):

Plaintiff challenges the way the search was conducted, i.e., on camera. But the use of a camera during the strip search, without more, does not violate the Constitution. See Hubbert v. Myers, 4 F.3d 994 (Table) (6th Cir. 1993) (affirming summary judgment on claim that strip search taped by a video camera violated the Fourth and Eighth Amendments); Mallory v. Miller, 2020 WL 5577890, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 17, 2020) (“Nor does the fact that a body camera was in use during the strip search make it unconstitutional.”); Henderson v. Oats, 2018 WL 2054563, at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 1, 2018) (“[T]he Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegation that he was strip searched in a drunk tank with a camera fails to establish a violation of his constitutional rights.”). Courts outside this Circuit also agree. See Davis v. Florence, 600 F. App’x 26, 27 (2d Cir. 2015) (“practice of having a supervisory officer present during strip frisks and recording strip frisks via wall-mounted video camera is reasonably related to the legitimate interests in both inmate and staff security”); Story v. Foote, 782 F.3d 968, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2015) (strip search conducted on camera where female prison staff could view the search in the control room was not unconstitutional). Because Plaintiff alleges nothing untoward about the searches besides their being conducted in view of a camera, the Fourth Amendment claim should be dismissed.

This entry was posted in Prison and jail searches, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.