Allegation of an institutional strip search and use of a Rapidscan device that essentially produced a naked image of the plaintiff alleged an invasion of privacy and unreasonable search. Zboralski v. Monahan, 446 F. Supp. 2d 879 (N.D. Ill. August 14, 2006):<\/p>\n
We take the following facts from plaintiff’s complaint. Since September 2000, plaintiff regularly visited a patient at the Illinois Department of Human Services Treatment and Detention Facility (“Facility”) in Jolict, Illinois. From May 4, 2005 to May 11, 2005, plaintiff was subjected to patdown searches by defendant Martin, a Security Therapist Aid II at the Facility, in which defendant Martin placed her fingers in plaintiff’s vaginal area and required plaintiff to remove her shoes prior to being allowed to visit the patient. Such searches occurred at least four times during the aforementioned time period.<\/p>\n
After plaintiff’s complaints to Bernard Akpan, an Exec. 11 at the Facility, and defendant Strock, the Assistant Security Director of the Facility, and facility patient Brad Lieberman’s complaints to defendant Budz, Director of the Facility, defendant Sanders, Security Director of the Facility, and defendant Strock, plaintiff was no longer required to submit to patdown searches by defendant Martin. Rather, plaintiff’s visits were preceded by a Rapiscan scan of her person. According to plaintiff’s complaint, a Rapiscan machine is an electronic screening device used to scan a person’s entire body. “These machines produce a naked image of the person and can also produce evidence of highly sensitive details such as the following: mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes, and the size of a person’s breasts and genitals” (cplt., P 2). From May 17, 2005 to June 19, 2005, plaintiff was subjected to 20 to 25 Rapiscan scans. Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges that other Facility staff members were allowed to view her scanned image, her scanned image was not erased from the machine, and staff members viewed her image hours after she was scanned, all without her consent (cplt, PP 24-26, 29). Additionally, while later told that she should have had the choice between the Rapiscan scan or a physical patdown prior to visiting a patient, plaintiff was never informed of such a choice during the two months she underwent the Rapiscan scans. Based on these factual allegations, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and committed the torts of invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion and assault and battery.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Analyzing the facts of a search and seizure claim in a federal habeas, the court finds the search valid and the state appellate court correct [thereby avoiding having to get into a Williams v. Taylor<\/em> reasonableness inquiry]. Koetje v. Stovall, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60567 (E.D. Mich. August 15, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Failing to disclose that informant had been arrested on federal firearms charges did not make out a Franks<\/em> violation where there was otherwise an abundance of probable cause. United States v. McCoy, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60445 (D. Conn. August 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
White collar “chain scheme” search warrant execution permitted seizure of cash found in plain view. People v. Frederick, 142 Cal. App. 4th 400 (2d Dist. August 29, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading