×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
RI Enjoined from Indiscriminate Strip Searches
A federal district court in Rhode Island entered declaratory relief that
held that the Rhode Island Department of Corrections' policy on strip and
visual body cavity searches was unconstitutional as applied to pre
arraignment detainees where no prior determination of reasonable suspicion
has been made that the detainee is concealing weapons or drugs. The
plaintiff was arrested on a warrant, processed at the jail (which is an
extension of the state DOC), and released after being processed and the
warrant was determined vacated. The court also entered injunctive relief
enjoining the DOC from conducting searches under these policies. This
ruling was later affirmed on appeal at Roberts v. Rhode Island, 239 F.3d
107 (1st Cir. 2001). See: Roberts v. Rhode Island, 175 F. Supp.2d 176 (D RI
2000).
held that the Rhode Island Department of Corrections' policy on strip and
visual body cavity searches was unconstitutional as applied to pre
arraignment detainees where no prior determination of reasonable suspicion
has been made that the detainee is concealing weapons or drugs. The
plaintiff was arrested on a warrant, processed at the jail (which is an
extension of the state DOC), and released after being processed and the
warrant was determined vacated. The court also entered injunctive relief
enjoining the DOC from conducting searches under these policies. This
ruling was later affirmed on appeal at Roberts v. Rhode Island, 239 F.3d
107 (1st Cir. 2001). See: Roberts v. Rhode Island, 175 F. Supp.2d 176 (D RI
2000).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Roberts v. Rhode Island
| Year | 2000 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 175 F. Supp.2d 176 (D RI 2000) |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
CRAIG R., a resident of the City of Newport, R.I., individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, GEORGE A. VOSE, JR., in his capacity as Director of RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and John Doe and Jane Doe, being officers and agents of the Department of Corrections whose identities will become known in the course of pretrial discovery and CRAIG R., individually v. TWO UNKNOWN RHODE ISLAND STATE TROOPERS whose names will become known in the course of pretrial discovery
C.A. No. 99-259ML
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
175 F. Supp. 2d 176; 2000 U.S. Dist.
March 24, 2000, Decided
COUNSEL: [**1] For CRAIG L. ROBERTS, SR., plaintiff: Thomas W. Kelly, Newport, RI.
For CRAIG L. ROBERTS, SR., plaintiff: Gregory A. Bolzle, Brown, Todd & Heyburn PLLC, Louisville, KY.
For STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, GEORGE VOSE, defendants: Rebecca Tedford Partington, Attorney General's Office, Providence, RI.
JUDGES: Mary M. Lisi, United States District Judge.
OPINIONBY: Mary M. Lisi
OPINION: [*184]
AMENDED DECISION
On March 16, 2000, this Court issued a Memorandum and Decision ("March 16 Decision") in this action. That Memorandum and Decision enjoined the defendants from conducting certain strip and visual body cavity searches and declared two Department of Corrections policies relating to those searches to be unconstitutional. On March 22, 2000, the defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 for a clarification of that decision.
I. Discussion
A. The Caption
The defendants' first request for clarification concerns the case caption included in the Court's March 16 Decision. On January 5, 2000, the Court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on January 28, 2000. That complaint substituted new defendants for the Jane and John [**2] Doe defendants included in the caption of the initial complaint.
The defendants have asked this Court to amend its March 16 Decision to reflect the caption as it appeared in the initial complaint. Defendants assert that they were never served with a copy of the First Amended Complaint; the Court's file supports that assertion. The Court therefore grants the defendants' motion to amend on this ground, and amends the March 16, 2000, decision to include the caption listed in this Amended Decision.
B. The Substantive Clarification
The defendants next ask for a clarification of the scope of the Court's declaration and the injunctive relief rewarded. Particularly, the defendants argue that the March 16 Decision, as written, nullifies DOC policies 15.5.05-2 and 9.14-1 in toto, thus prohibiting the use of other security procedures contained within those documents. The Court amends its March 16 Decision and declares unconstitutional the strip and visual body cavity search provisions of policies 15.5.05-2 and 9.14-1 insofar as those policies are universally applied to pre-arraignment detainees without any prior determination that there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual [**3] may be carrying weapons or contraband.
Finally, the defendants have asked this Court to amend the March 16 Decision to narrow the scope of the injunctive relief granted. The defendants aver that, as written, the March 16 Decision enjoins all strip and visual body cavity searches at the Department of Corrections. To clarify this confusion as to the scope of the injunctive relief afforded in the March 16 Decision, the Court amends it to enjoin the Department of Corrections from conducting strip and visual body cavity searches of pre-arraignment detainees that are not founded upon a reasonable suspicion that the particular detainee is concealing weapons or contraband. n1
n1 The Court will not revisit the parameters of the reasonable suspicion calculus, as the March 16 Decision already addresses the issue.
II. Conclusion
The Court hereby amends its March 16, 2000, Memorandum and Decision to be consistent with the text of this Amended Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Mary M. Lisi
United States District Judge
March 24, 2000
C.A. No. 99-259ML
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
175 F. Supp. 2d 176; 2000 U.S. Dist.
March 24, 2000, Decided
COUNSEL: [**1] For CRAIG L. ROBERTS, SR., plaintiff: Thomas W. Kelly, Newport, RI.
For CRAIG L. ROBERTS, SR., plaintiff: Gregory A. Bolzle, Brown, Todd & Heyburn PLLC, Louisville, KY.
For STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, GEORGE VOSE, defendants: Rebecca Tedford Partington, Attorney General's Office, Providence, RI.
JUDGES: Mary M. Lisi, United States District Judge.
OPINIONBY: Mary M. Lisi
OPINION: [*184]
AMENDED DECISION
On March 16, 2000, this Court issued a Memorandum and Decision ("March 16 Decision") in this action. That Memorandum and Decision enjoined the defendants from conducting certain strip and visual body cavity searches and declared two Department of Corrections policies relating to those searches to be unconstitutional. On March 22, 2000, the defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 for a clarification of that decision.
I. Discussion
A. The Caption
The defendants' first request for clarification concerns the case caption included in the Court's March 16 Decision. On January 5, 2000, the Court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on January 28, 2000. That complaint substituted new defendants for the Jane and John [**2] Doe defendants included in the caption of the initial complaint.
The defendants have asked this Court to amend its March 16 Decision to reflect the caption as it appeared in the initial complaint. Defendants assert that they were never served with a copy of the First Amended Complaint; the Court's file supports that assertion. The Court therefore grants the defendants' motion to amend on this ground, and amends the March 16, 2000, decision to include the caption listed in this Amended Decision.
B. The Substantive Clarification
The defendants next ask for a clarification of the scope of the Court's declaration and the injunctive relief rewarded. Particularly, the defendants argue that the March 16 Decision, as written, nullifies DOC policies 15.5.05-2 and 9.14-1 in toto, thus prohibiting the use of other security procedures contained within those documents. The Court amends its March 16 Decision and declares unconstitutional the strip and visual body cavity search provisions of policies 15.5.05-2 and 9.14-1 insofar as those policies are universally applied to pre-arraignment detainees without any prior determination that there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual [**3] may be carrying weapons or contraband.
Finally, the defendants have asked this Court to amend the March 16 Decision to narrow the scope of the injunctive relief granted. The defendants aver that, as written, the March 16 Decision enjoins all strip and visual body cavity searches at the Department of Corrections. To clarify this confusion as to the scope of the injunctive relief afforded in the March 16 Decision, the Court amends it to enjoin the Department of Corrections from conducting strip and visual body cavity searches of pre-arraignment detainees that are not founded upon a reasonable suspicion that the particular detainee is concealing weapons or contraband. n1
n1 The Court will not revisit the parameters of the reasonable suspicion calculus, as the March 16 Decision already addresses the issue.
II. Conclusion
The Court hereby amends its March 16, 2000, Memorandum and Decision to be consistent with the text of this Amended Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Mary M. Lisi
United States District Judge
March 24, 2000